vary some, according to the character of the fruit, the time when made, the length of storage, how bottled and how handled. The court found that in the manufacture and production of this compound vinegar there was a design to give it the color which it bore, and in the proportion in which this was mixed it gave the final product the color of cider vinegar, and that this was the intention of the defendant in error; that the effect of adding from ten to twenty-five per cent of sugar vinegar to the distilled vinegar was to give to the mixture a color closely resembling the color of cider vinegar, and while some vinegar dealers could readily distinguish a compound so made from cider vinegar by the absence of apple flavor and the presence of a slight flavor of molasses, it was doubtful whether the ordinary consumer could so distinguish; that the color of the compound was due solely to the mixing of the two ingredients in the proportion in which mixed; that sugar vinegar has such a strong flavor and dark color that it is practically unsalable for table use unless mixed with white distilled vinegar to reduce it; that defendant was a large manufacturer of sugar vinegar but did not manufacture distilled vinegar; that one of the objects in mixing them was to make the sugar vinegar salable; that the cost of a compound vinegar such as that in question was considerably cheaper to the consumer than cider vinegar, the latter being sold by stores at from twenty-five to thirty cents a gallon while compound vinegar was sold at stores at from fifteen to twenty cents per gallon; that it was the custom in the vinegar trade, up to within about four years ago, to color distilled vinegar with caramel color, using about two ounces of liquid caramel to color a barrel of forty-five or fifty gallons of distilled vinegar, which would give it the color of cider vinegar. These findings were supported by the evidence in the record.

From the findings of the court and the briefs of counsel it is evident that the court found the defendant in er

ror not guilty on the ground that section II of the Pure Food act, properly construed, did not apply to a mixture of sugar vinegar and distilled vinegar in substantial proportions, even though the resulting mixture had a color similar to that of cider vinegar, provided the mixture was properly labeled. The defendant in error insists that, construing section II with the rest of the Pure Food act, the trial court's construction of section II must necessarily be upheld.

In arriving at the proper construction to be placed upon an act of the legislature it is proper to ascertain the purpose and object of the law and the evil to be remedied by its passage. (2 Lewis' Sutherland on Stat. Const.2d ed.-sec. 456; Bobel v. People, 173 Ill. 19.) Clearly, it was one of the purposes of the act to prevent the sale as cider vinegar of other vinegars so similar in appearance that the ordinary purchaser could not distinguish between them. The evidence disclosed that previous to the passage of this law it was the practice to color distilled vinegar with a small amount of burnt sugar, (commonly called caramel,) which had the effect of giving the finished product the characteristic amber color of cider vinegar. It seems to be conceded that such practice now would plainly be in violation of said section II. But is not this mixture here just as much an imitation and just as liable to mislead as the old method? The new compound is plainly an intentional imitation of cider vinegar, otherwise there would be no purpose in making it the color in question. The object of the Pure Food act was to protect not only the dealer and jobber but the retail purchaser or consumer, otherwise the law would be of little practical value. The distinctive color of cider vinegar is one of the means employed by the retail purchaser to judge whether he is getting that article. Practically every householder is familiar with cider vinegar. Its appearance and color are as well understood as its taste. Indeed, from the evidence in this record it ap

pears that it is more readily recognized from its characteristic color than by its taste. No law has been called to our attention forbidding the manufacture of white distilled vinegar or of sugar vinegar. They can be sold without restraint as separate articles of trade. Obviously, however, the compounding of them was for the purpose of making the compound more salable than if sold separately. How can it be reasonably argued that this was not done for the purpose of deceiving the purchaser?

The contention of counsel for defendant in error that the entire act should be read together in order to get its true intent and meaning is undoubtedly the law. This court so held in construing this very act in People v. Price, 257 Ill. 587.

