The seller must take upon himself the right of knowing that the article of food he offers for sale is not adulterated. State vs. Smith, 10 Rhode Island, 260.

One who does a thing forbidden by statute is liable to the punishment imposed by it though in doing the act he has no evil intent, unless the statute makes intent an element of the crime. State vs. Zeichfeld, 23 Nev., 304; Haggerty vs. St. Louis Ice Co., Mo., 238.

Under an Ohio statute prohibiting the sale of an adulterated article of food, it was held not essential to prove that the accused had knowledge of such adulteration. State vs. Kelley, 54 Ohio, 166. In which case the court says: "If the statute had imposed upon the state the burden of proving knowledge of adulteration it would thereby have defeated its declared purpose."

In Michigan it was held under a similar statute, "that proof of a guilty knowledge or intent is not essential to conviction.' People vs. Snowberger, 113 Mich., 86.

The supreme court of Wisconsin holds, "When a statute does not make intent an element of offense, but commands an act to be done or omitted, with a culpability, ignorance of the fact or state of things does not excuse the violator." State vs. Hatwell, 24 Wis., 60.

Under a Massachusetts statute one may be convicted of selling adulterated milk although he did not know it to be adulterated. Commonwealth vs. Farren, 9 Allen, 10; Commonwealth vs. Smith, 103 Mass., 444. In case of State vs. Schenker, 112 Iowa, 642, Judge Deemer, delivering the opinion says: "It is not enough to show that the defendant did not intend to defraud, or that the milk he sold was wholesome. If it were true almost any law intended to protect the public health and safety might be overthrown. It is enough that adulterations such as prescribed by statute, may defraud or prove deleterious to the public health or comfort. The legislature may well determine that the adulteration of milk tends to facilitate vicious practices and it ought to be prohibited. To defeat the act prohibiting such conduct it is not enough to show that in the particular case the article sold was innocuous. Criminal intent is not an essential element of the offense described in the statute and need not be shown in order to justify conviction."

It is generally conceded that ignorance and carelessness in the sale of food stuffs is a menace to health and ought to be restricted by proper penalties. And that the legislature has the power to eliminate from the offense the element of intent and thus greatly increase the efficacy of the law.

GUARANTY.

There is a provision in the national food and drug act: "that no dealer shall be prosecuted under the provisions of the act when he can establish a guaranty signed by the wholesaler, jobber, manufacturer or other party residing in the United States, from whom he purchased such articles, to the effect that the same is not adulterated or misbranded within the meaning of the act, designating it. Such guaranty to afford protection shall contain all the names and addresses of the party or parties making the sale of such articles to such dealer, and in such case said party or parties, shall be amenable to the prosecutions, fines or other penalties which would attach in due course to the dealer under this act."

The question arises as to the constitutionality of incorporating such a provision in a state law.

A state has no jurisdiction over non-residents, so that if a general guaranty clause was included in a state law providing for the guaranty to be signed by a wholesaler, jobber or manufacturer either in the state or without the state there could be no way for enforcing the guaranty as to those residing without the state, and would be a discrimination against those residing within the state, and a provision limiting the guaranty to the manufacturer or jobber residing in the state would appear to be clearly unconstitutional. A statute which discriminates in favor of the products of our own state by permitting the sale of them on terms more favorable than are granted for sale of similar articles produced in other states is plainly unconstitutional under the decisions of the supreme court of the United States: Welton vs. Missouri, 91 U. S., 123; Hannibal R. R. Co. vs. Huesen, 95 U. S., 465; Tiernan vs. Rinker, 102 U. S., 123.

Any local regulation which in terms or by its necessary operation denies to owners of articles of commerce in other states the right to compete in the market of the state upon terms of equality with the owners of like articles within the state, is when applied to the people and products or industries of other states a direct burden upon commerce among the states, and therefore void. Brimmer vs. Rebman, 138 U. S., 82; Voight vs. Wright, 141 U. S., 63.

Where compliance with the requirements of the statute is impossible to the non-resident dealer and its enforcement against him would operate as a practical prohibition of his business, particularly if the regulation is not impossible of performance to the resident who is engaged in the same business, the regulation will be declared to be an unconstitutional interference with interstate commerce. Minnesota vs. Barber, 136 U. S., 313.

