THE DECISION.

State of North Dakota, county of Cass, in district court, Third Judicial district.

Russell-Miller Milling Co., a corporation; Missouri Valley Milling Co., a corporation; Lidgerwood Milling Co., a corporation, and Chaffee-Miller Milling Co., a corporation, plaintiffs, vs. E. F. Ladd, defendant.

Decision.

PROCEDURE.

Questions growing out of the proper procedure in this case were settled by our supreme court in the action entitled, State, ex rel Ladd vs. the District Court of Cass county, 115 N. W. 675. Professor Ladd took the position that this court was without jurisdiction to proceed in a matter of this kind, and sought, by writ of prohibition, to prevent further proceedings. In this position he was not sustained by the supreme court. The facts as to the controversy in this case were set out at length by the supreme court and I will not repeat them here. PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM.

After the rendition of that decision, this action was tried upon its merits, and besides the formal statement of the character of the business of plaintiff, put concisely, their claim is that in the process of manufacture, certain of their flours åre subjected to air containing traces of nitrogen peroxide gas, generated through what is known as the "Alsop process," and resulting in the union of the oxygen and nitrogen of the air. It is further claimed that this process whitens and improves the color of the flour. That bleached flours differ neither in chemical composition nor in nutritive value from unbleached flours, except that bleached flours contain a small amount-about one part to one million parts of flour-of nitrite reacting material, which is removed during the process of baking. That the amount of nitrites produced in flour during bleaching is less than is normally present in the saliva, or is found naturally in many vegetable foods, or in smoked or cured meats, or in bread made from unbleached flour and baked in a gas oven where nitrite are produced from the combustion of the gas. That the bleaching of flour cannot be regarded as in any way injurious to health, or as an adulteration, and a bleached flour which has good gluten and bread making qualities is entirely satisfactory. Further, it is not possible to successfully bleach low grade flours so they will resemble the high grades, because the bran impurities of the low grade blacken during the bleaching and become more prominent. Further, that there is no danger to be apprehended from overbleaching, for when excess of the bleaching reagent is used, flours become yellow in color. Therefore, it is claimed, the bleaching is not injurious to health, and as it is not possible through bleaching to change low grades so as to resemble the patent grades, bleaching resolves itself entirely into the question of what color of flour the consumer desires. Plaintiffs further claim that Professor Ladd, on Sept. 10, 1907, issued a circular as food commissioner in which he directed that on and after Oct. 1, 1907, the sale of bleached flour containing any residue of nitrogen absorption, addition or substitution products, and intended for consumption within the state of North Dakota, is declared to be in violation of the food laws of the state; and further claim that he has threatened seizure of plaintiffs' property under the pretended authority of said act, and the destruction of the same. Plaintiffs further claim that the flours manufactured by them are not within the condemnation of Chapter 195, laws 1907, and that unless defendant is restrained from further proceeding, great and irreparable injury will be done to plaintiffs, and this action is brought for the purpose of having a multiplicity of suits.

THE ALSOP PROCESS.

The testimony shows that all the flour bleached by the plaintiffs in this action was bleached by what is known as the "Alsop Process." It is a patented mechanism for which the proprietors thereof hold letters patent No. 759,651 issued by the United States; that the description of said process, and the mechanism thereof, is fully set forth and described at page 2,169, et seq. Vol. 384, Part One, of the official publication, known as Specifications and Drawings of Patents, issued under the supervision of the United States patent bureau. That the function and effect of the electric flame used in said Alsop process is to generate intense heat, which, coming in contact with a column or quantity of moist air causes the oxygen and nitrogen in the air to combine or fuse so as to form a gas known as peroxide of nitrogen or nitrogen peroxide (No.

2). This gas thus generated is driven or conducted into a cylinder or tube through which the flour passes; the nitrogen peroxide, when it comes in contact with the flour, combines with the coloring matter of the fat or oil of the flour, and oxidizes it, thus causing it to whiten. The length of time the flour remains in this oxydized air in the ordinary process of bleaching is from 7 to 10 seconds. The evidence shows that approximately 70 per cent of all the flour manufactured in the United States today is bleached, either by the Alsop or some other process, but in this case we have to do only with flour bleached by the Alsop process.

