REPORT OF THE CHEMIST. 215 



person on the same statement of facts could be convicted under sec- 

 tion 2. Liability to seizure was held to depend upon whether the 

 articles are adulterated or misbranded at the time of seizure, and not 

 whether tliey were adulterated or niisbranded at the time of inter- 

 state shipment. In United States v. Morgan (220 U. S. 274, Office 

 of the Solicitor Circular 58, Notice of Judgment 1992), the Supreme 

 Court held that the notice required to be given parties from' whom 

 samples of food and drugs are procured by the Dci)ai'tment for pur- 

 poses of investigation is not jurisdictional, and that the hearing given 

 to the parties is not judicial. In United States v. J. L. Hopkins Co. 

 (199 Fed. 649, Notice of Judgment 243G) it was held that jurisdiction 

 exists in the Federal Court of the District from which the goods were 

 shipped, even though the defendant did not reside in that District. 

 The court also held that violations of the Food and Drugs Act are 

 subject to the general statute of limitations, which is three years, and 

 that inmiediate prosecution is not required by section 5 of the act. 



With reference to what constitutes an interstate shipment, it was 

 held in Philadelphia Pickling Co. r. United States (202 Fed. 150, 

 Notice of Judgment 2456) that a shipment by the manufacturer from 

 his place of business in one State to his place of business in another 

 State for testing of an adulterated article constituted a violation of 

 the Food and Drugs Act. In United States v. Powers- Weightman- 

 Rosengarten Company, a case under the Insecticide and Fungicide 

 Act, a law Avhich in general is analogous to the Food and Drugs Act, 

 it w^as held that it is not an interstate shipment if goods in passing 

 from one point in a State to another point in the same State traverse 

 another State. (Insecticide and Fungicide No. 75, Dom. No. 1055.) 

 In Hipolite Egg Co. v. United States (220 U. S. 45, Notice of 

 Judgment 1043) it was held that adulterated articles of food which 

 have been transported in interstate commerce are subject to seizure 

 and condemnation as long as they remain in the condition in which 

 they were transported, that is, " in the original, unbroken packages." 



The validity of the guarantee section, section 9 of the act, was 

 upheld in United States v. Charles L. Heinle Specialty Company 

 (Notice of Judgment 389, Circular 29, Office of the Solicitor). In 

 United States v. Mayfield, et al. (177 Fed. 765, Notice of Judgment 

 326), the court instructed the jury that a guaranty is available to a 

 dealer only when it relates to the identical article shipped by him and 

 affords no defense to him when the guaranty relates only to a con- 

 stituent used by him in manufacturing the article shipped; and 

 further, that the officers of a corporation which manufactured an 

 adulterated or misbranded food product shipped by its manager in 

 interstate commerce are subject to prosecution therefor when they 

 authorized the manager to operate the plant and sell the product 

 without restriction, and the previous course had been to ship on 

 orders to other States. In Steinhardt Bros. Co. v. United States 

 (191 Fed. Rep. 798, Office of the Solicitor Circular 57) it was held 

 that the guaranty contemplated under section 9 of the Food and 

 Drugs Act to afford protection to the party making an interstate 

 shipment of the adulterated or misbranded article must have been 

 given prior to such shipment. In Glaser, Kohn and Company v. 

 United States (Circular 84, Office of the Solicitor, 224 Fed. 84, 