The purpose of the commerce clause of the constitution is to prevent discrimination in favor of local products. Kehror vs. Stewart (Ga.), 44 S. E., 854.

"All persons other than resident manufacturers or their agents, selling articles manufactured in the state, shall pay the specific license tax imposed by this section," held a clear case of discrimination in favor of home manufacturers and against the manufacturers of other states. Webber vs. Virginia, 103 U. S., 344.

In the exercise of its public powers a state may exclude from its territory or prohibit the sale therein of any articles, which in its judgment fairly exercised, are prejudicial to the health or which would injure the lives or property of its people. But if the state under the guise of exercising its police powers, should make such exclusion or prohibition applicable solely to articles of that kind, that may be produced or manufactured in other states, the court will find no difficulty in holding such legislation to be in conflict with the constitution of the United States. Guy vs. Baltimore, 100 U. S., 434.

So that a guaranty clause in a state law either general or limited would probably be declared to be unconstitutional.

The Iowa law only imposes a money fine on the offender. From the nature of things the retailer is the person upon whom the punishment must primarily rest. The restrictions in a state law apply almost solely to the retailer. He may be advised by the manufacturer or jobber that the goods he sells will comply with the state law, and he may have no intent to vio

late the law in any particular, and in such a case it seems a hardship to bring his violation to the attention of a court. But as the punishment is only a money fine he can, without the aid of a statutory provision, if a person of prudence, fully protect himself in the due and ordinary course of business, by requiring before purchasing and receiving goods, a guaranty from the manufacturer or jobber, that the goods purchased comply in all respects to the law and stipulating therein to hold him harmless for any penalties imposed, or costs incurred for the violations in the sale or keeping with intent to sell such goods. This requirement in due course of trade is generally exacted by the retailer of the wholesaler, and the wholesaler of the manufacturer. So that the fine and costs in course of business eventually falls upon the manufacturer or packer, who alone is in position to know that his products comply with the law.

COLORING.

On the grounds of protection of health and the prevention of fraud, coloring of certain articles of food is prohibited. In numerous statutes coal tar and other poisonous colors are prohibited in confectionery and other food products as a menace to health.

Some twenty-three states have laws prohibiting the adding of any coloring matter to vinegar. In New York a law prohibiting the coloring of vinegar even with artificial coloring not injurious in any way to health was sustained. 145 N. Y., People vs. Girard.

The statutes of New Hampshire and West Virginia requiring oleomargarine to be colored pink so as to make deception impossible was upheld. State vs. Marshall, 64 New Hampshire, 549; State vs. Meyer, 42 West Virginia, 822.

The supreme court of the United States decided that the New Hampshire statute was void so far as it interfered with interstate commerce on the ground that to require an added foreign substance to an article of food whereby it is rendered unsalable is in reality not regulation but prohibition. Collins vs. New Hampshire, 171 U. S., 30.

The supreme court of the United States held a Massachusetts statute prohibiting the coloring of oleomargarine in semblance of yellow butter, valid, as a legitimate police regulation although affecting interstate commerce. Plumley vs. Massachusetts, 155 U. S.. 461.

The coloring of oleomargarine with annatte, a harmless color, under a New Jersey statute, was declared a valid prohibition. State vs. Newton, 50 N. J., 534. It belongs to the legislature to exercise the police power of a state subject to the power of the courts to decide the constitutionality of any particular law. The unconstitutionality of a state enactment under the police power should be plainly apparent for a court to interpose its authority, as well stated by Judge Harlan in Plumley vs. Massachusetts, 155 U. S., 461. "The judiciary of the United States should not strike down a legislative enactment of a state, especially if it has direct connection with the social order, the health and the morals of its people unless such legislation plainly and palpably violates some right granted under the national constitution or encroaches upon the authority delegated to the United States for attainment of objects of national concern."

LEGISLATIVE POWERS.

It is within the constitutional power of the legislature to establish regulations for prevention of fraud in the sale of articles of food, it is generally for the

legislature to determine what regulations are needed for that purpose. Cooley on Constitutional Limitations, 168.

