THE A N A L Y S T . AUGUST, 1878. THE SALE OF FOOD AND DRUGS ACT AMENDMENT BILL, 1878. A DECISION of the Lords’ Justices on an appeal case in Scotland which we reported in our issue for February would, if it had been confirmed by the English judges, or by a higher court of appeal, have rendered the Sale of Food and Drugs’ Act practically a dead letter. A glance at the analysts’ reports which we publish monthly shows that, although the public expect to be protected from the sale of sophisticated articles as genuine ones, they will not take the trouble to purchase samples for analysis, and still more will not incur the expense of the analysis and the prosecution.This is not to be wondered at. Adulteration is nnquestionably a gigantic fraud when viewed collectively, but when each single case is viewed separately the loss incurred by a single consumer is comparatively small, and it is unjust to throw on him the cost and loss of time incurred in a prosecution.It is a remarkable and significant fact that more than half of the adulteration prosecutions are defended simply on technical quibbles. The solicitors for the defence virtually, if not in so many words, acknowledge the sophistication and then proceed to argue as to the details in which the Act passed for the prevention of this sophistication has not been complied with.It matters little to the defendants what the quibble may be, sometimes it takes the form of an inspector not being prejudiced by the purchase, sometimes the formula of words to be repeated by the inspector is alleged not to have been duly recited, sometimes the sample after division is stated not to have been properly sealed, and sometimes TEE label has been forgotten; anyhow, the fact remains that technical objections are the favourite defence of the grocer, the druggist, and the publican.Next i n favour among the defences raised comes the appeal to Somerset House, and here we cannot really blame the vendors, Guilty although they may know themselves to be, it is only in human nature to appeal to the Inland Revenue chemists and see whether the watered milk from an entire dairy is really worse than that given by the poorest cow which could be found in Great Britain.The chance of success naturally may be and rerg often is enough to justify the appeal.It is needless to say that all this wants altering, and that the only defences in such cases ought to be bonk fide ones, instead of the palpable evasions of the Act in which the trade journals so much delight. Alterations in practice such as these, however, take time, and this month we have to notice merely the first instalment of a step in the right direction, a movement, however, which shows that the country-while fully recognising the right of every man to be considered innocent till he is found guilty-does not recog- nise the arguments ? of those journals which rejoice over a lvictory when a peccant grocer escapes cofiviction, because perforce the inspector did not personally use any of his adulterated coffee, and therefore was not prejudiced.301302 TEE ANALYST.It is sad to see how low the standard of national morality has fallen when misde- meanants are allowed t o evade the consequences of their faults in such a way, and a press, we had almost said an advertising press, can be found to support their misdemeanours. I f a case is defended on its merits by all means let the benefit of every doubt be given to the accused, but if the case is defended on a technical quibble, justice demands that the benefit of the doubt, if any, should be given to the public, who have 80 long suf€’ered from adulteration and fraud.The Bill introduced by Mr. Anderson deals only with the prejudice to purchaser question. It is a Bill which ought to have been entirely unnecessary, and in our opinion it is so now. Why a Government Act passed only three years since, and which although fought most bitterly by the representatives of the adulterators, was carefully watched at erery step by the present Government, should now need amendment, would be a mystery to all but those who recollect its original form.When the Bill of 1875 first appeared the words (‘ usages of trade ” cleverlg, we might almost say scientifically introduced, were designed to cover old crimes, so that what had been, was to be-in other words, adultera- tion was to go on unrestricted until new skill could devise new modes of deceit, and then if detected the offender had a dozen loopholes out of which to escape.Portunately the efforts made by those who wished to get what they paid for partially succeeded, and although the Bill was a compromise, it did put some restriction on adulteration, and the percentage of impure goods sold is now only about one half of‘ what it was before adulteration, as defined by the Act of 1875, was a legal crime.Ever since that time the efforts of defendants have been directed to find flaws in the Act, or in other words, to find something which might be used to give a quasi legal sanction to fraud.To attain this end almost every one of the acting clauses of the Act has been tried, but beyond an occasional, and to our mind, erratic decision by some local magistrate, we are not aware that any evasion has been successful except in the Glasgow case. Mr. Anderson’s Bill is only intended to meet one of the points used as technical defences, but although this very point has been overruled many times both i n London and the country, it is perhaps better that i t should be set entirely at rest.The Bill, which we reprint on mother page, contains only one acting clause, and that simply enacts what common sense would have thought was evident before, that an inspector who is really the agent, or, if it is preferred, the paid servant of the public, should, when he purchases on their behalf, be considered as prejudiced if the article is adulterated.As we have before said, we do not think the Bill is necessary although other amend- ments of the Act may be, but we certainly do feel that it is a disgrace to English honour and English truth, that tradesmen guilty of fraud should protect themselves under such a subterfuge; as this Bill seeks to remove, and we wonder that honest grocers, publicans and druggists do not protest against needing any such twbterfuge to prove their integrity. Let every Corporation, Board or Bench of Nagistrates in the kingdom follow the example of the Plumstead Board of Works, and direct the inspectors to we, as food or drink, or otherwise as the case may be, a portion of every sample which they purchase. This will, no doubt, be a case of fighting the adulterators with their own weapon-sharp practice-but for once this is of little moment, 80 long as the public who are swindled and the honest tradesmen who are undersold, are protected, Meanwhile, a remedy is available.