Philadelphia, Baltimore & Washington Railroad Co., Dr., for charges on the articles named below: Draw check to order of the Philadelphia, Baltimore & Washington Railroad Co. Date, January 13, 1909. I. S. No. 21162-a. Received of John F. Earnshaw, inspector, $2.67, in payment of sample of Swamp Root, designated as I. S. No. 21162-a, which is a portion of shipment covered by submitted copy of invoice dated November 19, 1908, and freight memorandum dated F. A. TSCHIFFELY, Dealer. DOMESTIC-APPOINTMENT OF HEARING. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Mr. F. A. TSCHIFFELY, Jr., OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, Washington, D. C., May 20, 1909. ** * * * Prepared purchased from you 475 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: You are hereby notified that a specimen labeled "Dr. Kilmer's Swamp Root, the great kidney, liver, and bladder remedy. only by Dr. Kilmer & Co., Binghamton, N. Y. as Swamp Root on January 27, 1909, by an authorized inspector of this department and designated by him I. S. No. 21172-a, appears to be misbranded within the meaning of the food and drugs act, June 30, 1906, in that (1) the name "Swamp Root " is not justified from the analysis of the product; (2) the statements "The great specific * * kidney, liver, and bladder cure are unwarranted; (3) the statement "Prevents Bright's disease" is false; (4) the statement "Dissolves and expels gravelstone in bladder " is false; (5) the statement Expels gallstones is false; (6) the statement "Possessing the rarest therapeutic properties in a very concentrated form is misleading; (7) the statement "Heals and removes * * ** ulceration or catarrh of bladder, etc.," is unwarranted. 66 * You are hereby afforded an opportunity to present evidence to the Board of Food and Drug Inspection on June 5, 1909, at 10 a. m., in office of chief clerk, Department of Agriculture, Washington, D. C., either oral or written, in person or by attorney, showing any fault or error in the findings of the analyst or examiner, or establishing a guaranty from the party of whom you purchased the goods. If you do not present testimony on the date mentioned, I shall proceed to determine the matter upon the evidence I have before me. Respectfully. JAMES WILSON, Secretary. In correspondence regarding this matter, refer to the number given above. 13287-XVII-11-4 STATEMENT. [Dr. Kilmer & Co., manufacturing chemists, Binghamton, N. Y. Branches, London, E. C.; Rio de Janeiro, United States of Brazil, South America; Kingston, Jamaica, British West Indies.] The above bills are due. If we do not hear from you on or before December 26, 1908, with remittance to balance, we will draw at sight. Kindly honor draft. HARRIS CORRESPONDENCE. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, Washington, D. C., July 1, 1909. Mr. William B. Harris, of the State of New York, an expert on the miscellaneous roll of the Bureau of Chemistry, paid from the fund appropriated for "Laboratory, Department of Agriculture," at a salary at the rate of $9 per diem, when actually employed, is hereby transferred to the miscellaneous roll, to be paid from the fund appropriated for “General expenses, Bureau of Chemistry, food and drugs act, salaries out of Washington," in the Bureau of Chemistry, and designated an expert at a salary at the rate of $9 per diem when actually employed, which transfer shall take effect on July 1, 1909. He is hereby required to report for duty, in writing, to the Chief of the Bureau of Chemistry, and be subject to the rules and orders of the Secretary of Agriculture. A true duplicate copy. J. B. BENNETT, Appointment Clerk, W. M. HAYS, Acting Secretary of Agriculture. United States Department of Agriculture. [Memorandum for the Solicitor.] UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, BUREAU OF CHEMISTRY, Washington, D. C., February 13, 1911. Referring to your memorandum of the 7th instant, conveying the advice that some thirty-odd cases will be brought to trial in Chicago between February 16 and 20, or shortly thereafter, I beg to submit the following statement with regard to cases identified other than drug, egg, and extract cases. Remarks. 1327 1852 The analyst witness who should be called in this 'case is Mr. Erwin H. Berry, of the Chicago laboratory. The analyst witnesses who should be called in this The analyst witnesses who should be called in this The analyst witnesses who should be called to tes- case. The analyst witness who should be called to testify in this case is Mr. Edward J. Shanley, of the New York laboratory. The analyst witness who should be called in this case is Mr. Edward J. Shanley, of the New York laboratory. If, in the opinion of the United States attorney, any contest of this case will be made, the bureau deems it advisable to have present a number of experts. The experts who are available to testify are Mr. Edward H. Goodnow and Mr. L. M. Tolman, of the Bureau of Chemistry, and Mr. Roscoe E. Doolittle, of the New York laboratory. The analyst witness who should be called in this case is Mr. Robert S. Hiltner, of the Denver laboratory. The analyst witness who should be called in this case is Mr. Edward J. Shanley, of the New York laboratory, and in addition to Mr. Shanley the bureau deems it advisable to have Mr. A. Hugh Bryan, chief of the sugar laboratory, testify as an expert. The analyst witness who should be called in this case is Mr. Edward J. Shanley, of the New York laboratory. 