64 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE Off. Doc. 



REPORT OF THE DAIRY AND FOOD 

 COMMISSIONER. 



Harrisburg, Pa., December 31, 1905. 



Hon. N. B. Critchfield, Secretary of Agriculture, Harrisburg, Pa. : 



Dear Sir: In addition to the monthly reports presented to you 

 regularly through the medium of the "Monthly Bulletin" issued 

 from this office for the information of the people of the Common- 

 wealth and others who may be interested in the advancement of 

 the pure food cause, the following Annual Report, covering the 

 year 1905, is respectfully submitted. 



THE QUESTION OF CONSTITUTIONALITY OF LAW. 



During the vigorous enforcement of the pure food laws, numerous 

 obstacles, legal and otherwise, are constantly arising. The recent 

 adverse decision of a county court in Western Pennsylvania revived 

 an active interest in the important subject. Briefly summarized, 

 the facts are as follows: In this case the defendant made a motion 

 to quash the indictment. The motion contained seventeen reasons 

 why the indictment should be quashed. These reasons resolve them- 

 selves into two propositions: First. That the act of June 26, 1895, 

 is unconstitutional; and second, that the indictment does not 

 charge the offense in words sufficient to inform the defendant of 

 the crime for which he is to answer. 



The Superior and Supreme Courts of Pennsylvania, as well as 

 many common pleas judges have ruled in a number of trials in 

 which the question of the constitutionality of the act was involved, 

 that the act in question is constitutional and not in conflict with 

 any of the articles of the State Constitution. 



In the case of Commonwealth vs. Curry, 4 Sup. Ct. Pa. 35G, Judge 

 Orlady delivered the following opinion: 



"The title of this act, 'To provide against the adulteration of 

 food, and providing for the enforcement thereof,' would naturally 

 invite inspection by any one engaged in the manufacture or sale of 

 food, and desirous of knowing what was to be avoided in the making 

 and trafficing in the multiform food products of this day. 



"The title does not tend to mislead, as it invites examination by 

 the very words used, 'To provide against adulteration of food and 

 providing for the enforcement thereof,' which reasonably embraces 

 every food product, the different classes, kinds, modes of manufac- 

 ture, and as it was a proper subject for legislative action, all persons, 

 whether manufacturers or dealers, are attracted by the words of 

 the title to a critical examination into the provisions of the bill. 



"We do not agree with the reasoning of the learned judge below, 

 and we think the title of this act fairly gives notice of the provisions 

 of the act, so as reasonably to lead to an inquiry into the bill." 



