No. 6. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 69 



the same brand and package of some goods are sold iu adjoining 

 states which contained goods of a decidedly different grade or 

 quality because of the variance in the pure food laws in force in the 

 respective states. In view of these indisputable facts, the system 

 of advertising food products proposed by certain persistent corres- 

 pondents, who continue to demand free analytical examinations and 

 certificates of purity, would fall into bad repute very speedily be- 

 cause of its self-manifest impropriety and actual wrong. In addi- 

 tion to the above objection may be cited the fact that the Common- 

 wealth does not provide the needed laboratory facilities nor funds 

 for making such analyses for manufacturers, jobbers, retailers or 

 private individuals. If the precedent were established, there is 

 no doubt that the several laboratories would speedily be flooded 

 with all kinds of samples, and that as a result, it would render all 

 efforts to perform the proper and legitimate work of the Division 

 not only futile, but an actual farce. 



If manufacturers produce pure goods, they are already fully in- 

 formed of the self-evident truth that they can offer for sale or sell 

 the same in any state without fear of any interference or molesta- 

 tion on the part of pure food officials. On the other hand, if the 

 peculiar composition of their products is such that they have any 

 reasonable doubt or fear as to the legality of their sale and use, 

 their duty, as it appears to the Commissioner, is to consult their 

 own attorney and chemist. The Commissioner will, however, upon 

 request, cheerfulty supply all those interested with a pamphlet con- 

 taining the dairy and food laws, free of charge, together with such 

 other information as he may deem proper. 



This explanation at this time is rendered necessary because of the 

 large number of correspondents who seek information upon the sub- 

 ject discussed. 



PROSECUTIONS REPORTED IN THE BULLETIN. 



An examination of the reports of terminated food prosecutions 

 which appear regularly in the columns of the "Monthly Bulletin" 

 show that a very large proportion of the suits brought are ended 

 by the payment of the fines and costs, without appeal to the regular 

 channels of justice instituted by our government for proving such 

 questions. This, probably, is due to the fact that a case at trial 

 would be likely to result not only in a conviction, but the imposition 

 of additional costs. The Commissioner does not ignore the fact that 

 the most sacred thing under our form of government is the right 

 of the individual citizen to his good name, and if he chooses to 

 defend his position in open court, it is his natural right. On the other 

 hand, where the alleged violation of law is firmly established, and 

 the manufacturer or retailer desires to plead guilty and pay the 

 fine and costs, ordinarily, there appears no good reason for a refusal, 

 and magistrates, aldermen and justices of the peace should be 

 granted jurisdiction and proper authority to terminate such suits. 



The work of the Dairy and Food Division, so far as the same lies 

 within the discretion and power of the Commissioner, will not permit 

 any unfairness. The deep sense of justice due to the individual 

 citizen of the Commonwealth, is always carefully regarded and never 

 purposely ignored in the consideration of violations of the laws. 



