766 ANNUAi. REPORTS OF DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 



decision the President addressed a messaj^e to Congjess on June 20, 

 1911, ur{:jin{2j the immediate necessity for remedial leji^islation. 



The circuit court of appeals for the sixth circuit handed down an im- 

 portant decision in United States v. George Spraul &Co. (185 Fed., 

 405; Notice of Judgment No. 1044; Circular No. 47, Office of the SoUci- 

 tor.) Seizure was made by process of libel for confiscation, under sec- 

 tion 10 of the food and drugs act, of 275 cases of adulterated catsups, 

 claimed by George Spraul & Co. The libel alleged adulteration 

 because the catsup consisted wholly or in part of a filthy, decomposed, 

 or putrid vegetable substance, and prayed the process of attachment 

 according to the course in cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdic- 

 tion. Claimants demurred on the ground that the libel contained no 

 allegation of previous seizure. The district court sustained the 

 demurrer and ordered the dismissal of the libel. The United States 

 excepted to the order, and the court of appeals, after full considera- 

 tion, held that previous executive seizure of adulterated or mis- 

 branded goods is not necessary to give jurisdiction in seizures under 

 the food and drugs act, but that such seizures are properly made by 

 warrant issued after the filing of libels, and directed that the order 

 below sustaining claimants' demurrer be reversed. (185 Fed., 405; 

 Notice of Judgment No. 1044; Circular No. 47, Office of the Solicitor.) 



Proceedings under section 10 of the act were also the subject of a de- 

 cision of the circuit court of appeals for the second circuit in United States 

 V. 20 Cases of Grape Juice. (Notice of Judgment No. 1045.) Seizure 

 was effected in the western district of New York of a quantity of grape 

 juice alleged to be adulterated because glucose had been substituted 

 in part for grape juice, and to be misbranded because it was not pure 

 grape juice; and, further, because some of the bottles were short in 

 volume and others were short in weight. Claimants demurred to 

 the libel on account of failure to allege that notice of the examination 

 of samples by the Bureau of Chemistry had been given to the claimants 

 and an opportunity for hearing afforded them. The demurrer was 

 overruled, because it did not appear from the record whether the 

 seizure had been made at the instance of the Department of Apicul- 

 ture or by the United States attorney on his own motion. (U. S. v. 

 74 Cases of Grape Juice, 181 Fed., 29.) The case subsequently came 

 on for trial, and, on claimants' motion, a verdict was directed in their 

 favor, on the ground that no notice had been given to the parties 

 interested in the grape juice, under section 4 of the act, prior to the 

 filing of the libel. 



An appeal was taken, and the circuit court of appeals affirmed the 

 decision, holding that all the sections of the act are interdependent, 

 and when United States attorneys act upon reports of the Secretary of 

 Agriculture there must be a preliminary investigation, including notice 

 and hearing by the Secretary. (189 Fed., 331; Notice of Judgment 

 No. 1045.) This decision is contrary to the decisions of six district 

 courts that no hearing before the Secretary of Agriculture need precede 

 the filing of libels for condemnation in the following cases : U. S. v. 50 

 Barrels of \^alisky (165 Fed., 966) ; U. S. v. 65 Casks of Liquid Extract 

 (170 Fed., 449, 454) ; U. S. v. 9 Barrels of Olives (179 Fed., 983) ; U. S. 

 V. 100 Cases of Tepee Apples (Notice of Judgment No. 36) ; U. S. v. 36 

 Cases of Metabolized Cod Liver Oil (Notice of Judgment No. 303) ; U. S. 

 V. 100 Barrels of Vinegar (Notice of JudgmentNo. 1159); and in the Hip- 

 olite egg case, supra, the Supreme Court held that sections 2 and 10 are 



