48 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE Off. Doc. 



LIMITS OF THE POWERS OF THE DAIRY AND FOOD COM- 

 MISSIONER 



While the responsibility imposed by these laws upon the Dairy and 

 Food Commissioner are large, his powers are far more limited than 

 many citizens suppose to be the fact. Like other executive officials, 

 the commissioiier is limited in his powers and in the nature of bis 

 duties by the letter of tlie law. He has only very minor regulatory 

 powers under the Constitution of the State, as interpreted by the 

 Supreme Court. This is true even in those cases in which the law 

 itself appears to grant him regulatory powers. Consequently, he can 

 not, for the purpose of securing the special objects of the law, go 

 beyond the specific warrant of its provisions, and is commonly limited 

 by its prescri])tions as to the mode also in which the respective laws 

 are to be enforced. These statements recognize the American i)lan of 

 Government, which should be known by every intelligent citizen. It 

 is, however, here set forth because of the fact that many correspond- 

 ents of the Bureau fail to understand that such limitations exist, and 

 permit themselves to criticise it for failing to adopt methods which, 

 to them, seem useful for accomplishing the objects of these laws. 

 Several of these matters of criticism are deserving of special mention 

 because, of the frequency with which they are presented and because, 

 also, of their importance upon other considerations. 



''Why," it is asked, "does not the Daiiy and Food Commissioner 

 adopt a constructive policy, that is, a policy of aiding by its investi- 

 gations in the solution of the sanitar^^ and related problems which 

 confront the manufacturers, producers, and distributors of foods in 

 consequence of the enactment of the food laws?" The answer is 

 simple. However desirable the adoption of such a policy on the part 

 of the State might be — and the desirability affords much ground for 

 debate — nothinsr is found in the laws establishina: the Bureau as a 

 part of the public service, in those committed to it for enforcement, 

 or in the various appropriation acts providing for its maintenance, 

 affording any warrant for the provision by it for such service, or for 

 the expenditure of public money thereon. 



Again it is asked, "Why do you not tell us what labels we may use 

 without exposing ourselves to the charge of misbranding?" The 

 answer in this case also is simple. The law as it stands does not 

 empower the Commissioner to prescribe labels. He can only say, 

 "You may use any label which is not in violation of the law." Nor 

 can he. with justice to the public welfare, approve, in the absence of 

 oflScial knowledge of the nature' of the wares to be labeled, any label 

 proposed by the maker. It seems hard for many to understand that 

 the Commissioner is not the final judge in such matters, but the 

 Court. 



The general requirements of the Food Laws may be briefly stated: 

 Foods must be sold for what they are. 

 They must not contain any injurious materials. 

 They must be sound. 

 They must be sanitary. 



Thp purposes of these requirements are two-fold: The protection 

 of public health, and the prevention of fraud. 



