The Washington times., 1911-08-25
MORE ILLUSTRATIONS OF I'M.
PURE FOOD LAW ENFORCE.
MENT.

eral folk dislike prussic acid. as
regular course at meals. Even the
generous and amiable McCabe appears
to have made some concession to this
curious convention of prejudice, and he
proceeded against this compound of
cocoa, arsenic, and ferric oxide The
ponderous wheels of impure admins
tration were set in motion, and in due
time a verdict was ground out.
THE TEN TINS OF COCOA,
ARSENIC, AND FERRIC OXIDE
WERE DULY ORDERED DESTROY
ED.
That's all.
Nobody was fined, nobody was put
in Jail. The formal announcement of
the verdict is in this fetching language:
On April %. 1911. the cause coming on
for hearing, and no claimant to the
product having appeared the
| court issued its decree condemning and
forfeidng the said ten cans to the use
ing the destruction of the product by
the marshal, which order was forthwith
! executed.
There is a dainty touch of sarcasm
in that forfeited to the use of the
United States" Yes, indeed! The
United States is entitled to use all it
likes. Fine stuff for the United States
to use. Seems a shame that ten cans
of it should be destroyed; the United
States would so like to use it. We
just dote on arsenic and ferric oxide.
"Eg Murine" was the label on some
stuff which had curiously potent nutri-
tive properties. "One ID. of Eg MI
trine dissolved in one gallon of water
compares in working properties to one
gallon or seven or eight dozen eggs"
averred the label. But in fact, on
analysis, the Bureau of Chemistry
found that said article does not con-
tain egg, nor does one pound of Eg
Murine dissolved in one gallon of
water compare in working properties
to seven or eight dozen fresh eggs.'
Just a plain fraud, IN short. "On
May /, 1911, the defendant entered a
plea of guilty and was fined 500,
which was Immediately paid" con-
cluded the notice.
1t certainly ought to have Eeen.
Anybody who could get by with a lie
of such proportions as that, certainly
could Immediately pay" 500 fine.
The food takers seem to have an
easier thing than any other malefac-
tors known to the law. They are not
enjoined, like a trust or a liquor
dealer in a prohibition State. They
just pay the little fine and are sent
their way to try it again. Suppose
they DO get stuck for S. or 500
occasionally? What of that? The
profits of the bunk are good enough to
enable them to grin and order some
more lobster and terrapin, with cham
pagne sauce.
1t would be tiresome to enumerate
series of such cases. The point to
all of them is the same.
Under McCabe's administration the
food law is so applied that 1T GIVES
| THE LEAST POSSIBLE DISCOUR-
AGEMENT TO THE FOOD FAKER
It's purpose is not, seemingly, to stop
the purveyance of poison, but to keep
McCabe and the court officers busy.
They need their jobs, and the food
law is an excuse for keeping them on
the salary list.
The rest of us may eat arsenic and
ferric oxide and "Eg Murine" and
other fakes, frauds, or poisons till
doomsday; that isn't the point. Just
so long as a pretense of enforcement
is made; so long as McCabe is busy
enough to get his salary without in
terfering with the business of the
poisoners, why, everything is all right.
Reading up on the impure admins
tration of this law one is forced to
wonder whether the food act was pass
ed for the purpose of protecting the
public health, or merely with the
kindly wish to let the poisoners mark
their deadly concoctions as "guaran-
teed under the pure food and drugs
act"
1t must be remembered, always, that
the food and drug act is in substance
a guarantee, just so long as that
legend is printed on the container. Let
manufacturer put up two parts of
bran with one part of arsenic, call
it breakfast food, and label it as
guaranteed under the food and drugs
act,' and it will masquerade before
the innocent public as a high-class
product. 1t is a wicked shame. 1t is
altogether probable that more harm
than good is done, by reason of the
food and drugs law allowing such scan
dalous perversion of truth, such vicious
misdirection of public confidence.
The food law ought to provide for
LOCKING UP anybody who used a
label guaranteeing" under the food
and drugs act anything not actually
guaranteed. The law is to blame in