charging an ample and definite quantity of water with a sudden dash, which expels all the contents of the trap below. The ordinary method of flushing hopper closets by a faucet is a miserable makeshift. Even if the faucet is left open for half the time, with the consequent waste of several hundreds of gallons of water per hour, the object sought is not gained, for such a driblet does not properly flush the trap or the drain below. It is a perfectly useless waste, and leaves undisturbed the filth which may have collected in the trap or in the drain below it.

FOOD ADULTERATION.

By E. G. LOVE, PH.D.

LEGISLATION.

THE first movement toward securing comprehensive legislation against the adulteration of foods and drugs in this country was made in 1879. A competition for the best essay on the subject of food and drug adulteration, with drafts of suitable hills for its prevention, was instituted by the Sanitary Engineer, under the direction of the National Board of Trade. Prizes amounting to $1,000 were offered for the best essays, which sum was placed at the disposal of the Board by Mr. F. B. Thurber, one of its members. The committee of award being also required by the terms of the competition to frame laws suitable for State and National enactment, was selected as representing the different interests involved. The Committee was composed as follows: Dr. John S. Billings, Surgeon United States Army; Professor C. F. Chandler, President Board of Health, New York; Ex-Chancellor B. Williamson, Elizabeth, N. J.; A. H. Hardy, Esq., Boston; John A. Gano, Esq., Cincinnati.

In October, 1880, several essays, with drafts of laws were sent in, and on the 29th of that month the committee made its report to the Board of Trade. In none of the essays submitted was there any evidence to show that dangerous adulterations existed to any extent in this country. This fact was corroborated by several extensive examinations of food products made about that time, and proved most conclusively to the minds of the Committee that there was no foundation whatever for the statements so frequently made by ignorant persons that our food supply was dangerously adulterated. This same conclusion had been already reached by many persons who had made special study of the subject. The publication of wild and fanciful stories as to poisonous substances found in articles of food, while it may give a certain notoriety to the writer of such fiction, can result only in needlessly alarming the public and in detriment to many commercial interests, and it should be most emphatically condemned.

If the substances generally used as adulterants are not positively dangerous to health, then the question of food adulteration should be considered, as stated in the Committee's report, more from the commercial than from the sanitary standpoint. The Committee also expressed the opinion that there was more danger to life and health in this country from adulterated drugs than there was from adulterated food, and that any legislation which aimed to correct the one must also deal with the other. This suggestion was very pertinent at that time, inasmuch as a bill had been previously introduced in Congress, which was entirely unsuitable and inadequate for the purpose, and which, moreover, referred only to articles of food.

If the adulteration of food is considered simply as a commercial matter, the execution of laws enacted for its prevention would naturally devolve

upon a commercial rather than upon a sanitary organization. Such is the case in Canada, where the enforcement of the Adulteration Act is placed upon the Department of Inland Revenue. Inasmuch, however, as the individual States in this country have no similar department, and as the proposed legislation should include drugs as well as food, it was thought expedient by the committee to entrust the execution of the laws for this object to the State Boards of Health; and where such boards do not exist it was suggested that they be created by independent legislation.

"The questions involved are in a high degree technical and require special training in those charged with administering the law;" but it was the opinion of the committee that the existence of such health authorities might be taken for granted.

While the competition did not result in furnishing the draft of an act which met the views of the committee, many suggestions were obtained, and the committee subsequently presented to the Board of Trade drafts of National and State acts. These drafts, together with the committee's report, were approved by the Board of Trade on December 15, 1880, and resolutions were adopted directing the President and Secretary of the Board to transmit to the United States Senate and House of Representatives copies of the report of the committee and of the draft of a national act, requesting in behalf of the Board the passage of the same.

Copies of the report and drafts of acts were also sent to the State Boards of Trade with the request that they use their influence to secure the desired legislation. The bill introduced in Congress was subsequently modified by excluding all reference to inter-State traffic, and by the substitution of the "Secretary of the Treasury" for the "National Board of Health." In this form it was reported by the Committee on Commerce of the House of Representatives, but up to the present time it has not become a law.

In 1881, three States-New Jersey, New York, and Michigan-passed laws to prevent the adulteration of food and drugs.

New Jersey.-In New Jersey the law was approved March 25th, and went into effect thirty days later. The bill, as passed, was the same as that recommended by the National Board of Trade for State enactment; and its provisions correspond in general with those contained in the bill introduced in Congress. The enforcement of the law was placed in the hands of the State Board of Health, and soon after its passage the board appointed eight persons as a "Council of Analysts and Chemists." Circulars were sent to the local boards of health, and to physicians and others, asking for any information in their possession of cases of poisoning or injury to health by the use of improperly prepared or adulterated foods and drugs. A series of examinations was commenced by the analysts, the results of which were subsequently published.' The Legislature which passed the law rendered its enforcement practically inoperative by the appropriation of only $500 for carrying out its provisions. Early in 1883 the law was amended in several important particulars. One section of the amended act, referring to the disposal of penalties, reads: "In case of any suit not otherwise provided for, the penalty shall be paid to the person bringing the suit." This is an unwise provision, as it encourages prosecutions for violations of the law, with no other object than the pocketing of the penalty by private individuals. The report of the Board of Trade committee, already referred to, distinctly says that "under no circum

1 Fifth Annual Report of the Board of Health of New Jersey, 1881.

stances should fees or moieties to informers be allowed." Another section gives power to any officer of any local board of health to inspect any article of food or drugs, whether offered for sale, " or whether in transit or otherwise." As local boards of health are liable to have officers who are in no way qualified for such inspections, and who might make them for the sole !purpose of obtaining the fine imposed, in case of conviction, it is very clear that this section gives too much power to individuals; and it is altogether likely that sooner or later cases will arise under this section which will bring disrepute upon the law and great annoyance to commercial interests. The amendment is to be commended in one particular, in that it allows the Board of Health to expend $1,000 annually in carrying out the provisions of the act.