The state has the right to regulate or prohibit the sale of such articles of food as the legislative function of government shall, in its wisdom, deem necessary to regulate or prohibit. Powell vs. Pennsylvania, 127 U. S., 678.

While a state may not have power to totally exclude an article of interstate commerce it may so regulate the introduction of an imported article as to insure purity. Schollenberger vs. Pennsylvania, 175 U. S., I.

A statute requiring the labeling of lard substitutes and compounds so as to show the nature and ingredients of the article offered for sale, was declared a valid exercise of the police power. State vs. Aslesen, 50 Minn., 5; State vs. Snow, 81 Iowa, 642.

The legislature has the undoubted power to fix positive standards to prevent fraud or evasion and difficult controversies as to facts provided they are reasonable in their purport and application.

The legislature may fix an arbitrary standard and declare that all milk falling below that standard is impure or adulterated. State vs. Campbell, 64 N. H.,

402.

The sale of milk adulterated with water, though water be of the purest water, may be prohibited. State vs. Graves, 15 R. I., 208; People vs. West, 106 N. Y., 293.

The police powers of a state extends to prohibition of the sale of articles imitative of food substances, though they are not injurious to health. Powell vs. Pennsylvania, 127 U. S., 678; Walker vs. Pennsylvania, 127 U. S., 69; State vs. Snow, 81 Iowa, 641.

PUBLICITY.

Under the Iowa law as well as the laws of some of the other states, the officers charged with the enforcement are authorized to procure samples of food products shipped into the state or offered for sale in the state, for examination chemically and microscopically or otherwise, and to issue printed bulletins of such examination and analyses, which bulletins are furnished the newspapers of the state and otherwise generally distributed. A manufacturer, jobber or dealer, residing outside the state, is not amenable to the direct enforcement of a state law, for goods shipped into a state under the commercial clause. So that the only power that a state can invoke is the indirect one of publicity. Prior to the enactment of the national law this was the only means that adulterated articles of food shipped into the state by nonresident manufacturers or dealers could be even indirectly reached and the public made aware of the a lulterations and impurities in such food stuffs.

Publicity, while an indirect result, is a powerful force. A purchaser desires to know what he is purchasing and will hesitate to purchase unwholesome or adulterated articles if advised of their true character.

Many practices cannot stand the light of publicity, and this is often a stronger force than positive regulation and restraint, in bringing about the desired standards of conduct and acquiescence in the requirements of the law.

TRADE FORMULAS.

Both the state and national laws have this provi sion: Nothing in this act shall be construed as requiring or compelling proprietors or manufacturers of proprietary foods, which contain no unwholesome

added ingredient, to disclose their trade formulas except so far as the provisions of this act may require freedom from adulterations or misbrandings.

There are some things about trade formulas that ought not to be too greatly guarded. The public certainly has the right to know whether there are any deleterious or poisonous substances in any compound or mixture used as food.

The Minnesota supreme court has gone so far as to say: "That no man has the right to keep secret the composition of a substance which he sells as an article of food." State vs. Aslesen, 50 Minn., 5.

The provisions of the state pure food law has been extended so as to include the adulterations and misbrandings of paints, oils and agricultural seeds.

There are no more important measures affecting all the people than those pertaining to protection of the public health and the prevention of imposition and fraud in the manufacture and sale of food products. There has been great advancement in this field of legislation in recent years. The national food and drug act and the meat inspection act and the late enactments in many states meet the universal public demand for good and efficient pure food laws and which are being generally observed by the manufacturers and dealers in legitimate and wholesome goods.

CUSTOM DECISION. (T. D. 28275-)

CHEMICAL GLASSWARE.

Appeal directed from decision of Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 15582 (T. D. 28223), involving dutiable classification of volumetric flasks, Stohman's stopper flasks, etc.

Treasury Department, June 24, 1907. Sir: The department is in receipt of a decision of the Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 15582 (T. D. 28223), dated May 28, 1907, wherein it is held that certain "volumetric" flasks and Stohman's stopper flasks. also articles composed of blown glass and fitted with adjuncts of india rubber and other materials, are not dutiable as blown glassware at 60 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 100, but are properly dutiable as bottles under paragraph 99 and as manufactures of glass under paragraph 112, respectively.

