difficulties which attend the securing of pure food. In the present state of affairs there is such a difference in State and municipal laws as to constitute a perfect legal maze. Manufacturers and dealers in sophisticated goods who wish to be honest, and we may assume that they all do, are confronted with a different state of affairs in almost every State of the Union. One of the strongest reasons for pure-food legislation lies in the fact that such legislation would be accepted as a standard or guide in the making of new laws, and would also be a potent factor in securing modifications of all existing laws so as to approach a harmonious system.

Another matter, which is of interest from a legal and medical point of view, is the method now in vogue of employing experts. It is evident that the best results from expert testimony will be reached only when the court and not the litigant is the employing party. What we most want in such testimony is facts, and these are difficult to get from ex parte evidence even if it be of an expert character. It appears.to me, therefore, that the best service which can be rendered just now to the cause of pure food would be to secure the enactment of the Hepburn bill, or some similar measure, into a law. In my opinion there is no public agitation which will result in greater good than that which relates to the purity of foods. Life is the strongest passion of the race, and yet we find ourselves taking little interest in that factor which, more than any other, affects and lengthens all our lives. Pure food, well prepared and well digested, will add many years to the average life of man, while at the same time it will make his life freer from disease and more productive of good; his powers will be conserved; his happiness increased, and his sojourn on earth made more useful and grateful in every way.

A very complete view of the extent of adulteration practiced in food products has been prepared by the Secretary of Agriculture at the request of the Senate Committee on Manufactures and is submitted as Exhibit 1 of this paper. An extensive investigation of the practices of food adulteration in the United States was undertaken about two years ago by the Senate Committee on Manufactures and is submitted as reference, Exhibit 2, of this paper, viz, Senate Report No. 516, submitted to the Senate February 28, 1900, and printed to accompany Senate Resolution 447, Fifty-fifth Congress." This testimony has been summarized and briefed by the Industrial Commission, and printed as Senate Document No. 141, Fifty-fifth Congress, second session. A copy of this report is submitted as Exhibit No. 3 of this paper.

The particular attention of the committee is requested to pages 137 to 154 inclusive of this report, and also to the digest of the laws of the several States of the United States, on pages 154 and following of the report referred to. It is stated on pages 137 and 138 that—

In many cases the language used in these later laws is practically identical in the different States. After defining food in a broad manner, especially so as to include articles of drink, they usually declare that food shall be deemed adulterated in the following cases:

First, if any substance or substances have been mixed with it, so as to reduce or lower or injuriously affect its quality or strength; second, if an inferior or cheaper substance or substances have been substituted wholly or in part for it; third, if any valuable constituent have been wholly or in part abstracted from it; fourth, if it is an imitation of or sold under the name of another article; fifth, if it consists wholly or in part of a diseased, decomposed, putrid, or rotten animal or vegetable substance,

a Not intended for republication, but only for reference.

whether manufactured or not; sixth, if it is colored, coated, polished, or powdered whereby damage is concealed, or if it is made to appear better or of greater value than it really is; seventh, if it contain any added poisonous ingredient or any ingredient which may render it injurious to the health of a person consuming it.

The above quotation shows that in the later and more comprehensive laws of several States, the language used for defining adulteration is almost exactly similar to that which is found in the Hepburn bill of to-day.

The more important features of the pure-food laws of foreign nations have been studied and abstracted by the Bureau of Chemistry of the Department of Agriculture, for the purpose of aiding that Bureau in executing the laws of Congress in regard to the character of imported food products and of exported food products from this country to countries where chemical and physical tests are required of food products before they are admitted for sale. This information is published in Bulletin 61, of the Bureau of Chemistry, and is submitted as Exhibit 4, of this paper.

A digest of the pure food and drug laws of the United States and foreign countries, together with court decisions affecting same, has been prepared by Senator Mason, of the Committee on Manufactures of the Senate, and printed as Report No. 3, Fifty-seventh Congress, first session. A copy of this report is submitted as Exhibit No. 5, of this paper.