THE DEFENDANT'S CLAIM,

The defendant's answer, after calling attention to the provisions of Chapter 165, laws 1907, alleges that he has made a careful investigation of the subject of flour bleaching as practiced by the plaintiffs and that the same is detrimental to the health and best interests of the citizens of the state of North Dakota; he admits that he issued the circular complained of, and after describing the Alsop process as above, he indicates that the nitrogen substitution products are poisonous substances, which make the flour detrimental to the health of consumers of bread. That when such flour so bleached, is made into bread the bread thereof is dangerous to the health of the consuming public; that the addition of this nitrogen compound or substitutions, when mixed with the flour in the aforesaid bleaching process, reduces and injuriously affects the quality and strength of said flour for domestic use; he further alleges that this process of bleaching flour enables the miller to mix what is known as low grade flours and by making the product whiter it can be mixed with high grade flours, thereby producing flour in all appearances the same as if the entire quantity consisted of high grade flour, thereby deceiving the purchasers, dealers and consumers of flour, thus constituting what is known as an adulterated product. Further, that this process of bleaching flour tends to decrease the gliadin of the gluten, thus requiring more yeast and more sugar than it does to make bread out of unbleached flour, and that the same reduces or injuriously affects the quality and strength of the food value of the flour so bleached.

For these, and other like reasons, the defendant claims that the process of bleaching flour by the Alsop process is in violation of the terms and provisions of Chapter 195, laws 1907.

A BATTLE OF THE GIANTS.

From this statement of the claims of the respective parties can be seen the general nature of the controversy between them.

The question to be settled is clearly a scientific one, this being the initial case upon the points involved in the United States. Both parties have brought before the court the very highest class of expert testimony from the field of chemical science.

To support the contention of the plaintiffs there were sworn the following expert witnesses:

Prof. Harry Snyder, a graduate of Cornell university, and for seventeen years chief professor of chemistry in the agricultural college of Minnesota.

Dr. A. W. Rockwood, a graduate of Amherst in 1884, and for years chief professor of chemistry and toxicology in the University of Iowa.

Prof. Geo. L. Teller, a graduate of Michigan agricultural college, and for several years professor of chemistry in the agricultural college of Arkansas, now head of the Columbus laboratories of Chicago.

Prof. Edward H. Kaiser, chief professor of chemistry in Washington University, St. Louis, Mo., formerly in a like position at Bryn Mawr and Johns Hopkins university.

Dr. Walter S. Hains, professor of chemistry, materia medica and toxicology in Rush Medical college, Chicago; having spent thirty-two years in his professional work, studying both in this country and in Europe.

Prof. F. J. Alway, chief professor of agricultural chemistry in the university of Nebraska, and chemist of the agricultural station; a graduate of the University of Toronto, and of Heidelberg, Germany,

All of whom practically agree in support of plaintiffs' contention.

On the part of the defendant there appeared Prof. E. F. Ladd, food commissioner of North Dakota; a graduate of the University of Maine, and chief professor of chemistry in the North Dakota agricultural college; in which institution he has served since its foundation, about twenty years ago. Prof. James H. Sheppard, chief professor of chemistry in

the agricultural college of South Dakota since 1888; a graduate of the University of Michigan.

Prof. Andrew L. Winton, chief of the Chicago laboratory bureau of chemistry, United States department of agriculture; a graduate of Yale in 1884.

Prof. Andrew S. Mitchell, in charge of and having direct inspection of one of the laboratories of the United States department of agriculture, located in St. Paul, Minn.; a graduate of the chemical department of the University of Michigan in 1887; and teacher of toxicology for five years in Milwaukee medical school.

Prof. H. L. White, assistant professor of chemistry in the agricultural college of North Dakota; for eight years professor of chemistry in Burlington, Vt.; a graduate of the University of Maine in 1898.

Dr. Louis Van Es, professor of veterinary science at the North Dakota agricultural college; holding diplomas from the government school of agriculture of the Netherlands; the veterinary college of Toronto, and doctor of medicine of the University of Alabama.

All of whom agree generally with Professor Ladd in the statements he makes concerning bleached flour.

THE LAW.

Chapter 195 of the Laws of 1907, which is "An Act to prevent the adulteration and misbranding of foods and beverages, the selling of adulterated and unwholesome foods and beverages and providing for the proper labeling of all foods and beverages," among other things state that any article of food or beverage shall be considered misbranded, unwholesome or adulterated, or insufficiently labeled, within the meaning of this act,-second, if it contains formaldehyde, benzoic acid, sulphurous acid, salicylic acid, hydrofluoric acid, saccharine or benapthol, or any salt or antiseptic compound derived from these products or other deleterious ingredients.