In view of the importance of the issue, you are hereby directed to file an application for review, in accordance with the provisions of section 15 of the customs administrative act of June 10, 1890.

HON. BYRON W. NEWBERRY.

In another part of this issue we are printing an address on Pure Food Laws delivered before the Iowa State Bar Association at Davenport, la., February 12, by Byron W. Newberry, senator from the Thirty-sixth Iowa district, composed of Clayton county, who was born at Brawnhelm, Lorain county, Ohio, on September 1, 1853. His parents, who were both natives of the state of New York, came to Iowa in 1855 and settled on a farm near Strawberry Point, in Clayton county, where he was reared. He was educated in the public schools and Upper Iowa University, from which institution he graduated in 1875. He

attended the Law Department of the State University as a member of the class of 1876. In 1877 he located at Strawberry Point in the practice of law. In 1887 he formed a partnership with his brother, Charles W. Newberry, in the law business, which partnership still exists under the firm name of Newberry Brothers. He has been an officer of the Strawberry State Bank since its organization in 1883, and now holds the position of president of said bank. He was elected senatcr from the Thirty-sixth district in 1903, and served

in the Thirtieth, Thirty-first and Thirty-second General Assemblies. He was married to Miss Eva M. Buckley on December 30, 1907. A Republican in politics.

Senator Newberry was one of the leading members of the legislature in the Thirty-first and Thirty-second General Assemblies, and fathered the pure food bill in the senate and succeeded in having it passed in the Thirty-first General Assembly. In the Thirty-second General Assembly he introduced amendments to the pure food bill, also was the author of the pure paint bill, the drug act and the law regulating the sale of concentrated commercial feeding stuffs and agricultural seeds, all of which were put on the statute bcoks by the Thirty-second General Assembly, largely through the efforts of the senator from Clayton.

Senator Newberry is six feet and three inches tall, possesses a pleasing personality and enjoys a large circle of friends.

SCIENTIFIC

A NEW METHOD FOR PREVENTING CHAR IN
THE BABCOCK CENTRIFUGAL DETERMI.

NATION OF FAT IN MILK AND
MILK PRODUCTS.

M. L. HOLM, PH. C., M. D., CHEMIST CHICAGO DEPART-
MENT OF HEALTH.

Every chemist who has used the Babcock centrifugal method for fat determination has experienced the difficulty of obtaining clear fats, and without clear fats there can be no uniformity in results, and the accuracy is seriously impaired.

The Principle of the Test.-When strong sulphuric acid is mixed with an equal volume of milk a complete solution of the protein is effected, with separation of the fat. This fat is raised into the graduated neck of a bottle with hot water, which keeps the fat melted, from which it may be read and recorded.

Cause of Difficulty.-If sulphuric acid be too weak the protein is only partially dissolved, the undissolved portion mixing with fat and increasing its volume. If the sulphuric acid be too strong a marked charring of the organic constituents will result. By carefully adjusting the strength of the acid and as carefully proportioning same to the quantity of milk, satisfactory results may be obtained but, even then, the results vary greatly with conditions. For instance, the strength and proportion which will give clear fats on an average day in winter may show a marked char in the summer; likewise, without any temperature change, a clear fat may be obtained from a watered milk, while a sample with a high per cent of solids will show considerable char.

The char obtained may be from one or all of three sources, viz., carbohydrates, proteins and fats. A black, foamy char is obtained from the carbohydrates, and is one of the most troublesome. If the proportion of carbohydrates be artificially increased, as by addition of starch, dextrine, gums, or sucrose, we find it to be impossible to obtain clear fats, as any proposition of sulphuric acid sufficient to dissolve the proteins will always char the carbohydrates. A flocculent, brownish colored char is from the casein. It may be obtained when the carbohydrates are present only in small quantity and the casein jet practically normal chemically, as in the analysis of cottage cheese, etc. A fat char may be produced either when the acid is considerably above the required strength or at the zone of contact between the acid in the bottom of the bottle and the milk above, when there is unusual delay before mixing. Evidence of fat char is a brownish translucent fat, in which cases duplicate analysis. often show the reading to have been markedly low. Any of above chars when present are very annoying to the practical dairy chemist, because they are generally more or less intimately mixed with the fat, and it becomes, under such circumstances, impossible to determine how much is char and how much should be actually read as fat.