It has been stated by one of its officers that it is not the intention of the Board of Health "to chase every commercial fraud," but "to look after adulterations harmful to health." If this be true, the commercial interests, which were largely considered by those who drafted the original law, will receive little protection in New Jersey; and the consumers and honest tradesmen, in whose interest the law was presumably enacted, must look elsewhere for that protection from commercial frauds which they had every reason to expect would be furnished by the State Board of

Health.

The first case brought to trial under the New Jersey law was in May last, in which a person was convicted of selling skimmed milk. So far as we know, this is the only case up to the present time.

New York. The legislation against food and drug adulteration in New York commenced by the introduction of a bill in the Legislature during the winter of 1880-81. The bill was passed and became law on June 2, 1881; but it did not go into effect until ninety days later. The bill' was that recommended by the Board of Trade, and placed the enforcement of the act upon the State Board of Health. The sum of $10,000 was appropriated for carrying out its provisions.

It is a fact worthy of note here that the passage of this law was largely due to the support and co-operation of the leading food and drug manufacturers and dealers.

The first step taken by the Board was the appointment of eight experts, including chemists and pharmacists, who were asked to make examinations of the foods and drugs sold in the State, for the purpose of ascertaining to what extent adulteration existed, and also to determine the nature of the adulterants employed. The supervision of this work was placed in the hands of the Sanitary Committee of the Board. To each analyst was assigned a group of foods or drugs for examination, it being the opinion of the committee that more could be accomplished in such preliminary work in this way than by giving to each one all the samples from a certain locality. The samples were collected by two inspectors.

The reports of these examinations fully corroborated the existing evidence, that most of the aduiterations of food were such as to affect the pocket more than the health. Unwholesome adulterants were found, but none which were really poisonous.

On the completion of this preliminary work, the Board divided the State into three districts, and appointed four public analysts and one inspector, to each of whom a fixed salary was paid in lieu of all fees.

A copy of this act will be found at the end of this article.

'See Second Annual Report State Board of Health of New York, 1882. Abstracts of the same, The San. Eng., vol. v., March, 1882.

The actual work of the Board in the enforcement of the adulteration law commenced in the summer of 1882. The report of the Sanitary Committee for 1882 shows that up to the close of the year 286 samples of foods and drugs had been submitted to the public analyists for examination, of which 194 had been reported upon. Of 119 samples of food, 50 were found adulterated; while of 75 samples of drugs, 32 were adulterated. During December, 1882, prosecutions were commenced in twenty-four cases for violations of the law. These included seventeen cases for selling cream of tartar adulterated with terra alba, starch, etc., to the extent of from thirtyseven per cent. to ninety-five per cent. ; two cases of coffee adulterated with chicory and burnt peas; four cases of mustard adulterated with from forty per cent. to seventy-one per cent. of flour; and one of precipitated sulphur, containing thirty per cent. of sulphate of lime. One of the cream of tartar and one of the mustard cases were made test cases and convictions secured in both instances. The defendants in the other mustard cases and in the coffee cases pleaded guilty and paid the penalty.

The cream of tartar case was appealed, and the decision reserved, principally on the ground that criminal intent had not been proved. The Board of Health did not carry this case to a higher court, and the other cream of tartar cases were never brought to trial. The action of the Board, however, resulted in calling public attention to the fact that adulteration existed, and also in very materially improving the quality of certain articles of food, as was shown by subsequent examinations. As another result, the Board of Health held a conference with the manufacturers, for the purpose of ascertaining their views relative to the sale of mixtures, such as mustard and flour, coffee and chicory, etc. It was the opinion of the manufacturers present at this conference that the components of a mixture, as well as the percentage of the principal or characteristic constituent, should be printed upon the label; but not the percentage of each constituent present. The Board subsequently passed resolutions permitting the sale of mixtures of mustard and coffee, which resolutions received the Governor's approval in March, 1883, and so became law.'

The action of the Board of Health in instituting proceedings against the retail grocer instead of the wholesale dealer or manufacturer was somewhat criticised, as being of the nature of persecution, and on the further ground that the grocer, having purchased his merchandise in good faith, supposed it was unadulterated. This, of course, is a very important matter in the enforcement of any food adulteration law. Legal proceedings should be brought against the manufacturer, if possible, but failing in this, against the wholesale merchant, or lastly against the retail dealer, who may or may not know the exact nature of the goods he sells. The manufacturer is the most responsible, and should first be brought to account; but this does not free the retailer from responsibility or exempt bim from prosecution in case he violates the law. It is often impossible to reach the manufacturer except through the retail dealer, and while the Board of Health would gladly prosecute the former, such a course is, as a rule, impossible, from the fact that the retailer is unwilling to testify against the manufacturer. To purchase an article in very small quantities from the manufacturer or wholesale merchant, if possible at all, would arouse suspicion, and doubtless result in the purchaser getting the genuine and not the adulterated article. The Board can hardly be expected

A copy of these resolutions will be found at the end of this article.