54 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE Off. Doc. 



condition of affairs in other commonwealths, exist also in Pennsyl- 

 vania. It is earnestly urged that the opposite policy has proved 

 in general more efficient and economical and far less vexatious to 

 the interests under control than is the case where representatives 

 from separate branches of the State service visit and demand atten- 

 tion, one after another, from the same factory manager or store 

 keeper. 



FEDEKAL RELATIONS 



When the passage by Congress of a National Food and Drugs Act 

 was under discussion, the first argument in favor of such enactment 

 was that it would assist in unifying and harmonizing the bodies of 

 food control law and regulations in the several commonwealths. In 

 fact, the Food and Drugs Act of 1906 has been copied literally in 

 many of the states and much of the confusion existing prior to that 

 date has disappeared. Absolute uniformity in the laws of the sev- 

 eral commonwealths upon any subject is, however, rarely, if ever, 

 attained. Many are of the opinion that absolute uniformity would 

 stand in the way of progress and improvement. On the other hand, 

 there can be no sound objection to the cultivation of such cooperation 

 between the National and State agencies that shall reduce confusion, 

 strengthen advantageous policies and give to all the benefit of the 

 knowledge and experience gained by each. I desire to express at 

 this point my appreciation of the service which the United States 

 Department of Agriculture is performing for the food control officers 

 of the several states through its newly established office of State 

 Relations, w^hich is serving as a clearing house of information useful 

 to food law officers. 



LEGAL OPINIONS 



The discussion of this part of my report would be incomplete with- 

 out reference to matters of general interest which have been made the 

 subject of opinions by Deputy Attorney General William M. Har- 

 gest, in reply to questions addressed to the Attorney General from 

 this office. The first of these opinions relates to the question, 

 "whether a merchant holding a license to sell oleomargarine at retail 

 can take orders for this product in cities and towns other than the 

 one designated in the license, and fill such orders by delivering the 

 product by vehicle or otherwise," a question of grave importance 

 under the Pennsylvania Oleomargarine Law. The second opinion is 

 in relation to a question of the limits of application of the Pennsyl- 

 vania State Food Law^ wiiere the commodity is also subject to the 

 provisions of the National Food and Drugs Act. Several years ago 

 in the case known as McDermott vs. Wisconsin, the United States 

 Supreme Court handed down a decision determining this matter 