Seventh, if it be labeled, branded, colored, coated or stained, whereby damage or inferiority is concealed, so as to deceive or mislead the purchaser; or if it be falsely labeled in any respect; and numerous other conditions are mentioned in the statute not applicable to this controversy.

IS BLEACHED FLOUR UNWHOLESOME?

We will first consider the testimony upon the question of whether bleached flour is unwholesome. It will be seen that while the plaintiffs admit that there is a very minute quantity of peroxide of nitrogen introduced into the flour by the Alsop process, yet, the claim is made, that there is not enough to harm the human system when taken in the quantities found in flour; and even if some particles are left in the flour it is lost in the baking process.

The burden of proof in this case falls upon the plaintiff, to show by a fair preponderance of the evidence the facts alleged by them. Happily, in this dispute, between eminent scientists and experts concerning a subject with which the court is only familiar in a general way, he is not called upon to decide which party is absolutely right. His duty is complete when, after a careful review of all the evidence, measured by all the tests known to the law, he expresses an opinion as to where the superior weight of the evidence lies. Just in the same manner as when trying a dispute upon an allegation of the non-payment of a promissory note, or any other of the thousand controversies that find their way into court. After considering all the testimony, and testing its credibility by those rules known to the law. I am of the clear opinion that upon the general claim of having introduced no deleterious compound or substance into the flour, which remains therein after baking, the plaintiffs have been successful, and that the decided weight of the testimony is in their favor in this respect. It is true that testimony is not measured by the number of witnesses alone, but rather by the reasonableness or otherwise of he statements they make. It seems incredible that flour can be injured by an amount of nitrogen peroxide no greater than that which is constantly present in the saliva, and found in many vegetables of daily use, or in smoked or cured meats, or in bread made from the combustion of the gas; or in granulated sugar. The defendant did not successfully contradict these facts. Some were admitted to be true; but it was urged with reference to the saliva test that it was not accurate because of the likelihood of the persons having taken foreign substances into their mouths which produced the nitrites. The plaintiffs show, however, that these nitrites were found in the saliva of infant, nursing children.

THE RABBIT TEST.

It is claimed upon the part of the defendant that bleached flour will kill rabbits; that is, that the flour contains a toxic body in sufficient quantity to destroy the life of rabbits. Upon the other hand, the experiments of Dr. Rockwood, Professor Haines, and others, upon white mice, show that

bleached flour would not kill white mice; and experiments carried on during the trial by Professor Haines and Professor Snyder show that bleached flour would not kill rabbits. I must say that the results of these experiments, as evidence in this case, are entirely satisfactory, and I am of the opinion that they can furnish no safe guide for a determination of the facts involved herein. Before I should be willing to predicate a decision upon such experiments, I would feel that they ought to be performed together, by the parties giving their evidence pro and con.

When asked as to the reason for the difference of opinion, the answer must necessarily be speculative, because the experiments were not made under the eyes of both. To the ordinary layman it would appear that if bleached flour would kill rabbits in one case it would in another, but when evidence comes from such eminent witnesses as appeared in this case, the one affirming, and the other denying, there is no safe method by which the court can say which one was right.

AS TO ADULTERATIONS.

The court further finds that the testimony in this case shows that the plaintiffs never in any manner or form whatsoever used the bleaching process for the purpose of mixing what is known as low grade flours with high grades, or flour made from durum wheat with other flours, thereby producing flour in all appearances the same as if the entire quantity consisted of high grade flour. In fact, the defendant produced no testimony whatever in support of that allegation of his answer. There was some testimony that it was possible to mix some very small portions of durum wheat flour with flour from fife or bluestem, capable of deceiving the general public; but the weight of the testimony shows that it would be impossible to deceive the expert purchaser of flour, or even one measurably acquainted with the characteristics of flour. The question, however, upon the subject of adulteration, which presents itself here, is not so much what these plaintiffs did do, but what might be done by the process employed. It is declared, under section seven, above quoted, that articles of food shall be held to be adulterated if it be * * * colored * * * SO as to deceive or mislead the purchaser. It is certain that this electric flame does have to deal with the color; and very naturally the question arises whether under the provisions of the law this would not be a violation of that section. Assuming, without deciding, that it would not be, and assuming further that the amount of nitrogen peroxide put into the flour by this process would be lost in the baking so that in the bread itself there is no unwholesome condition, the question still arises whether under the admitted facts in this case the same is prohibited by the terms of the statute. It is conceded by the plaintiffs that there is nitrite reacting material put into the flour through the Alsop process of bleaching, of a very minute quantity (about 1 part per 1,000,000 of flour). Is this prohibited by

the statute?

