THE SOLICITOE. 925 



hearing were recommended for the reason that examination or 

 analysis had shown neither adulteration or misbranding within the 

 definitions of the act. In a number of cases, after hearmgs held, no 

 prosecution was recommended, and in other cases no hearings were 

 recommended for the reasons, among others, that the offense alleged 

 was trivial or technical or the evidence was msufficient on which to 

 proceed against parties primarily responsible for the articles on which 

 the cases were based; that cases based on similar samples had already 

 been reported to the Attorney General for prosecution; that manu- 

 facturers had already effected the correction of labeling at the sug- 

 gestion of the department or had voluntarily made a bona fide effort 

 to reform labeling; or that the articles had been shipped prior to the 

 issue by the department of decisions definitely stating its views as to 

 labeling of such articles. 



In the case of 70 samples in which the charges were deemed trivial, 

 unsubstantial, or technical, or where it was deemed impracticable 

 for other reasons to recommend hearings or prosecution, the defects 

 were made subjects of correspondence with the manufacturers with 

 a view to securing the correction of the labeling or the change of the 

 composition of the articles necessary to have them comply strictly 

 with the provisions of the insecticide act of 1910. In general the 

 department has met with acquiescence and ready compliance with 

 its views on the part of manufacturers. By this means strict com- 

 pliance with the requirements of the law in minor features has been 

 properly secured without recourse to the courts. 



Beginning' with the first apparent violation of the insecticide act 

 of 1910 reported for prosecution in December, 1911, there were 

 reported to the Attorney General for prosecution during the subse- 

 quent six months 57 apparent violations of the statute. Of the 

 prosecutions instituted in these cases, 7 were terminated in the course 

 of the fiscal year ending June 30, 1912, all favorably to the Govern- 

 ment. In 6 of these 7 cases criminal prosecutions were instituted 

 against the shippers under section 2 of the act. In 5 of these 6 

 cases the defendant pleaded not guilty, and in the sixth case a plea 

 of nolo contendere was entered. A fine of $25 and costs was imposed 

 in each of the 6 cases. In the seventh case the proceeding was a 

 seizure of goods under the provisions of section 10 of the act, and 

 the goods seized and condemned were released under a bond of $2,500 

 and on payment of the costs, amounting to $16.75. 



Data m detail as to cases under the insecticide act of 1910 reported 

 and pending or determined during the fiscal year ending June 30, 

 1912, are set forth in tabulated form on page 1010 below. 



The Insecticide and Fungicide Board has been advised on legal 

 questions arising in the administration of the act in a number of 

 instances. 



Under section 4 of the insecticide act of 1910 the Secretary of 

 Agriculture is required to publish notices of the judgment of the 

 court in cases prosecuted under the act. One such notice of the 

 judgment of the court in one of the seven cases above mentioned, 

 determined favorably to the Government, has already been published 

 as "Notice of Insecticide Judgment No. 1," and similar notices in 

 six cases were in the course of publication at the close of the year. 



