The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1914-02-27
important Mo ifyirE Decisions by
the Federal Courts.

Auc cupIVme NOuTt VI Tue Culteu
States OH Tuesday handed down q de-
clsIon 90 constituting the pure food law
that the mere addition Of poisonous or
deleterious ingredients to food In not
held to be In Itself illegal. To sustain
a conviction for q violation Of the law
It will be necessary for the Government
to prove that the deleterious ingre,li-
ents referred to were present In SUM-
Client quantity to make the food injuri-
GUS to health. Heretofore all that II
has been considered necessary for the
Government to do was to show that q
certain quantity Of dcleterious ingre,li.
ents, even II only a minute quantity,
was present. Thus In the process
known ~ "bleachins" -four II was con-
cetled that one and eight-tenths PARTS
to Q million VI a poisonous substance
was added to the -four to produce the
bleacbbuR TIE. Justices. held. snl,
their decision II IN accord with COM
mon sense. that the burden Of proof
rested upon the Government to show
that 20 minute an admixture Ut poison
In any way affected the pure ami
healthful character Of the substance.
The far reaching effect Of the decision
IL obvious.
Another recent decision, which has
attracted but little notice. In which
much the same principle Is involved
and which IL even more important to
the business concerns Of the country.
Is that lately pronounced by the
United States Circuit Court sitting In
Philadelphia In what was known as
the Railway Reparation cases. These
cases were suits brought by independ-
ent coal shippers against some Of the
anthracite railway companies to re-
cover the difference between prices
charged by the railway companies for
transporting their coal and the prices
which the Interstate Commerce Com
mission allowed to be charged after q
lengthy Investigation. Let II be sup
posed, for illustration, that the rail-
way freight tariff rate for the carry.
Ing Of coal to tidewater was 81 a ton.
Complaint was made by the independ
ent coal producers that this was an
unjust charge and the Interstate Com
merce Commission reduced the freight
charge to so cents . ton. The indie
pendent coal people thereupOn sought
to recover from the railway companies
SO cents q ton on the coal transported.
this representing to them the damage
suffered by reason Of the Overcharge.
The figures given are. OF course. sup
pOsititious. Claims Of this kind have
been allowed without contest by the
railway companies for many years past
and vast sum Of money has been paid
back to shippers Of merchandise as a
result.
But the courts have now held. and
we think Justly, that there can be no
presumption that merely because
coal shipper was overcharged for the
transportation Of his coal II thereby
necessarily follows that such over
charge measures the amount Of the
actual damage sustained by him. A
further and necessary question Ii, Was
the shipper compelled to sell his coal
ut a disadvantage because Of this over
charge! The fact was, Of course. that
the shipper added the amount Of the
charge to the price at which he sold
his coal and was enabled to sell his
coal freely at the higher price thus es-
tablished. In theory he was damaged
hxy hn nunraho rU ht,t in 20 ha
not. At any rate. the court holds that
the shipper will have to establish
clearly the amount Of his damage be-
fore he can recover from the railway
companies.
All this tends to alter materially a
good deal Of the force and effect Of the
sumptuary laws that have been hastily
passed by Congress In recent years and
have been hastily and radically con-
strued by a considerable proportion Of
the community.
On Tuesday also the Supreme Court
Of the United States raised Its hand
against q procedure which has lately
run riot in the, administration Of crimi.
"us -" Ai tuaS sOuhesy tiV
seizure Of letters and private documents
Ut Q person accused Of crime for the
purpose Of using these documents In
evidence against him. The court
pointed out that II inluisitiOns Of this
sort were to he tolerated for the pur-
pose Of procuring evidence the prOtec-
tl0n Of the constitutional provision tliat
q citizen should be secure against un-
warrantable searches and seizures was
Of no value whatever. We shall watch
with great interest to see whether this
decision does or does not reflect the
mind Of the Supreme Court In the very
important Henry case now pending In
the court. which Involves the right Of
q committee Of Congress to ask a pri-
vate citizen practically any questions
II pleaSes. We are no bold as to hope
that government by inquisitiOn with Us
u approaching an end.
Why Shouldn't . Politician Take
Graft?
why should a politician refrain from