The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1903-07-07
NEW WEAPON FORGED
IN IMPURE FOOD WAR
Attorney General Knox's Opinions Of
Importance to the Agricul-
tural Department.


Of food articles which are regarded by
the Department of Agriculture as
strong weapon in its warfare upon i'm
pure imported merchandise OF that
class.
The Attorney General was asked to
construe two laws. One IS a paragraph
contained In the Agricultural appropria-
I uoa bill for the current year. which
gives the department authority to con-
Iscate any food products imported into
TINS country from a foreign country
should they be impure. misbranded. or
not In conformity with the laws Of the
country from which they were shipped.
The other law which was submitted n
the Attorney General in this connection
was the sherman act Of last year which
provided severe penalty against false
~ labelling as to place any dairy or food
products sold In this country.
In the first place, Secretary Wilso,
wanted to know his exact furisd;c,io,
over foreign food products. particularly
whether there was any way BY which
the department could keep its control
over such products IL an atternpt shonfa
be made to make importations in bulk q,
certain foods or drinks With the inta--
ton OF mixing. adulterating or mis-
branding them for the market after thew
had arrived in this country. The Al
torney General. although Inclined N
make liberal Interpretation OF the la,
hrst mentioned. saw no authority under
1t for Jurisdiction over shipments of
food or drink products after they had
left the custom houses of this country.
Sherman Law Effective.
1t is at this point that the Attorney
General brings in the Sherman law With
telling effect. The provisions Of this
law are that no person shall Introduce
into any State or Territory OF the United
States. from any other State or Terri
tory. or sell any dairy or food products
which shall be falsely labeled or brand
ed as TO the State or Territory in which
they were made. produced OF grown.
There is a minimum penalty of $500 fine
and maximum, for violation OF This
act
The Attorney General discusses this
law in detail II is important TO notice.
ne says. that the prohibition extends to
Falsely labeled articles introduced or
brought from another State or Territory.
and is not confined to articles which
are the product OF some other State or
Territory Of the United States. He SAYS
IL makes nc difference whether such ar
ticles are domestic or foreign origin.
the law clearly forbids their introduce
ton from one State or Territory to an
other State or Territory. II they are
falsely labeled or branded as to the
place Of origin.
Not Within the Law.
Attention is called by the Attorney
General that there may be one instance
where products may be misbranded as
10 place without coming within the scope
Of the law An illustration would be the
putting up OF a French product in
France and labelling 1t a German prod
uct. importing it into New York and
then introducing 1t into New Jersey.
There would be nothing in the Sherman
law to touch this case, for the Attor-
Rey General holds that Jurisdiction IN
der II does not cover false branding as
10 two foreign countries.
On the other hand. he says. if foreign
articles imported into New York are in
troduced into another State or Terri
tory with a label or brand showing them
to be Of New York origin, such articles
would be falsely labeled or branded.
Also, IL an article were put up in New
York and labeled as the product OF q
FCra
State. the offense would clearly come
within the Sherman law II must be
necessary in all OF these cases that
the article in question should become
the subject OF interstate trade. as Con-
gress has no Jurisdiction unless the
article passes from one State to another
In summing up on this point the At
torney General concludes that statutes
should be construed in aid OF their mani
fest purpose and object; that when IT IS
considered that the sole purpose OF this
act Is TO prevent the use of false labels
or brands Of dairy or food products.
when articles OF interstate commerce.
IL is manifest that a construction which
would limit the prohibition 10 domestic
articles would defeat rather than aid the
purpose of the act.
Articles Falsely Labeled.
Indeed" the Attorney General con-
cludes, the greater and more preya-
lent evil in this respect is not in falsely
stating a particular State or Territory
as the origin Of domestic article. but
is the labelling of a foreign article as
the product of some particular State or
Territory, or vice versa This is the
more serious and prevalent evil. and,
in my opinion. is as certainly forbidden
by the act referred to as is the labelling
OF an article OF one State or Territory
as being the product OF another. I srn
therefore of the opinion that the act
of July l. 1902, applies not only to do
nestle articles. but also TO those i'm
ported from foreign countries which are
labeled as being OF domestic origin"
With this Interpretation. the depart
ment feels that its hands have been ma
strengthened in carrying out the
authority granted over foreign food
products. This law went into effect