How to Prevent Char.-The sulphuric acid must be of proper dilution. I find the ordinary commercial sulphuric acid quite satisfactory. This has an average specific gravity of about 1.832 at 15° C. It has

the advantage of being cheap and usually requires no dilution.

Technique.-176 cc. of milk is measured into a Babcock milk bottle or 18 gms. of cream is weighed into a cream bottle. Then by means of a dip pipette, add 2 cc. of a mixture of glycerin 80 parts and water 20 parts, by volume, so that it will run down the inside of the neck of the bottle and under the milk; 176 cc. of commercial sulphuric acid is then added to each bottle, being run in with the least possible agitation of contents. The acid will form a layer beneath the glycerin which separates it from the milk, and mechanically prevents char formation by the concentrated acid upon the milk before the bottle is rotated. The contents of the bottle are then mixed by rotation and swing in the centrifuge as usual.

The water is added to the glycerin to make it flow more freely, being of higher gravity than the milk and lower than the acid the mixture forms a protecting layer between the milk and the acid while the latter is being added and before the concentrated acid can be more thoroughly diffused by rotation, thus avoiding what is undoubtedly an important source of char. It increases the dilution without materially increasing the amount of water and does not, therefore, cause any separation of casein which an equal volume of water would if similarly added. The glycerin also The glycerin is perfectly miscible with water and sulphuric more rapid separation of the fat. acid in all proportions, and practically without action upon the acid in that dilution. It is immiscible with fat, and does not interfere with the acid in acting. simultaneously as a test for formalin.

causes a

Household Science

THE CAPITOL KITCHENS.

BY CHARLES JAMES FOX, PH. D. By the enactment last winter of the Pure Food Law the National Congress at Washington has made its direct influence felt in the kitchen of every household throughout the country. Among the many progressive steps made in the direction of modern hygiene and sanitation within the last decade, none will be productive of more lasting and beneficial results than that clause on our national statute books which calls for

the sanitary kitchen obligatory. It has, however, set an excellent example in the construction of its own kitchens in both the House and Senate wings of the national capitol. The floors and walls of these kitchens are completely covered with tile which, as an inorganic, non-porous material, cannot absorb the numerous foreign animal and vegetable matter which necessarily becomes spilled or spattered on the floor and walls of every kitchen. The unsanitary kitchen is one which has the floor and walls of wood or some other organic and porous material, which absorbs in the wood itself and in the cracks between the boards, a large amount of dirt and filth which soon propagates myriads of vegetable micro-organisms, among them many dangerous disease germs, which are always lia

a rigid inspection of Federal officers of all foods which become the object of interstate commerce. The new law has been put into such immediate and complete execution that already countless poisonous concoctions which had been masquerading under the names of food or medicine and were being forced upon an unsuspecting public by a diligent system of deceptive advertising, have been thrown out of the market, and their manufacturers compelled to seek other and more. honest, though perhaps less lucrative, occupations.

To complete the purpose of the Pure Food Law it is necessary to second this national reform in our food products by a reform equally as great in the construction of the kitchens in which food is prepared for the table. Congress, of course, cannot pass a law making

ble to infect the foods that are ever present in the kitchen. No amount of scrubbing is able to do more than keep these wooden floors simply looking clean. Most of the bacteria which infest these absorbent floor and wall coverings need moisture, and the very washing which is intended to clean the floors supplies this necessary moisture.

One of the greatest reforms in sanitary buildings of the last generation has been the almost universal adoption of the inorganic floor and wall covering for the bathroom. The modern bathroom, with its open plumbing fixtures and its tiled floor and walls is a model of sanitary perfection. The kitchens and butler's pantries, however, in many of our finest residences, have not kept pace with this progress. Yet