AraKu^M9oarm- }  Editorials.  3 1 3 
than  drugs  or  water,  and  such  is  to  be  deemed  adulterated,  (i)  if  mixed  and 
packed  with  any  substance  so  as  to  reduce  or  injuriously  affect  its  quality,  and 
tend  to  deceive  the  purchaser ;  (2)  if  any  inferior  substance  has  been  substi- 
tuted wholly  or  in  part  for  the  article  ;  (3)  if  any  valuable  constituent  has  been 
wholhT  or  in  part  abstracted  ;  (4)  if  it  be  an  imitation  of  and  sold  under  the 
specific  name  of  another  article  ;  (5)  if  it  be  mixed,  colored,  powdered  or 
stained  to  conceal  damage  ;  (6)  if  any  poisonous  or  injurious  ingredient  has 
been  added;  (7)  if  it  consist  of  any  diseased,  filthy,  decomposed  or  putrid 
animal  or  vegetable  substance,  or  of  the  product  of  a  diseased  animal,  or  of  an 
animal  that  has  died  otherwise  than  by  slaughter. 
An  article  of  food  or  drug,  not  mixed  with  a  poisonous  ingredient,  shall  not 
be  deemed  to  be  adulterated,  (1)  if  a  mixture  or  compound  known  as  an  article 
of  food  under  a  distinctive  name  and  not  included  in  definition  4  (imitation)  ; 
(2)  if  labelled  so  as  to  plainly  indicate  that  it  is  a  mixture,  compound,  combina- 
tion or  blend  ;  (3)  if  anything  has  been  added  to  the  food  or  drug  required  for 
the  production  as  an  article  of  commerce  in  a  state  fit  for  carriage  or  consump- 
tion, and  not  fraudulently  to  increase  bulk,  weight  or  measure,  or  to  conceal 
inferior  quality  ;  (4)  if  the  food  or  drug  become  unavoidably  mixed  with  some 
extraneous  matter  in  the  process  of  collection  or  preparation  ;  (5)  in  the  cases 
exempted  by  Section  3,436  of  the  Revised  Statutes  of  the  U.  S. 
The  last  section  provides  that  the  Oleomargarin  Act,  approved  August  6, 
1886,  is  not  to  be  modified  by  the  present  bill. 
We  have  given  a  full  synopsis  of  this  bill  so  as  to  enable  our  readers  to  judge 
of  its  vexatious  character  intelligently.  We  do  not  believe  that  there  was 
ever  in  any  country  a  law  framed  which  under  the  pretense  of  preventing 
adulteration,  was  equally  crude  and  at  the  same  time  oppressive.  It  is  obvious 
that  under  the  guise  of  proprietary  articles  of  food  and  drink — "  the  formulas 
of  which  shall  not  be  made  public" — adulteration  could  be  carried  on  to  an 
unlimited  extent  even  with  the  apparent  sanction  of  the  Government.  While 
the  bill  defines  the  terms  food  and  drug,  it  is  silent  as  to  the  meaning  of  the 
terms  compound  food  and  compounded  drug.  The  bill  evidently  intends  that 
substances  derived  directly  from  the  animal  or  vegetable  kingdom,  like  tea, 
coffee,  rice,  milk,  meat,  and  the  like,  be  regarded  as  simple  articles  of  food. 
But  bread,  cakes,  candy,  chocolate,  etc.,  are  not  such  simples,  and  since  they 
are manufactured,  manipulated,  compounded  or  mixed  articles,"  it  would 
seem  that  a  license  would  be  required  for  transporting  them  from  one  state  to 
another.  In  regard  to  medicines  the  bill  speaks  of  compounds  drugs  (not 
compound).  But  whether  a  drug  becomes  compounded  by  dividing  it  in  pack- 
ages of  (say  )  one  ounce  or  pound  each,  or  only  after  dividing  it  into  separate 
doses,  the  proposed  law  gives  no  information  ;  nevertheless,  a  license  would  be 
necessary  if  compounded  drugs  be  shipped  to  another  state,  and  even  pharnia- 
copceial  compounds  could  thus  be  taxed,  because  they  are  not  specially 
exempted. 
It  is  not  our  intention  to  criticise  the  various  provisions  of  the  bill,  its 
absurdities  and  crudities  are  quite  apparent.  Several  bodies  have  protested 
against  this  proposed  measure,  and  a  Committee  of  the  Philadelphia  Drug 
Exchange  and  of  the  National  Wholesale  Drug  Association,  explained  their 
views  in  opposition  of  the  bill  to  the  Senate  Committee  on  Agriculture,  and 