THE SCOPE OF THE LAW.

A casual reading of the law would require an affirmative answer to this question, and a more analytical study of the same confirms one in this view. Referring now particularly to the second subdivision of this law wherein it declares that flour shall be regarded as unwholesome or adulterated, if it contains formaldehyde, or the other acids named, "or any salt or antiseptic compound derived from these products, or other deleterious ingredient."

We should keep in mind that the product with which we have to deal in this case is "flour" and not "bread." It is not a question of whether a poisonous substance, as nitrogen peroxide is conceded to be, is put into an article of food and afterwards lost in the baking process, but was it added to the original substance? An analysis of this entire lawnot one section, but its every part-indicates that all phases of adulteration and misbranding were sought to be prevented. The history of the struggle for pure food in this state and in the country at large for the past twenty-five years, of which the court must take judicial knowledge, and in which it is generally known that Professor Ladd has taken an active and prominent part, shows clearly that from the standpoint of the food commissioner no stone would be left unturned to secure for the people absolutely pure food.

It is also generally known that laws of this kind are framed by the friends of the law, and that legislators are largely influenced in their acts by scientific men in whom they have learned to put confidence and upon whom they must rely for information when dealing with words, phrases and subjects about which they have no technical knowledge themselves. In view of these facts, the court must conclude that the law

as framed more clearly, reflects the notions of the pure food expert rather than anyone else. What is that idea? I believe a key to it, and consequently, to the thought of the legislature in passing the act, can be found in the testimony of Professor Sheppard, who, in answer to a question by the court, why he and Professor Ladd differed so materially from Professors Haines, Snyder, Rockwood, Kaiser, Teller and others, when he said:

"I have heard the testimony of all the witnesses referred to, and I think I can give a reason why there is such a difference of opinion between them. In the first place it will be necessary for me to define the position of the pure food official and what is his problem. He does not take the same view that the physician does. It is the province of the physician to make a sick man well. The pure food official does not take the same view of the problem that the experimentalist does. It is his object, perhaps, to find out how much of a certain substance it would take to make a well man sick. All of these things are not for the pure food chemist. The problem and the intent of the law as put up to the pure food official is simply this, to keep a well man well. For example, let us take the case of strychnine. We will represent by the base of a triangle what I will term the toxic dose, enough to kill a man. Let us consider a constantly decreasing amount, and draw it down like this (indicating) until finally we bring it out to a point down here, which we will call zero. If we begin with a toxic dose here, and follow this all the way down until we reach a point down here somewhere, we will come to what we may call the medicinal dose, such as a man may take of strychnine without killing him. From the toxic dose down to the medicinal dose is what the doctor is concerned with; from the medicinal dose down to the vanishing point, zero, there lies what you might term your debatable ground; I think I have it now so that it can be seen exactly why Professor Snyder and I will disagree, and why we are obliged to disagree. Now take it from the medicinal dose down to where there is no dose at all, and we are getting into an unexplored region. That is already occupied to some extent by a very reputable class of people whom we call homeopaths. They are giving doses below the ordinary medicinal dose, that lies somewhere down in the apex of this triangle. The truth of the matter is that we do not know justly exactly where the constant repetition in the food of harmful drugs-from this zero point up to the medicinal dose -we do not now where to draw the dividing line."

Question by the court: You call that the cumulative effect? Answer: Yes, we may call it that, as we heard in the very able testimony of Dr. Haines, that probably the system has been educated up to the use of nitrites during all of the prehistoric ages; but here we are dealing with some brand new drugs. They are all synthetic, they have been made but a few years, and their physiological action has not been well established. Now, we will say that if nitrous acid was the only thing at stake, it is possible we should feel a good deal in doubt, but see here, the nitrous acid man comes up, he wants to put nitrous acid in, and wants to get it down in that vanishing point somewhere, in that debatable ground. Then comes the borax man, he wants to do the same thing. And again, along comes the salicylic acid man, the fluoride man, the sulphurous acid man; and the result of it is that we have obtained a broader view. I have shown you from foods that I have examined in my laboratory that if things were today as they were a few years ago, when our food laws were first enacted, that the ordinary man, living on good, plain, common food, that he has bought upon the market, would have of these small doses down there that he would take every day of his life forty doses of these chemicals of one sort or another, including coal tar dyes and all kinds of preservatives, and everything of that nature, and we shy at that. We shy right here. We say, if one small dose may be constantly repeated-may not be so bad-but what are you going to do with it when you put on forty of them? And put it right on every day of your life? You see, we do not feel as if we could do it. There is another thing: If we should tell the benzoate of soda man, all right, we believe you are all right, and then go to work and shut out all these other preservatives except benzoate of soda, what kind of a position would it leave us in? In conclusion, we have just simply come to the point where we say that the only safety, so far as we can see, for conserving the health of the people is in our adopting the zero point for all high grade chemical preservatives."