2095 H. W. WILEY, Chief. [Memorandum for the Bureau of Chemistry.] FEBRUARY 16, 1911. Referring to your memorandum of the 13th instant, giving list of witnesses in food and drug cases Nos. 1745, 1308, 1459, etc., you are informed that, in my opinion, the rate of compensation proposed for Mr. Harris in food and drug No. 1327 (I. S. No. 5866-b) is excessive. If it develops finally that the case will be contested and that Mr. Harris's services will be needed at Chicago, I will approve his employment at the rate of $25 per day and expenses. Upon receipt of information from the United States attorney as to when the several cases listed in your memorandum will be tried and whether contests are anticipated, you will be notified. Respectfully, -, Solicitor. Statement of money paid William B. Harris for salary as an expert since July, 1909 August, 1909_ September, 1909. October, 1909_ November, 1909. December, 1909. July 1, 1909. $22. 18 13. 82 16. 38 23.46 23.79 6. 43 34.71 55.93 67.50 64.93 May, 1910_ 29.57 [Memorandum for the Solicitor in re case of U. S. v. 74 Sacks of Coffee, seizure No. 731.] On UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, BUREAU OF CHEMISTRY, Washington, D. C., March 10, 1911. The above case is set for trial at New Orleans, La., on March 13, 1911, and I beg to say that Mr. William B. Harris, the witness in this case, is now in Washington on his way to New Orleans. As you know, arrangements have been made with Mr. Harris to pay him as an expert whenever it is necessary for him to leave New York City to attend the trials of cases. On February 13, 1911, in connection with case I. S. No. 5886-B, food and drug No. 1327, I sent a memorandum to you asking that you approve the employment of Mr. Harris in that case at a compensation of $50 per day and expenses. February 16 you replied that in your opinion the rate of compensation proposed for Mr. Harris was excessive, and that you would approve his employment at the rate of $25 per day and expenses. Mr. Harris was duly advised of your attitude in the matter, and has told me to-day, personally, that he does not consider the compensation satisfactory and that he must decline to go to Chicago unless he is to receive a fee of $50 per day and expenses. With regard to the New Orleans case, he says that it is his ardent desire to render the department any services in his power in the prosecution of the case and is willing, for this particular case, to accept any fee you may approve, but that he believes he should receive a compensation of $50 per day and expenses for his services. Mr. Harris has explained in detail to me the business reasons which compel him to demand this rate of compensation and I am convinced that it is not excessive. I would therefore ask that you reconsider your memorandum of February 16 and approve the employment of Mr. Harris at a rate of compensation of $50 per day and expenses for the Chicago and New Orleans cases as well as for all future cases where he is required to leave New York City. I would ask that you consider in this connection the attached statement, money paid to Mr. Harris for salary as an expert from July 1, 1909, to February, 1911. Respectfully, H. W. WILEY, Chief. [Memorandum for the Bureau of Chemistry.] MARCH 15, 1911. Replying to your memorandum of the 10th instant on the subject of the compensation of Analyst W. B. Harris, you are advised that I am of the opinion, previously communicated to you, that the sum of $50 per day and expenses proposed to be paid to this employee of the Bureau of Chemistry for testifying at the trials of food and drug cases outside of the city of New York is excessive. Your statement has been noted that Mr. Harris will not go to Chicago to testify there (in United States v. Thompson & Taylor Spice Co.) unless he is to receive a fee of $50 per day and expenses, but that as he is very much interested in United States v. 74 Sacks of Coffee (S. No. 731), Mr. Harris consented to go to New Orleans to testify for any fee that I might approve. Under these circumstances I will approve the employment of Mr. Harris for these two cases at the rate of $50 per day and expenses, but I will not approve his employment at a rate in excess of $25 per day and expenses for any future cases. The futility will be apparent to you of having Mr. Harris make any further examinations of samples under the food and drugs act, provided he is determined to insist upon compensation at the rate of $50 per day and expenses. It is suggested, therefore, that Mr. Harris be supplanted by a competent analyst who maintains a sufficient interest in the enforcement of the food and drugs act, not only to make examinations of samples in the city of his residence at the rate paid Mr. Harris, but to testify at the trials of cases based upon examinations of the samples at a reasonable rate of compensation. Furthermore, I may say, in this connection, that I have not been impressed with the gravity and importance of the coffee cases which have been coming before me for recommendation to the Secretary. Respectfully, Solicitor. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, (Through office of Solicitor.) Mr. A. ZAPPONE, Chief Divison of Accounts. DEAR SIR: Please prepare a waiver for the inclosed voucher of Mr. William B. Harris, waiving the fiscal regulations in regard to incurring expense without previous authorization; amount involved in waiver, $467.73. In explanation I would state that this expense was necessary, and was incurred in connection with the trial of a case arising under the food and drugs act. In view of the above facts it is recommended that the fiscal regulations be waived so as to permit payment of the voucher as submitted herewith. Respectfully, H. W. WILEY, Chief. [Memorandum for Dr. Wiley.] APRIL 15, 1911. Referring to your memorandum of the 13th instant, addressed to the Chief of Division of Accounts, transmitting a voucher presented by William B. Harris. covering expenses incurred in connection with the trial of the case United States v. 74 Sacks of Coffee under the food and drugs act, with your recommendation that the fiscal regulations be waived so as to permit payment, you are advised that I am unable to approve the account as submitted. It is |