894 ANNUAL HKI^ORTS OF DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 



A like invostis^ation into the milk supply of Providence, R. I., 

 resulted in the report of 70 cases to the Attorney General by this ofTice 

 for prosecution in the district of Connecticut where the shipm-.^nts 

 originated. In a number of these milk cases the defendants have 

 pleaded guilty. In the remainder of the cases proceedings had 

 already been instituted and the cases were pending in the courts at 

 the close of the fiscal year 1912. 



During tliis year the Supreme Court of the United States, in the 

 case of the United States v. Morgan (220 U. S., 274; Office of Solicitor 

 Circular 58 ; Notice of Judgment 1992), rendered a decision of great im- 

 portance in the administration of the food and drugs act. This case 

 mvolved the interstate shipment by the defendants, John and Albert 

 ^forgan, of misbranded spring water from New York to Newark, N. J. 

 The case was tried before a jury in the Circuit Court of the 

 United States for the Southern District of New York. The pro- 

 ceeding was by indictment, which alleged the interstate shipment 

 and misbranding of the product, but failed to allege that a preliminary 

 hearing had been afforded by the department to t^he defendants before 

 the institution of criminal proceedings. The jury returned a verdict 

 of guilty, but the trial judge granted a motion on behalf of the 

 defendants for arrest of the judgment, holding that it was essential 

 to allege the notice and hearing mentioned in section 4, such notice 

 being jurisdictional and a condition precedent to the institution of 

 prosecution upon a report of the Secretary of Agriculture. From the 

 decision of the trial court the Government appealed to the Supreme 

 Court of the United States, which reversed the judgment of the lower 

 court. The decision of the Supreme Court is of far-reaching impor- 

 tance in its administrative aspect, as it holds, in effect, that the notice 

 and hearing required to be given parties from whom samples of food 

 and drugs are procured by the department for purposes of investiga- 

 tion are not jurisdictional facts, and consequently it is not essential 

 that they be alleged in an indictment or information, and so need not 

 be proven at the trial of the cases. ^Moreover, the decision practically 

 repudiated the doctrine laid down by the circuit court of appeals for 

 the second circuit in the case of United States v. 20 Cases of Grape 

 Juice (189 Fed. Rep., 331), in which it was held that the notice and 

 hearing mentioned in section 4 of the act had reference also to the 

 proceedings instituted under section 10, and that consequently such 

 notice and hearing were conditions precedent to the filing of libels 

 against the adulterated and misbranded articles on reports of the 

 Secretary of Agriculture. 



The decision in the grape-juice case was a source of considerable 

 embarrassment to the department durmg the past year in effect- 

 ing seizures of adulterated or misl)randed goods pursuant to sec- 

 tion 10 of the act, especially in those jurisdictions where it was 

 followed, namely, in the southern and western districts of New 

 York and the eastern district of Pennsylvania. Under this decision 

 seizures could not be made effectively in such jurisdictions, since 

 the department would be subjected to the delay incident to the 

 preliminary hearing. The decision in United States v. Morgan, 

 while rendered in a criminal case, has been accepted as apply- 

 ing also to seizure cases under the act, so that the department 

 in all jurisdictions, since the rendition of said decision, may pro- 

 ceed to institute seizures of adulterated or misbranded articles 



