The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1911-12-04


been successfully prosecuted and that
The greatest activity by the depart
ment of agriculture and tho dis
trlct attorneys was manifested dur
ing, the year ending June 80. 1871,
while general order 40 Was In force,
This order which provides that the
law work OF the department should
he done by the law officer. but came
in FOR criticism in the press for what
reason it is difficult To explain. un
less it WAS because it did not leave
the legal work under the food law
With the chief chemist. This seems
10 be Dr. Wileys chief grievance
against Solicitor McCabe, for while he
admitted that the solicitor did not
pass on scientific questions in the
cases. he told the committee that
would like TO have a law officer
there in my bureau to collaborstc in
these cases and I would welcome n
law officer OF sympathetic views with
my own. about what the law is
We nave heard no comment on the
TACT disclosed by the records OF the
hearings thai the secretary had re-
ported. up to July 10 OF this year,
2tS5 cases for prosecution and that
ll'2 Of them were prepared during
the past year and That some 500
cases were prosecuted during that
year. These facts ought Ia bc suf-
fCient TO convince any reasonable
man that the secretary of agriculture
and the department Of justice have
been energetic IN bringing yiolators
OF tie Law 10 account
What Records Show.
The records Of the hearings show
further that the version Of tho
changes made in notice OF judgment
No. t42 which was gwen 10 the pub
lie WAS distorted. Currency was given
10 The false statement that Solicitor
McCabe had altered the judgment
OF court The fact is that in re-
porting the violation TO the secretary,
the bureau OF chemistry did not make
any finding that the benzoate OF soda
in the particular food was a dele
terious or poisonous ingredient and
no hearing was given the defendants
oil any such charge. Secretary VIII
son sent the case 10 the department
OF justice on the charges reported by
the bureau of chemistry but The dis
lrict attorney inady ertcntly included
IN one count OF the information the
aNerment that benzoate OF soda pres
ent was an added deleterious and poi
sonous Ingredient, He followed this
aXerme mt with the statement that the
product had been Certified to him
as adulterated as aforesaid state
tnent which was untrue as the secro-
tarJ had not certified that the prod
uct was adulterated because il con-
tanned benzoatc of soda.
McCabe's 8 Testimony.
Solicitor McCabe told the committee
that when the notice of judgement
was prepared lie did not feel
Obliged to reproduce in publics-
Ton OF the department Of agri-
culture the mistake made bv
the. United States attorney Accord.
lnslN. the notice of judgment stated
the particulars In which the product
was adultcratrd as disclosed hy the
analysis and omitted "A statement al
tributed 10 the secretary Of ayrcul
made. wv
II Is certainly \ novel proposition,
mnlch WI not appeal 10 the aver
aS" cltlHen, that there is any obli-
Sallon on the government depart
luents 10 publish and circulate In
lheir bulletins facts known Ia he
false and passing the unjusti6abIe
INJURY down To manufacturers by re-
porting as condemned products on
the charge that they contain polsons.
When there is no evidences to sun
port HE charge. II is our judgment
MAJ, INA, tne department Of agriculture
would fail in its plain duty In issu-
ing Ting and other notices OF iudc-
mcnt. II il included in them state
Iments known by the department 10
Criticism Of Solicitor McCabc bc
cause he stated in notice Of iudg-
ment If2 the actual facts known 10
nus department does not rebound TO
,be credit of lis inspirers. It is high
know the facts regarding prosccu-
o., lions under the food law, but no good
can come from the dissemination VI
mlsiniormation regarding them.
Benzoate Of Soda Case.
Another subject of inquiry by the
committee OF congress. which gave
rise 10 misleading reports. WAS the
Indiana benzoat" ur soda case. An
apparent attempt was made To make
i, appear that Solicitor McCabc had
sYlghi 10 prevent DR.. Wiley from
testityins The reports Of the hear
ings show. however. that the solicI-
tor advised DIR. Wiley oil his opinion
That DIR. Wiley could not he com
PEELED 10 testify as an expert I'm the
case. This plainly left ii to DR.. WI
ley 10 decide whether he would ap-
The secretary told the committee
that Dr. Wiley knew very well he
could go 10 Indiana To testify ir he
wanted 10, and that II was absurd
10 try 10 make II appear that the
department had sought to prevent
him from testifyinG
The press reports which were sent
out from Washington while the hear
ings we're in progress were appar-
entity based on the theory that 1t is
prcposterous 10 have lawyer on
the board which handles food and
drug prosecution cases for the sec
retary IL needs no more than "A
passing glance at the law and the
reports OF the cases which have been
prosecuted up to the present time 60
show that there is work 10 be done
which, requires the attention of legal
ability OF "A high order. The law WAS
passed under the authority OF The
interstate commerce clause Of the
constitution, and IL is necessary to
know. in the first instance, In every
case. whether tho federal courts have
Jurisdiction OF the ofTcnse and of the
offender, The food and drugs act is
essentially a labelling law and fully
81 per cent OF thc cases which have
been presented 10 tho courts SO far
present questions Of labelling only.
Duties Of Solicitor,
In these cases. after chemists have
I.fcruiprI ly auniysiS ubai an az