THE SOLICITOR. 781 



was thereupon taken by the United States attorney to the ruling and 

 judgment of the court and the case was taken to the United States 

 Supreme Court on writ of error. The case has been advanced on the 

 docket for hearing before that court at the October, 1911, term, and 

 the decision of this important question by the court of the last resort 

 is awaited with groat interest. 



Awaiting the decision of the Supreme Court in this case, cases 

 including 34 similar violations of the act of March 3, 1905, on the 

 part of the St. Louis Merchants Bridge Terminal Railroad and the 

 Terminal Railroad Association of St, Louis (referred to in the table), 

 pending in the eastern district of Missouri, in wliich suits have been 

 filed, are being continued. The same situation exists as to pro- 

 .ceedings in 110 alleged violations on the part of the St. Louis Mer- 

 chants Bridge Terminal Railway, the Terminal Railroad Association 

 of St. Louis, and the St. Louis National Stock Yards (also referred to 

 in the table), pending in the eastern district of Illinois. Judgment 

 was suspended for the same reason in two cases against the Louisville 

 & Nashville Railroad Co. prosecuted in the northern district of 

 Alabama, in which pleas of guilty were entered and fines imposed. 



A table setting forth the details of cases arising under the acts of 

 May 29, 1884, and March 3, 1905, acted upon in the fiscal year 1911, 

 will be found at page 110 of this report. 



THE MEAT INSPECTION AMENDMENT. 



During the fiscal year 1911, there were reported to the Attorney 

 General 101 violations of the meat inspection amendment of June 

 30, 1906 (34 Stat., 674), while during the fiscal year 1910, 52 such 

 violations were similarly reported, making an increase of 49 viola- 

 tions in 1911. Of the 101 cases reported during the year, together 

 with those coming over from previous years, 46 resulted in con- 

 victions, 8 were dismissed for various reasons, in 4 cases the grand 

 jury failed to return indie '.ments, and in 1 case a verdict was rendered 

 for the defendant. At the close of the year 74 cases were pending. 

 Tlie total fines assessed during the year amounted to $3,240, as 

 compared with .S2,397 in fines assessed in 1910. At page 121 of the 

 report will be found a table setting forth the details of cases arising 

 under the meat inspection amendment. 



As explained in the report of this office for the fiscal year 1910 

 three cases were pending in the Federal court at Pittsburgh, Pa., 

 at the close of June 30, 1910, involving important questions in 

 connection with the meat inspection amendment (act of June 30, 

 1906; 34 Stat., 674). These suits were entitled Pittsburg Melting 

 Co. V. Pennsylvania R. R. Co.; United States v. Pittsburg Melting 

 Co. and William II. Womsley; and Pittsburg Melting Co. v. Baltimore 

 & Oliio R. R. Co. and G. E. Totten, inspector of the Bureau of Animal 

 Industry, Department of Agriculture. 



In the first case a bill in equity was filed by the Pittsburg j\Ielting 

 Co. seeking to compel the defendant carrier to accept for trans})orta- 

 tion and transport in interstate commerce oleo oil which had not 

 been inspected, passed, and so marked by agents of tlie Department 

 of Agriculture, as required by the meat inspection amendment. 

 TJic bill alleged that the statute was unconstitutional as beyond the 

 power of Congress to enact, and in violation of the fifth amendment; 

 it was further claimed that the system of inspection provided for in 



