SALE OF FOOD AND DRUGS ACTS. 27 



conviction under this section, even though he may be innocent of any attempt to 

 cheat his customers, and though the actual offender (who can, of course, also be 

 punished) may be a servant, or even a person over whom he has no control. 



Section 7, which refers to compounded articles, is little used, inasmuch as an offence 

 against its provisions is equally punishable under section 6. 



Section 9 deals with abstraction alone, and was specially designed to meet the case 

 of the removal of cream from milk. Its provisions are more stringent than those of 

 section 6, and certain defences which are available under section 6, as will be seen 

 presently, are not available under section 9. 



COMPARISONS WITH THE FOOD LAW OF THE UNITED STATES. 



Section 3 of the 1875 act resembles somewhat in its wording certain 

 phraseology found in the food law of the United States, namely, sec- 

 tion 7, paragraph 4, in the case of foods, where it is held that a food 

 is adulterated "if it be mixed, colored, powdered, coated, or stained 

 in a manner whereby damage or inferiority is concealed." The 1875 

 act, however, makes the offense depend upon the mixing, coloring, 

 staining, and powdering with an ingredient so as to render the article 

 injurious to health. Another very important difference lies in the 

 phrase " with intent that the same may be sold in that state." Under 

 this section a provision is made for a prison sentence not to exceed 

 six months on a second conviction. The penalties provided for under 

 the sale of food and drugs acts are such that the first offense bears a 

 maximum penalty of 20, the second offense 50, and the third and 

 subsequent offenses 100 each (sec. 17, act of 1899). Provision is 

 also made in section 17 of the act of 1899 for imprisonment, where 

 the "offense," in the opinion of the court, u was committed by the 

 personal act, default, or culpable negligence of the person accused." 

 The limit of imprisonment is three months. 



Under our Federal law, where conviction is obtained in the courts 

 for shipping misbranded or adulterated foods or drugs in interstate 

 commerce, the limit of the penalty is a $200 fine for the first offense, 

 and for each subsequent offense a fine not to exceed $300 or imprison- 

 ment not to exceed one year, or both, in the discretion of the court. 



The penalty for the manufacturer of proscribed foods and drugs 

 within the Territories and the District of Columbia is more severe 

 than for their sale in interstate commerce, being for each offense a 

 fine not to exceed $500 or one year's imprisonment, or both, within 

 the discretion of the court. 



In prosecutions under section 3 of the English law guilty knowledge 

 must be proven. This is required by section 5. The courts of Great 

 Britain have not been invoked to act frequently under section 3. The 

 question of intent has decreased its usefulness, and again, trials based 

 on it are found to be very expensive because of the expert evidence 

 necessary to prove the effect on health of the articles of food under 

 discussion. It is in connection with this section that the "Report 



