The Washington herald., 1911-08-18

experts arc held among colleagues. was
told by DR.. wiley that they stood high
among scientists.
But not nearly so high now" said the
DOCTOR with smile. ''as they did be-
fore they rendered that decision on BEN
/ zoate Of soda"
But" he added. "the experiments upon
which they based their decision were not
made by themselves
A point which interested the committee
greatly bore upon the statement made by
DR.. Wiley that 5000 cases a year are
prepared and studied. and that, while
LOO of these have been thrown out by
the Solicitor as not being worthy Of con-
| sidering, that official now has some /, 800
| cases before him upon which no decision
has been given, so far as DR.. Wiley
knows.
Expert Called from Trial.
That many of the cases that were
thrown out were identical with some
others that had been taken into court
and won, caused the committee to ask
DR.. Wiley to bring a list Of these with
him when he goes to the committee to-
day. The doctor was able to cite the
Scotch Oats case, which was misbrand-
ing because the oats were not Scotch
and never saw Scotland, nor was there
any place named on the package to in
dicate where they were made. That
case was tried out in Arkansas, but the
government expert who went down there
to testify on behalf of the department
was called or by Solicitor McCabe by
telegraph. Yet on the strength OF what
he told the district attorney at Little
Rock. the case was won by the govern
ment.
Apparently this was not in accord with
the wishes of Solicitor McCabe, for when
a little later a case of Scotch Brand
Oats was brought up for consider alton.
Solicitor McCabe refused to prosecute
Yet. the last thing that Attorney Henry
E. Davis brought out at the investiga-
ton was that by order Of Solicitor Nc
Cabe a quantity of India relish was
seized on the ground that 1t was mis-
branded because 1t was not made In India.
Further. It was shown that no seizure
shall be made without having the matter
brought before the board and giving the
party accused an opportunity for a hear
ing. So far as DR.. Wiley, the chairman
Of this board, knew, this had never been
done.
Members OF the committee will want
to know why Scotch cats, put up by
firm in the United States, but with no
statement on the package telling where
they are made, are not subject to prose-
cution by the Solicitor Of the pure food
and drug board when the courts of Ar
kansas say they are; yet an India relish,
put up in packages, stamped with the
makers name and address, plainly set
ting forth where and by whom made, is
subject to seizure by the Solicitor of the
board without giving the manufacturer
an opportunity to appear before the board
as the law clearly provides shall be first
done.
Much amusement was afforded by the
description given by Dr. Wiley of an
arrangement to expedite the work of the
board In taking votes. He had told how.
when DR.. Dunlap had discovered that IN
about 100 cases he had disagreed with the
opinion Of Solicitor McCabe, he had has
tened to reverse his opinion SO as to vote
the way the Solicitor did.
The voting order originally was:
Wiley. Dunlap. McCabe. But it was
then changed to Wiley, McCabe, Dunlap.
The effect Of this was to greatly faciii-
tate the business of the board by saw
ing the time previously taken In revers-
Ing votes" said DR. Wiley.
possible solution of the difficulties
which beset the work Of the board was
offered by Representative French, who
outlined plan to DR.. Wiley whereby