The committee has already learned of the indorsement which the Hepburn bill has received. It is set forth in the Report No. 1426, Fifty-sixth Congress, first session, to accompany the favorable report made by this committee of the Brosius bill of the last Congress. This report was written by Mr. Barham, and is made a part of this paper as Exhibit 6. On page 6 of this report is found the list of the organized bodies which have indorsed this measure, viz: The American Chemical Society, The American Medical Society, American Bee Keepers' Association, American Pomological Society, American Pharmaceutical Society, Association of American Agricultural Colleges and Experiment Stations, Association of Dairy and Food Commissioners, Association of Official Agricultural Chemists, National Confectioners' Association, National Board of Trade, National Grange, National Alliance and Industrial Union, National Retail Grocers' Association, National Millers' Executive Committee, National Pure Food Association, National Preservers and Sirup Refiners' Association, National Retail Liquor Dealers' Association, Proprietary Association of America, United States Brewers' Association, Woman's Christian Temperance Union, Wholesale Druggists' Association.

So far, no evidence has been presented to this committee to show that any of these associations has withdrawn its support from this

measure.

It will be useful to mention here a few points connected with the genesis of the Hepburn bill. One of the earliest bills regulating interstate commerce in food products which was presented to the Congress of the United States was S. 279, Fifty-first Congress, first session, introduced by Senator Faulkner. The cause of the pure-food bill in the Senate of the Fifty-first Congress was championed by Senator Paddock, who introduced a substitute for the Faulkner bill on February 28, 1890. Various amendments and other changes were made in this bill during the Fifty-first Congress and also in the Fifty-second Congress,

and the bill was finally passed by the United States Senate on March 9, 1892. This bill was immediately introduced into the House of Representatives on the 11th of March, 1892, under the title S. 1, Report No. 914, and referred to the Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee. On March 15, 1892, the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce was discharged from further consideration of the bill and it was referred to the Committee on Agriculture. On March 29, 1892, the Committee on Agriculture made a favorable report of this bill, and it was placed upon the Calendar of the House.

This historical sketch represents the most nearly successful attempt ever made by the Congress of the United States to enact a national pure-food law. It was found impossible to get a consideration of this bill in the House, under the rules which then existed, and thus the consummation of the legislation was prevented. The bill thus placed upon the Calendar of the House is the direct ancestor of the Hepburn bill; in fact, more than that can be said: It is practically the Hepburn bill. It may be of utility to the members of this committee to have this bill in convenient form to compare with the bill No. 9677, which was favorably reported from this committee with a few amendments and placed upon the Calendar of the House.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That for the purpose of protecting the commerce in food products and drugs between the several States and in the District of Columbia and in the Territories of the United States and foreign countries, the Secretary of Agriculture shall organize the chemical division of the Department of Agriculture into a bureau of chemistry, which shall have the direction of the chemical work of the present division of chemistry and of the chemical work of the other Executive Departments whose respective heads may apply to the Secretary of Agriculture for such collaboration, and which shall also be charged with the inspection of food and drug products, as hereinafter provided in this Act. The Secretary of Agriculture shall make necessary rules and regulations for carrying out the provisions of this Act, under which the director of the bureau of chemistry shall pro

[S. 1. (Report No. 914.) In the House of Representatives, March 11, 1892.]

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That for the purpose of protecting the commerce in food products and drugs between the several States, the District of Columbia, and the Territories of the United States and foreign countries, the Secretary of Agriculture shall organize in the Department of Agriculture a section to be known as the food section of the chemical division, and make necessary rules governing the same, to carry out the provisions of this Act under direction of the chief chemist, whose duty it shall be to procure from time to time, under rules and regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary of Agriculture, and analyze or cause to be analyzed or examined samples of foods and drugs offered for sale in any State or Territory other than where manufactured or in a foreign country, provided the same be in original or unbroken packages. The Secretary of Agriculture is hereby authorized to employ such chemists,