Evening star., 1912-01-22

ciate chemist is not well defined in the
order of appointment or in the practice
of the department.. In his statement OF
his rank to your committee DR.. Dunlap
said that he was not over DIR. Wiley nor
was not under him; that is. that he was
not subject to his instructions. DR.. Wiley
stated that he considered DR.. Dunlap to
be his Wiley's) superior; and Secretary
Wilson. while stating that he considered
DR.. Wiley to be DR.. Dunlap's superior In
the bureau of chemistry, failed to specify
any particular duty which DIR. Dunlap
would be obligated to do at the instance
of DR.. Wiley as his superior officer.
THE vesting of two officials within
the same bureau with so nearly inde-
pendent and coordinate powers cannot
be conducive to harmonious relation
ship or unity of purpose and action.
Congress created the Office of chief
of bureau and vested 1t with the au-
thOrity over the bureau which that
rank usually implies. Any office which
tive order should be essentially in
ferior to that Of the chief. The crea-
tion of an associate with no admin
istrative duties except to consider all
correspondence, to overlook such In
vestigations as the associate may see
fit, and to undertake such travel In the
United States as the associate officer
may desire, with the privilege Of re-
porting directly to the Secretary rather
than through the chief, his superior
officer. presents, in the opinion of your
committee, a remarkable exercise of
executive discretion. 1t is the opinion
of your committee that discipline will
not be restored. the highest efficiency
secured and economy in administration
best promoted until this anomalous
condition Is rectified by clearly defin-
ing the duties of associate chemist
Not in Grant Of Power.
Referring to general order No. 14O.
giving Solicitor McCabe special control
of prosecutions. the report says:
TT has the effect to give the solicitor
the special control over the preparation
of cases for presentment to the De-
partment of Justice which was vested
in the board of food and drug inspec-
tion, this control including the power
to abate the cases prepared in the bu-
reau Of chemistry.
LAS this change is of great conse-
quence in the administration of the law,
your committee gave this feature care
full attention, and is of the opinion that
the provisions Of said order extending
to the solicitor the special control of
seeks to contravene or modify the
terms of the rules and regulations
adopted and promulgated by the three
Secretaries is not within the grant OF
ton act of 191O.'' Solicitor McCabe
claimed his power under this act.
Under the terms of this order" the
report continues. ''all the evidence in
all cases examined in the bureau OF
chemistry, together with such summaries
ferred to the solicitor to determine
whether or not prima facie case has
been made. The evidence before your
committee establishes that only one case
reau of chemistry presents evidence Of
adulteration or misbranding within the
meaning of the law. Under the regu-
lations. cases not disclosing adultera-
tion or misbranding should be dropped
in the bureau. which. In the opinion of
your committee, 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-
maries in the bureau of chemistry and
their further study in the solicitors s
Office. Your committee is therefore Of
the opinion that general order No. 40
should be modified accordingly by the
honorable Secretary"
Faults of Remsen Board.
The Remsen referee board, around
which much Of the Investigation centered
last summer, is held to be legally con-
stituted, but it's activities as a super
vising power over the bureau of chemistry
are declared to be outside of the law
This board was created by President
Roosevelt, and is composed of eminent
chemists to whom are referred debated
questions arising under the pure food
law. 1t reversed DR.. Wiley's findings on
'benzoate of soda. and has before II other
questions which the committee declares
properly belong to the bureau Of chem
istry.
Concerning the referee board the re-
port says:
sidered In this connection and to the ne
cessity, wisdom or sound policy Of main
tanning such board at a heavy expense
to the government when the work done
by 1t is largely duplication Of work per-
formed or which might be performed by
the bureau Of chemistry. The functions
of this board as at present constituted are
purely advisory. Their decisions can
have no legal or binding effect upon any,
body. The Secretary can follow or ig-
1.-The honorable Secretary seems to have
regarded the findings Of the board as con-
elusive in all cases over the opinions and
findings of the bureau of chemistry, the
tribunal which by express terms of stat
ute is vested with authority to determine
the questions of adulteration and mis-
branding within the meaning of the act
Under the practice of the department
the decisions of the bureau Of chem
istry. IL in opposition to the findings
and opinions of the referee board, can
not be referred to the courts and thus
permit a judicial decision to be made,
as is comprehended under the plain
provision of the law.
ut Is the opinion of your committee
that a board exercising functions such
as are exercised by the referee board. its
decisions being given such far-reaching
effects by the honorable Secretary, ought
not to rest upon tne autnority OF