OLEOMARGARINE AND BUTTERINE. 49 



APPENDIX. 



COMMISSIONER BROWN'S REPLY TO THE SENATE. 



On the 9th of March, 1886, the Senate of the State of New York adopted a resolution 

 requesting the Sta'e Dairy Commissioner to furnish certain information relative to the work 

 of his department. The first of the questions propounded was as to the number of prosecu- 

 tions since May I, 1885, for violations of the dairy laws ; second, the number of complaints 

 made against different citizens of the State in regard to which actions have not been begun ; 

 third, the names and residences of the assistants, attorneys, experts, chemists, etc., employed 

 by the department; and fourth, asking special information with f regard to the case against 

 Daniel Kerin, in which an adverse decision was rendered. 



In his reply, which was presented to the Senate on March 18, Commissioner Brown said r 



" Early in the first year of my administration of the affairs of this department, I found that 

 the time of district attorneys of New York and Kings Counties was so fully occupied in the 

 prosecution and enforcement of the criminal laws in their respective counties that it was impos- 

 sible for them to give that attention to the attempt to enforce the statutes with reference to 

 imitation, impure and adulterated dairy products, which in my judgment was necessary to- 

 secure the arrest, trial, and conviction of those who have been guilty of violating the provisions 

 of those statutes. 



"I therefore employed attorneys to assist in this work who were acceptable to, and could 

 therefore work in complete harmony with, the district attorneys. This subject is referred to 

 on page 6 of my first annual report to the Legislature. Section 19 of Chapter 183 of the Laws 

 of 1885 prescribes penalties for violations of the statute in addition to fines which may be 

 imposed by the criminal courts. 



" I was advised by the district attorneys of two dairy counties to bring suits for those 

 penalties, and believing that violations of our law could be more certainly prevented and 

 offenders more surely punished, I determined to have suits commenced and prosecuted for 

 the penalties prescribed. I referred the whole matter of these proposed prosecutions and of 

 the employment of attorneys to my general counsel, Messrs. Risley, Quin & Perry, whose, 

 opinion upon the subject is hereto annexed. 



" This opinion, holding that it was the duty of the Dairy Commissioner to employ counsel! 

 in all prosecutions, and that it was not the duty of the Attorney- General to do this work, was. 

 submitted to that officer, Hon. Denis O'Brien, and he concurred in the conclusions to whichv 

 my counsel arrived in the opinion hereto annexed. 



' During the previous year proceedings had been instituted and conducted by different 

 attorneys in several different counties, which involved so much care and attention to keep 

 track of and direct the litigation that I decided to have all actions for penalties brought by 

 some one attorney or firm, in order that at any time I could easily possess myself of all the 

 facts relating to this branch of the service throughout the State. 



" It was my purpose, as soon as the pleadings were served and a case ready for trial, to 

 send the papers to some competent attorney in the county where the venue was laid, which in 

 all cases must be the county in which the defendant resided, that causes might be actually 

 tried by local counsel on fair terms to be agreed upon." 