I believe from the foregoing statement that it is possible to discover, with great accuracy, the thought of the legislature in framing this law. It seems to me that the entire act speaks with no uncertain language. It says in substance,

We will take no chances. We know that scientific men will disagree concerning what is considered as deleterious when used as an antiseptic, so we will name those that are most in common use, and then, with a sweeping clause, include all other compounds which contain a deleterious substance, even in the most minute quantities.

LORD TENTERDEN'S RULE.

We are met at this point of our inquiry with the objection upon the part of the plaintiffs that the quantity of nitrite reacting material introduced into the flour by the Alsop process is not deleterious compound similar to that named in the second clause of the act above quoted, such as formaldehyde or benzoic acid, tec., and that the general terms used must be construed to mean as if it read "other deleterious ingredients. of like kind," under the familiar rule known as ejusdem generis. What is that rule?

"Where general words follow particular ones the rule is to construe the former as applicable to persons or things ejusdem generis. This rule, which is sometimes called Lord Tenterden's rule, has been stated as to the word 'other' thus: Where the statute or other document enumerates several classes of persons or things and immediately following and classed with such enumeration, the clause embraces 'other' persons or things, the word 'other' will generally be read as 'other such like, so that persons or things therein comprised may be read as ejusdem generis with, and not of a quality superior to or different from, those specifically enumerated. As, for example, there was conferred upon municipalities' power to establish markets and other public buildings." It was held that the word "other" showed that the word "markets" was used in a restrictive sense to designate public buildings erected and devoted to the use of receiving for sale and purchase such marketable articles for daily use and consumption as might be wanted to supply the inhabitants of the city. St. Paul vs. Traeger, 25 Minn., 253.

But it is likewise held by those courts which recognize to the fullest extent this doctrine of ejusdem generis that the rule must be interpreted, as in all cases or written instruments, to assist in determining what the intention of the act is, and though this is generally the interpretation given to the word when following an enumeration, the rule is not inflexible, and in many cases the word has been held to be unrestrictedly comprehensive, embracing every other sort or kind, whether ejusdem generis with the classes enumerated or not.

As would be illustrated by an act in South Carolina, which specially punished any person convicted of knowingly and wilfully packing or putting into any packed bale or bales of cotton "any stone, wood, trash, cotton, cotton seed, or any matter or thing whatsoever, with the purpose or intent of cheating or defrauding any person, etc." The court held that the expression "any matter or thing whatsoever" was not restricted by the things enumerated. In this case the weight was fraudulently increased by the use of water. "Here," says the court, "it cannot be doubted that it was the intention of the legislature to punish frauds in packing cotton without regard to the character of the material used." The authorities covering both phases of this rule in England and America, are found in 21 Enc. Law, 2nd Ed. 1012. The rule of construction here under discussion was thoroughly analyzed in the case of Doyle vs. Bayonne, 54 N. J. L. (25 Vroom) 315, wherein the court had under consideration an act providing that "No member of any board of aldermen, common council, township committee, or other municipal board or body, shall be eligible for election, etc." to any office that is now or hereafter may be by law required to be filled by such board, council, committee or body, of which he is a member." The insistence being that the term municipal board is limited by the specification of the particular bodies which precedes the term municipal bodies. The rule of construction was invoked as contended for by the plaintiffs in this action. The court said: “The cannon of construction thus put forward, it may be remarked, is only one of many guides for ascertaining the intention of the legislative body. It is a rule of common sense, resting upon the notion that the legislature has disclosed the general character of the subject upon which it was intent, by the particular things or persons mentioned, and, therefore, when the general supplemental term is used, it had in mind only things or persons of the same general character. There are other rules designed for the same purpose, and whenever, by the application of one or more of such guides, a contrary intention is apparent, the rule advanced must yield. for, after all, the one thing to be ascertained is, What did the legislature mean? So also, the mischief aimed at will, by another cannon, control the construction of the statute quoted in specific as well as general terms. So again, the force of the cannon of construction not advanced, while recognized, may be modified by the same considerations. For, it is per

STATE SANITARY INSPECTION.