Counsel insist that the sale of these five barrels of vinegar, plainly branded, is not prohibited by law if we construe section II with that part of section 9 which reads: "Provided, that an article of food which does not contain any added poisonous or deleterious ingredients shall not be deemed to be adulterated or misbranded in the following cases: * * Second, in case of articles labeled, branded or tagged so as to plainly indicate that they are compounds, imitations or blends, and the word 'compound,' 'imitation' or 'blend,' as the case may be, is plainly stated on the package in which it is offered for sale," etc. (Laws of 1911, p. 523.) The sentence of said section II which it is specially necessary to construe in reaching a proper conclusion on this question reads: "All vinegar made wholly or in part from distilled liquor shall be branded 'Distilled Vinegar,' and shall not be colored in imitation of cider vinegar." What meaning, if any, will be left to the last clause of the sentence just quoted if the contention of counsel for defendant in error be upheld? Counsel contend that that clause only refers to coloring by some coloring matter and not by the combination of two ingredients of the same general nature, neither of them injurious to health and both

wholesome as food. It is not the mixing of the two vinegars which is prohibited but the deliberate production of a vinegar in imitation of cider vinegar. Intentional imitation is the gist of the offense. If the article thus produced is an imitation of the article forbidden to be imitated, it matters not whether such imitation is produced by the addition of dye or by the mixing of another kind of vinegar. Color is the impression upon the eye. The words "shall not be colored in imitation of cider vinegar," mean a conscious imitation, in the manufacture, of the article forbidden. This meaning as to these words has been sustained in construing very similar statutes in other States. Meyer v. State, 134 Wis. 156; Waller v. State, 53 Ohio St. 77; - Commonwealth v. Mellett, 27 Pa. Super. Ct. 41; Commonwealth v. Caulfield, 211 Pa. St. 644.

Reading this entire law together, it is evident the intent of the legislature was that the provisions of sections 8 and 9 of the Pure Food act, so far as applicable, should govern all food products, but plainly in various other sections there are special regulations inserted to govern the particular food specified, otherwise such special regulations would have no meaning. That the legislature intended that the special provisions as to vinegar in section II, on the questions here involved, should govern, rather than the general provisions of the act, is quite manifest from the fact that the amended act passed in 1911 added the last two sentences in section II, reading: "Any vinegar made or manufactured contrary to the provisions of this section shall be deemed to be adulterated within the meaning of this act. Any vinegar which is not branded as herein provided shall be deemed to be misbranded within the meaning of this act." Manifestly, the first sentence of the amendment to section II just quoted applies to the compound mixture here in question, and if read in connection with the second sentence of the section, that all vinegar made wholly or in part from distilled liquor shall be branded distilled vinegar and shall

not be colored in imitation of cider vinegar, there can be no escape from the conclusion that this mixture, under section II, must be "deemed to be adulterated within the meaning of this act." If there were any doubt as to the meaning of said section II as it was passed in 1907 we think there can be no doubt after the amendment of 1911. The conclusion seems irresistible that the legislature intended by this amendment to answer the very argument now made by counsel for the defendant in error as to the meaning of this section of the act as to misbranding and adulterating vinegar.

Counsel for defendant in error further argues that if this is the proper construction of the Pure Food act then said act is unconstitutional and void on the ground that the regulation thus attempted is unreasonable. If this statute be upheld it must be under the police power of the State. That power includes the right to make regulations for the prevention of fraud and deceit as well as for the public health, safety and comfort. It has been defined as that inherent plenary power in the State which permits it to prohibit all things hurtful to the comfort, welfare and safety of society. It "is co-extensive with self-protection, and is not inaptly termed 'the law of overruling necessity.' (Town of Lake View v. Rose Hill Cemetery Co. 70 Ill. 191; Ritchie & Co. v. Wayman, 244 id. 509.) If under this power the public authorities should prohibit that which is harmless in itself or command that to be done which does not tend to promote the health, welfare or safety of society, such action would be an unauthorized exercise of power. (Toledo, Wabash and Western Railway Co. v. City of Jacksonville, 67 Ill. 37; City of Belleville v. Turnpike Co. 234 id. 428.) The public health requires that food should be absolutely and unquestionably pure. In order to accomplish this the legislature may legislate against fraud or deception by false coloring. They may forbid this by the use of coloring matter or dye, or they may do so by