No. 6. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 65 



The assignments of error are sustained. The decree of the court 

 below is reversed, and record remitted for further proceeding's 

 thereon. 



Judge Orlady, in another opinion, also employed the following 

 language: 



"The purpose of the legislation in the passage of the act is most 

 commendable and the State should favor a construction by the courts 

 that will fully and effectually accomplish the subject of its enact- 

 ment." 



"The Superior Court of Pennsylvania in the case of Common- 

 wealth vs. Kevin, 18 Sup. Ct. Pa. 414, sustains the Pure Food Act 

 of June 26, 1895, and this decision is also affirmed by the Supreme 

 Court in a lengthy opinion returned bv Justice Mestrezat, as re- 

 ported in 202 Pa. 23." 



Commonwealth vs. Geesey, 1 Sup. Ct. Rept. 502. 



"Hence if the defendant desires to attack the constitutionality 

 of the act for reasons not heretofore raised, he must do so in a 

 higher court." 



The same question of constitutionality created by Judge Porter's 

 decree has been met and considered by Judge Bell, of Blair county, 

 and a number of judges of the courts of common pleas as already 

 stated, who without exception have supported the decisions above 

 quoted. 



The decision of the Lawrence county court, while unfavorable so 

 far as that county is concerned, has not interfered materially with 

 the enforcement of the pure food legislation in other courts of the 

 State. 



SUPREME COURT DECISION IN ADULTERATED LIQUOR CASE. 



In the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Justice Mitchell filed an 

 opinion on May 24, 1905, in the case of Commonwealth vs. Kebort, 

 appellant, reversing the Superior Court, and deciding that the act of 

 Assembly commonly known as the "Pure Food Act," approved June 

 26, 1895, did not include liquor within its proper scope and meaning, 

 and that the act, therefore, failed to create any such offense as was 

 charged against the defendants, namely, "selling adulterated black- 

 berry wine." 



The Dairy and Food authorities had brought many prosecutions 

 against dealers charged with the sale of spurious and drugged liquor 

 of various kinds or brands, and a considerable amount was turned 

 into the State Treasury on account of fines and costs collected and 

 paid by such defendants. Of course, with the declaration of the 

 highest court that the act under which these prosecutions were 

 brought was defective and not applying to liquor, all proceedings 

 came to an abrupt ending, and the Commissioner could not bring 

 to trial the hundreds of unterminated cases, which were on dockets 

 and in charge of magistrates, aldermen and justices of the peace in 

 the counties of the Commonwealth. 



A large number of the liquor cases had already been listed for 

 trial in court, and these, too, were abandoned by the Commonwealth 

 because of the untenable position of the Commissioner so far as the 

 statute related to liquor. 



5—6—1905 



