Page images
PDF
EPUB

law is no defense in such cases or in this case. If the seller could shield himself from the legal effects of his act by saying he did not know what the article was that he sold, the law might as well not have been passed. It would be a dead letter."

The ruling of the court is according to common sense, as it surely is voicing the intent and purpose of the statute. If proof of guilty knowledge constituted an essential part of the Commonwealth's case prosecutions for selling or offering for sale adulterated milk, the law as the court very properly said, "would be a dead letter," it would be practically inoperative. The experience of your Board under the knowingly clause of the Act of May 25, 1878, amply proves the soundness of the interpretation of pure food statutes by the Court.

In the case of the Commonwealth vs. Hufnal, in which an appeal from the verdict of the jury and the charge of Judge Hare in the Quarter Sessions, was taken to the Superior Court, the Judgment was affirmed. The defendant was tried, convicted and fined under the provisions of the Act of June 28, 1895, for selling separator" refuse for skimmed milk. The importance of this case will be understood when it is known that the Act of July 7, 1885, provides that skimmed milk shall contain not less than two and one-half (2.50) per centum of butter fat, whilst the article sold by the defendant contained onethird of one per cent. It is important, also, from the fact that it establishes a precedent in this Commonwealth, and be cited as authority in other States in similar cases.

The following statement shows the aggregate inspections, condemnations, etc., for the year 1896:

[blocks in formation]
[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

To provide against the adulteration of food, and providing for the enforcement thereof.

SECTION 1. Be it enacted, etc., That no person shall, within this State, manufacture for sale, offer for sale or sell any article of food which is adulterated within the meaning within the meaning of this act :

SECT. 2. The term "Food," as used herein, shall include all articles used for food or drink by man, whether simple, mixed or compound.

SECT. 3. An article shall be deemed to be adulterated within the meaning of this act.

(a) In the case of food: (1) If any substance or substances have been mixed with it so as to lower or depreciate or injuriously affect its quality, strength or purity. (2) If any inferior or cheaper substance or substances have been substituted wholly or in part for it. (3) If any valuable or necessary constituent or ingredient has been wholly or in part abstracted from it. (4) If it is an imitation of or is sold under the name of another article. (5) If it consists wholly or in part of a diseased, decomposed, putrid, infected, tainted or rotten animal or vegetable substance or article, whether manufactured or not, or in case of milk if it is the produce of a diseased animal. (6) If it is colored, coated polished or powdered, whereby damage or inferiority is concealed, or if by any means it is made to appear better or of greater value than it really is. (7) If it contains any added substance or ingredient which is poisonous or injurious to health: Provided, That the provisions of this act shall not apply to mixtures or compounds recognized as ordinary articles or ingredients of articles of food, if each and every package sold or offered for sale be distinctly labelled as mixtures or compounds, and are not injurious to health.

SECT. 4. Every person manufacturing, offering or exposing for sale or delivering to a purchaser any article of food included in the provisions of this act shall furnish to any person interested or demanding the same, who shall apply to him for the purpose and shall tender him the value of the same, a sample sufficient for the analysis of any such article of food which is in his possession.

SECT. 5. Whoever refuses to comply, upon demand, with the requirements of section four, and whoever violates any of the provisions of this act shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be fined not exceeding one hundred nor less than fifty dollars, or im

prisoned not exceeding ninety nor less than thirty days, or both, and any person found guilty of manufacturing, offering for sale, or selling any adulterated article of food under the provisions of this act shall be adjudged to pay, in addition to the penalties herein provided for, all necessary costs and expenses incurred in inspecting and analyzing such adulterated articles of which said person may have been found guilty of manufacturing, selling or offering for sale Provided, That all penalties and costs for the violation of the provisions of this act shall be paid to the Dairy and Food Commissioner, or his agent, and by him paid into the State Treasury, to be kept as a fund, separate and apart, for the use of the Department of Agriculture for the enforcement of this act, and to be drawn out upon warrant signed by the Secretary of Agriculture and the Auditor General.

SECT. 6. The agent of the Department of Agriculture, known as the Dairy and Food Commissioner, of this State, shall be charged with the enforcement of all the provisions of this act and shall have the same power to enforce the provisions of this act that is given him to enforce the provisions of the act by which he receives his appointment.

Approved the 26th day of June, A. D. 1895.

DANIEL H. HASTINGS.

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE CHEMIST.

DIVISION OF CHEMICAL ANALYSIS.

Philadelphia, January 19, 1897.

To the President and Members

of the Board of Health.

GENTLEMEN-After six years of service in the only chemical laboratory supported by the City, the work being limited to that authorized by the Board of Health, I feel it to be my duty to urge the question, "Why should not this laboratory be utilized by the Department of Public Works, and every other branch of the City service ?” Experimental and analytical work required by the Bureaus of Water, Gas, Surveys and Highways that could be performed as readily and as satisfactorily in this laboratory, which is furnished with physical and chemical apparatus adapted to the most comprehensive analytical work, is being sent at some expense to private chemists. The following letters are self-explanatory :

(1)

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS.

BUREAU OF WATER.

Philadelphia, January 30, 1897.

MR. WM. C. ROBINSON, JR.,

Chemist to the Bureau of Health.

DEAR SIR-Your favor of the 30th instant is at hand, with report of your analyses of Schuylkill water, for which

I am much obliged.

Yours respectfully,

JOHN C. TRAUTWINE, JR.,
Chief of Bureau.

« PreviousContinue »