922 ANNUAL REPOBTS OF DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTUBE. 



coming over from })rovious years, 65 resulted in convictions, 9 were 

 dismissed for various reasons, in 10 cases the grand jury failed to 

 return indictments, in 4 cases verdicts were rendered for the defend- 

 ant. In 3 cases sentences of im])risonment were also imposed in addi- 

 tion to a fine, in one amounting to 20 days, in another to 1 year, 

 and in the third to 6 months. At tlie close of the year 71 cjises 

 were ponding. The total lines assessed during the year amounted to 

 $4,740.75, as compared witli $3,240 in fines assessed in 1911. At 

 page 1005 of tlie report wiU be found a table setting forth the details of 

 cases arising under the meat-inspection amendment. 



There was a marked tendency by the courts to impose sentences of 

 unusual severity during the year. For example, in the case against 

 Schwarzchild & Sulzberger Co. (case No. 97) for the shipment of 

 unsound and unwholesome sausage from New York to Pennsylvania 

 a plea of guilty was entered and the court imj^osed a fine of $300; in 

 the case against William Kiley (case No. 164) for the shipment from 

 New York through the State of New Jersey into the State of New 

 York of immature veal carcasses, the defendant was sentenced to pay 

 a fijie of $500 and to be imprisoned for a term of one year. In the case 

 against Charles S. Gotschall (case No. 189), which was brought for the 

 transportation of unins})ected veal from West Virginia into Ohio, the 

 defendant, after a plea of guilty, was sentenced to pay a fine of $1,000 

 and costs. The execution of the sentence, however, was suspended 

 upon condition of good behavior. A fine of $250, with a six-months' 

 jail sentence, was imposed against Joseph D. Schultz (case No. 218) 

 for the sliipment of immature veal carcasses from New York tlirough 

 New Jersey into New York. In another case (case No. 246), against 

 L. L. Teeple, for offering the meat from a tuberculous cow for shipment 

 from New York througli New Jersey to New York, a fine of $200 was 

 im})osed. On the whole it may be stated that the tendency of the 

 courts during the past year has been to assess heavy penalties for vio- 

 lations of this law. 



A question of vital importance in the administration of the meat- 

 inspection law was decided by the Attorney General. It was claimed 

 on behalf of certain manufacturers of lard substitute, composed of 

 oleo stearin and cottonseed oil, that the mark "Inspected and passed" 

 should be placed on the product, even though the oleo stearin enter- 

 ing into the compound was imported and had not been inspected hy 

 the inspectors of the Bureau of Animal Industry. A brief was filed 

 by this office, in which it was contended that under the meat-inspec- 

 tion law it is contemplated that the mark "Inspected and passed" 

 should be placed only upon meat food products which are derived 

 from the carcasses of cattle, sheep, swine, and goats, when the car- 

 casses of animals have received post mortem inspection by the Bureau 

 of Animal Industry. This contention was approved by the Attorney 

 General, who held that the Federal mark of inspection may lawfully 

 be placed only upon products of those animals which have been con- 

 stantly under the examination of inspectors of the Bureau of Animal 

 Industry "from hoof to the can," and that while interstate commerce 

 in imported meat food products is not prohibited, even though partly 

 manufactured in the United States, they can in no instance bear the 

 Federal mark of approval provided for by the meat-inspection law. 



The Attorney General in the course of his opinion reafiirmed his 

 previous decision that imported meats and meat food products are 



