764 ANNUAL REPORTS OP DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 



Expenditures in the Department of Agriculture in House report No. 

 1780, Sixty-first Congress, first session, that — 



The ]>rime object of the food and drugs act is the securing of wholesome food and 

 properly labeled drugs for the people at large. The prosecutions involved are merely 

 an incident toward this end and should be directed principally against those offenders 

 who persist in their violations of the law after being fully informed as to its provisions 

 and requirements. 



And to the Secretary of Agriculture's directions of March 24, 1909: 



That no prosecution shall be made for alleged violations of the food and drugs act 

 when it is apparent that the alleged violation was the result of an honest mistake in 

 inteqireting tne law and the absence of intent is plainly evidenced by the fact that as 

 soon as the attention of the accused was drawn to the alleged violation he immediately 

 and in good faith complied with the department's interpretation of the law and there- 

 after continuously conducted his business in accordance therewith. 



Hearings were recommended on over 2,150 samples, and on ap- 

 proximately 650 samples no hearings were recommended. No viola- 

 tion of the law was apparent from tne findings of the Bureau of Chem- 

 istry in over 20 per cent of these 650 samples. In regard to other 

 samples no hearings were recommended for the reasons, among others, 

 that evidence of interstate shipment was lacking, that the offense 

 charged was trivial or technical, that the evidence of adulteration or 

 misbranding was reported by the Bureau of Chemistry to be weak, 

 that the Department of Justice had refused to prosecute for similar 

 alleged violations, or the courts had decided them adversely to the 

 Government, that manufacturers had been fined in similar cases and 

 reformed the conduct of their business before the report of the Bureau 

 was received, and that cases involving similar questions of law were 

 pending in the courts. 



After hearings had been held prosecution was recommended in over 

 1,250 cases, and in some 1,500 abeyance was recommended. Twenty 

 per cent of the 1,500 cases were recommended for abeyance, because 

 the offenses alleged by the Bureau of Chemistry were technical and 

 the parties responsible for the products in question had reformed their 

 labels; in 10 per cent the Bureau of Chemistry recommended no fur- 

 ther action; in 10 per cent also the evidence offered to substantiate 

 the charges of adulteration or misbranding was found to be insuffi- 

 cient on which to base prosecution; and in 15 per cent cases presenting 

 the same questions were pending in the courts. Other reasons for 

 recommending abeyance were adverse decisions of the courts in simi- 

 lar cases, no adulteration or misbranding within the definition of the 

 law disclosed by the facts at hand, insufficient evidence on which to 

 proceed against parties primarily responsible for the articles on which 

 the cases were prepared, and the fact that certain articles had been 

 shipped prior to the issue by the department of decisions stating its 

 views as to labeling them. Fifty-seven seizures proposed by the 

 Board of Food and Drug Inspection were rejected by the Secretary, 

 on advice of the Solicitor, for similar legal reasons. In 245 cases re- 

 ported by the Bureau of Chemistry as basis for criminal prosecution, 

 where the exceptions taken to the labeling were deemed insufficient 

 to warrant the calling of hearings or prosecutions, letters were ad- 

 dressed to the shippers calling their attention to the findings of the 

 Bureau of Chemistry and requesting advice as to what action would 

 be taken to insure the proper branding of future shipments. The 

 shippers reformed their labels to meet the views stated in the letters, 

 excepting 9 instances in which failure to reform was followed by rec- 

 ommendations for prosecution. 



