The Washington times., 1911-08-07
'CABE DREW
LAW THAT TOOK
+. W|LEYS POWER
Solicitor Makes Admission
Before House Investigat-
ing Committee.
Continued from First Page.)

you this power relating to prosecu-
tions?"
Il did," answered McCabe.
And who drew general order No 1iO,
giving you sole authority to interpret
and recommend action in all cases?'
II did," admitted McCabe Attorney
Davis settled back with a satisfied air.
Attorney Davis soon sprang another
order issued by McCabe, which read In
part:
NO recommendation relative to the
legal side of any case under the food
and drug act shall be made by any OF
ficer Of the department, except upon the
approval of the solicitor, obtained IN
advance"
A Chemists Rights.
ct infer from that" said Attorney
Davis, that as collector of the De-
partment you consider yourself as
connected with every branch and bu-
reau of the department, including the
Forestry Service?"
"Yes." answered Mr.. McCabe. Mr.. Nc
Cabe volunteered that he did not think
a chemist had any right to tackle
legal matters and that as solicitor
such research was solely under his
'I understand" said Attorney Davis.
shat you once rebuked a Mr.. Hillyer
because he was at the law library OF
Congress looking up some legal Ques-
ton"
the solicitor. II learned that Mr.. Hill
yer, who was a chemist had been at the
law library during office hours looking
up the legal definition of some term.
called Mr Hillyer into the office and
told him that all the legal work of the
department was TO be done in my office
under the Secretary's orders, and told
him that I expected the regulation to
be observed"
"By My Office"
What right have you to attempt to
control the work of a person in an
other bureau?" demanded the Wiley at
torney.
The legal work is@supposed to be
done by my office" answered McCabe.
And so you think a chemist has no
right to look up legal definitions"
i do not think a chemist is compH-
tent to pass upon legal questions" an
Swered McCahe.
DO you claim you have right to
bring to book a chemist fr doing some
Thing away from his office and or dur
ing office hoUrs?'
sreak tc any employe of the Bureau of
Chemistry, or any other bureau o. the
department., when l am informed thaI
such an employe is doing law work aud
! object TO them doing it, tartly an
swered the solicitor.
Mr.. Davis then brought up again the
Solicitors letter to DR.. Wiley. under
date of January %, 1910, in which the
Solicitor had taken the pure food eX-
pert to task for not proceeding against
various "cure-alls" and patent rnedi-
cines on sale in the District of ColuH-
bia.
And here another case was developed,
where the Solicitor had gone over the
head of the chief of the Bureau OF
Chemistry.
Now in this letter." said Mr.. Davis.
you take DR.. Wiley to task Tor tIt nGt
you, Mr.. McCabe, II 1t is not true that
two months prior to this you yourself
had ordered a contiscation of five cases
Of HeInzs India redish?"
1.-The Bureau of Chemistry knew
nothing about this contiscation?"
'T am not sure" answered McCabe.
Now. be frank about il You know
inspection board were not consulted
Admits the Contention.
McCahc finally admitted that the at
torney might tie right.
Now" continued Davis, significantly,
'Hein5 was one Of the manufacturers
who was opposed to henzoate of soda
and fought the opinion Of the referee
board that benzoaie was harmless, was
rs not?"
"Yes. the Heinz people fought the de-
cision of the department aud also Wilt
fed the department" said McCabe'
rather impaIiently.
All" interjecIcd Mr.. Davis. so you
seized some of their products. Then
Two months later you write Mr.. Wiley
demanding 10 know why he doesn I
seize certain patent medicines why
didn't You seize them. Nj. -1CCabe, you
seized the India relish without consult
ing Ir WileV?"
Mr. McCaDe made an evasive answer
saving that the correspondence witt
DR.. Wiley spoke for itself. Mr; DAVIS
then inserted in the record another let
ter from McCabe to Wiley, this under
date of September 6. 1910 In this, Nc
Cabe informed the chief chemist that
he noted with alarm and surprise,
that there were 5000 nostrumS I'M
properly labeled.
In a subsequent paragraph, McCabe
siad. answering Wiley: .,,,
You know there are not in this
country 5000 misbranded 'cure-alls.
Merely an Assumption.
At this point, Attorney Davis said:
why did you assume to tell DR.
Wiley that he was not speaking the
TRUTH"
IT assumed that there couldn't be
25,OOO such remedies" replied McCabe
Yes, you assumed II, and yet you
are not a chemist and have had nc
experience in drugs?'
McCahe- admitted that he had not. u
&hink my record on the patent n:edlcint
0rcstiun is consistent" said MCCabe
"AtIer the Supreme Court decided INC
johnson case. declaring that The pure
food law did not touch the misbrand
ing of sach medicines, asked ,he Sec
letary to ask the President 20 reco1n'
mend an amendment of the law, and th%
President has 50 done.
Mr.. Davis stressed the point thai
after the lower court decided, as did the
Sur.re.nc Court later in the johnson
case, the Solicitor kept after" Dr,
Wiley about the patent medicines, anc
attempted to put his opinion above tina
Of the lower court.
There's no doubt in your mind nov
that the ma jnTitv opinion OF the Su
prcne Court If the Johnson case is EoV
law, is there?" asked Davis.
Yes. it's law" said McCabe.
Il believe the September letter Il
Dr. Wiley was written by you aftel
General Order No 140 became effec
tive?' suggested Mr. Davis. AT thu
time YOU were in sole charge OF pros
eCutions?"
McCabe's Activities.
Mr.. Davis then took up the par
.played by McCabe and other employe!
of the Department of Agriculture II
the 1909 Denver convention of Stat
Food, Drug and Dairy Commission
ers. at which convention ragged a bit