The proposed sanitary inspection bill just reported by a committee of the National Association of State Dairy and Food Departments is a first step in the right direction to secure legislation over the sanitary control of factories generally by state or nation. Many states already have laws on the statutes relative to the inspection of creameries and dairies. Many cities. have ordinances relative to the sanitary inspection of bake shops, butcher shops, etc. The meat inspection act of Congress places the sanitary control of many abattoirs in the hands of the government. In general, however, neither state nor government food officials have the power to enforce cleanliness in the preparation of food products.

The Northwestern Food Commissioners in convention at Madison, Wis., Sept. 30, 1908, passed a resolution as follows:

"Resolved, That it is the sense of the convention that the enactment by the several states of measures to secure full and complete sanitary control of food producing, manufacturing and distributing establishments and agencies is both desirable and necessary."

Believing in this legislation the National Association of State Dairy and Food Departments appointed a committee to draft a model state sanitary food control bill. This committee has reported the bill found in this issue of the American Food Journal.

The bill as drawn by the committee is admittedly tentative and may need revision, but the desirability of legislation along this line is manifest, and the American Food Journal is for any legislation of this character which may be adopted by the food commissioners.

Why are the trade papers partial to Dr. Wiley opposed to this legislation or to any legislation along this line?

The American Grocer, in opposing the resolutions referred to, says, "Because the federal meat inspection is a failure; because 'legal supervision opens the door for graft,' and because inspectors may get and sell trade secrets."

Some of the arguments seem strangely familiar. The charge of graft against the state food officials. was preferred by "Raymond" in the Chicago Tribune in an article which, from its contents, its character and the known affiliation of the author, was believed to be inspired by Dr. Wiley. The argument was that the state food commissioners, being corrupt, would not enforce food laws and that a national law was

necessary for the protection of the public. The American Grocer in opposing sanitary supervision says:

"Then such legal supervision opens an avenue, broad and long, for graft. Already there has been too much since food laws were put on the statute books of different states, and any move to increase opportunity to bleed manufacturers ought to be killed."

The argument has no foundation other than applied to food laws in general or, in fact, to laws and the officials who enforce them of every description and kind. As stated in the American Food Journal at the time the charge of grafting was made in the Tribune, there is no evidence in the history of food commissions in which a food commissioner has been convicted or specifically charged with using his office to feather his nest.

It has never appeared to the American Food Journal that inspection of meat under the meat inspection law was a failure, even although Dr. Wiley had no hand or part in its enforcement. We do believe that the method of securing the law was reprehensible and that the muck rake was paid for dearly by the American public. We do believe, and this opinion is not our own, but stolen from the leading constitutional lawyers in public service and private practice of the country, that the law is clearly unconstitutional except as applying to export foods; and that the meat inspection clause in the agricultural appropriation bill is a law today simply because it is so wisely administered and so beneficent to both the packers and the public that no one wishes to put it in peril by commencing litigation under it. The argument that the folly of sanitary control has been demonstrated by the workings of the meat inspection act, falls of its own weight. It is palpably absurd, ridiculous. It may be true as the American Grocer says, that, "The meat inspection act places the plants of men who have spent a lifetime in the development of a great industry under the criticism and supervision of inexperienced men whose meager salary is a proof of their lack of ability in any special line." But this does not demonstrate the folly of the working of the law and no complaints of such character seem to have come from the manufacturers. Moreover, there is rarely any ground for complaint, as the inspectors are in almost all instances college graduates and veterinary surgeons, who secured their positions by competitive examinations. If their salary is meager it is neither a sign of their lack of ability, or lack of experience. Many good men work for low wages, and these inspectors possibly are no exception.

"Imagine." says the American Grocer, waxing poetical, "a packer or preserver of fruits and vegetables whose success has been won through skill, experience," etc., etc., "being compelled by law to have an inspector, a political appointee, sent to tell him how to transact his business, to criticize methods, launch objections."

Inspecting our life insurance policy to see that everything was in proper order; taking a fond farewell of our friends and relatives, we allowed our mind to roam from the realm of the commonplace into the imaginative, and then gradually to the thought of the sanitary control of canneries and preserving factories. Nothing broke. In fact, had the idea become an actuality, we doubt if any consciencious vegetable packer would shrink from public inspection of his factory as regards sanitary supervision.

The only specific instance or illustration given of the folly of the meat inspection act is that it has creat