The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1912-01-22

spection. This control included power
to abate the cases prepared in the
Bureau of Chemistry. Discussing order
No. 40. the report says:
IF this order be not valid. 1t should
be modified in the interest of econom-
ical and efficient administration (a) be-
cause It gives the solicitor too dom
inant power over the important admin
issuing notices to hearing and Of
certifying the cases to the Department
Of Justice after the hearings have been
given; and tb) BECAUSE 1t increases the
cost of administration withoh CORE
spondingly increasing the efficiency of
the service. -'" W..
Under the terms of this order all the
evidence in all cases examined in the
Bureau of Chemistry, together with
such summaries as the solicitor may
prescribe. is referred 10 the solicitor
to determine whether or not a prinia
facic case has been made. The eyi-
dcnce, before your committee estaplSn-
Ell that only one Ease in three which
are examined in the Bureau OF Chem-
isty presents evidence OF adClteration
or Inisbrandng within the meaning OF
the law; Under the ,esnlations cases
ng should De dropped in the bureau,
which. in the opinion of your commit
tee. is the proper disposition TO be
made Of them. We are, at loss TO
understand what favorable results can
come from the preparation of such sum
maiies i'm the Bureau of Chemistry
and their further study In the solicitor S
order. Your committee Is, therefore
Of the opinion that general order No.
Ito should be modified accordingly by
the honorable Secretary
The recommendations concerning the
referee board are the most straight
forward and positive made In the son,e-
what even tempered and mild report
made by the House Committee. The
Investigating committee finds that the
board was created by Executive order
and without express provision of the
have beeen large: that Assistant Attor-
ncv General Fowler prepared a decision
for the Department OF Justice In Which
ne held there was no legal authority
for it's creation and maintenance: that
the decision was never promulgated, but
a favorable opinion by Solicitor Nc
Cabe substituted. and that thcA very
crux of the pllre food controversy lies
in the creation Of TINS unauthorized
court of review.
Cost of Referee Board.
1t has cost Sl7S.52792 to maintain the
referee board during the fiscal years
1908. !9G9, 1879, and 1871, the committee
reports.
The investigators agree that the
Remsen board sent three of It's mem
bcrs to take the part OF Curtice
Brothers and william Brotners, pen
zoate of soda users, during the ben.
zoate of soda fight in Indiana; that
| the Federal Government paid for the
| expenses of this interference In a
| State controversy and that the pay
| ment of these expenses by the De-
| partment of Agriculture was wholly
| without warrant of law.
The committee, quoting Supreme
| Court decision which denies to tnt
| Department of Agriculture ana its
| Bureau of Chemistry any judlcia
Authority in pure food disputes, says
that the Wiley buraau is an agency t.
secure evidence of the violation OF
| law and present 1T t\P the courts. why
then, asks the comnittee. should tht
Remsen board be ma intained at heavy
expense to the Government when it,
work is largely n Duplication Of the
| of the Bureau of chemistry? Tn!
| functions of such a bpard, 1t Is stated
are purely advisoryA yet. 1t Is de
clared, the Secretary \ of Agriculture
| has seemed to regard the findings o.
the referee board as conclusive.
Remsen Body Ought to Go.
The committee stresses the point II
the following language, Indicating
that the Remsen board ought to 60
unless the pure food law Is change'