218 ANNUAL REPORTS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 



a derivative of it. In United States v. Lelin and Fink (Circular 

 49, Office of the Solicitor.) it was held that section 7 of the act which 

 declares a drug to be adulterated if it " differs from the standard 

 of strength, quality, or purity as determined by the test laid down 

 in the United States Pharmacopoeia * * * official at the time of 

 investigation," is not ex post facto legislation and therefore not 

 unconstitutional. It was further held that Congress in enacting this 

 section did not delegate legislative power, but merely prescribed the 

 method of ascertaining facts upon which the operation of the statute 

 was to depend. In Dr. L. J. Stephens Company v. United States 

 (Vid. Supr.) it was held that physicians' prescriptions are not 

 exempt from the operations of the act. 



United States v. Johnson {'221 U. S., 488, Notice of Judgment 

 1058) was decided adversely to the Government. In this case mis- 

 branding was alleged of a so-called " mild combination treatment for 

 cancer," consisting of several packages bearing statements that the 

 treatment would effect the cure of cancer. It was held, in effect, that 

 false and misleading statements as to the curative or therapeutic 

 effects of medicines did not come within the prohibition of the law. 

 The President thereupon addressed a message to Congress urging 

 remedial legislation. On August 23, 1912, the act was amended (37 

 Stat., 416). The constitutionality of this amendment was sustained 

 by the Supreme Court in Seven Cases et al. v. United States (239 

 U. S., 510, Circular 85, Office of the Solicitor). 



On March 3, 1913, the act was further amended so as to require 

 articles of food in package form to bear a statement showing the 

 quantity of the contents in terms of weight, measure, or numerical 

 count (37 Stat., 732). 



On June 16, 1913, rule 39 of the rules and regulations made for 

 the enforcement of the Food and Drugs Act was revoked. Under 

 that rule domestic meat and meat-food products which were pre- 

 pared under Federal inspection wore exempted from the provisions 

 of the Food and Drugs Act. As a result of the revocation, the power 

 of seizure of unsound meat and meat-food products in the course of in- 

 terstate commerce can be and has been exercised. Under the Meat 

 Inspection Act spoiled meats could be condemned and destroyed only 

 when they were found within establishments in which Federal inspec- 

 tion was maintained. 



