criminal responsibility does not attach to a man unless it can be shown that he did the act charged against him with a criminal intent, or ‘actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea.' If the general maxim had been applied to the sale of food acts they would practically have become a dead letter."

So strictly is this principle enforced under the English food acts that, in the case of Betts vs. Armistead, in which it was shown that the bread baked and sold by Armistead contained alum, he was convicted, although he showed conclusively that the alum was in the flour when he bought it and that he had no knowledge of its presence. In the English case of Hotchin vs. Hindmarsh, the manager of a large dairy company sold adulterated milk to one of the government inspectors; the attorney for the manager made the claim that the company, and not the manager, should have been prosecuted. It was, however, ruled that the manager was the real seller and, therefore, liable to prosecution, Judge Coleridge ruling that "if the physical acts were done with requisite intent, the person who does the act must be treated as a principal, whether he be a servant acting for a master or not. He may come within section six whether he be principal or agent."

In the case of Fitzpatrick vs. Kelly, the Queen's Bench held that it was not at all necessary to prove that the seller had a knowledge of the adulteration of the butter sold; the fact that he sold it was all that need be proven.

The third and fourth sections of the English act of 1875 contain the words "to the knowledge of such person," but in section sixth no such words are used. In the case of Brown vs. Foot, Judge Wills ruled that the fact that this provision was left out showed conclusively that it was purposely omitted, and that it was not, therefore, necessary to prove a guilty knowledge or to quote the exact words, "those conditions are left out of this act of parliament and they must have been left out purposely; there can be no doubt of that."

In the case of Brown vs. Foot, it was shown that the servant watered the milk and sold it for "new milk" by outery along the street; the employer proved that he required each man, when he went out from the dairy, to place a well-mixed sample of his milk on a particular shelf, and that these and other precautions were taken to prevent adulteration by servants. The servant, under oath, admitted that he had watered the milk, but it was not shown either that his master knew it or that the servant profited by the adulteration. In this case the proprietor of the dairy was convicted, Judge Hawkins ruling that "the master for all purposes must be deemed to be the seller of the milk; that is to say, it is impossible to say that he was not the seller of the milk. There is no doubt that civilly he would be the person alone who would be to blame, and the master would be responsible to the purchaser for any injury sustained by him. I think not merely

the servant who sells the milk is so, but the master himself is also responsible, and it cannot be said that he was not the seller of the milk. Cognizance of the fact that the milk was adulterated when sold may be a very material ingredient for the magistrate to take into consideration when he come to fix the penalty to be inflicted on the person who sells it, but it is not essential to the sufficiency of the proof which is to support the conviction."

In the case of Dyke vs. Gower, it was shown that the milk purchased by the prosecutor had 33 per cent. of its cream removed. It was shown that the milk had been sold, by measure, from a deep can, and that the milk had not been kept stirred up during the operation of peddling it along the street, the inference being that the first purchasers took with them a portion of the cream which naturally belonged to those who came later.

The Queen's Bench division held that allowing the milk to be sold amounted to "abstraction" within the meaning of the section under which the prosecution was brought, and ordered the conviction of the person selling the milk.

In the case of Morris vs. Corbett, it was shown that the servant of a dairyman, finding that his supply of milk was running short and that he would not have enough to supply all of his customers, bought two gallons and poured it into the can with the remainder of his master's milk. An inspector found the milk to have lost 20 per cent. of its cream, and although it was clearly shown that neither the dairyman nor his servant knew anything of the abstraction of the cream from the purchased milk, yet the former was convicted, but this ignorance was considered in inflicting the penalty.

In the case of Platt vs. Tyler, it was shown that the defendant was selling condensed milk with the following printed on the label: "Calf Brand-This tin contains skimmed milk with nothing added but the finest sugar. By the addition of a little water it may be used for almost every purpose for which ordinary skimmed milk is used." It was proven that 80 per cent. of the cream had been taken from the milk before it was condensed. The justice found as a fact that the inspector did not know that he was buying an article from which a portion of the cream had been taken, and, under the claim that the label was not sufficiently plain and distinctive, fined the defendant fifty dollars.

In the case of Kearsley vs. Tyler, it was shown that a servant had sold an inspector a pound of lard with a wrapper stating that it was "margarine," and although it was shown that there were two piles of wrappers, one marked "margarine" and the other "lard compound," and that the servant, by mistake, had used the wrong wrapper, yet the proprietor was convicted.

BAKING POWDER.

As there is no standard of strength for baking powders, it is difficult to secure conviction so long as the adulterating or value lessening material is of a harmless character. The most common addition is one or more of the various and cheaper forms of starch which add to the bulk, decrease the cost and enable the manufacturer to compete with a low-priced article.

It is claimed and admitted that a certain proportion of starch is necessary to prevent premature action upon the part of the two classes of ingredients of which the powder is composed, and if it were practicable, and the percentage absolutely necessary could be fixed, much of the present adulteration practiced in the manufacture of this article might be prevented.

Robinson & Cribb lay down the following rules for the composition of a baking powder:

"1. It should yield from 10 to 13 per cent. by weight of gas (carbonic acid) and on being moistened, that is, each ounce should give between 96 and 125 cubic inches, which should not be evolved too quickly.

"2. There should be no great excess either of the acid or the alkaline ingredient.

"3. The starch should form not less than 10 nor more than 20 per cent. of the mixture.

"4. The residue left behind in the bread, pastry, etc., should be as small and as devoid of medicinal action as possible."

The chemists of the Department have, in some few instances, reported as high as 40 per cent. of starch, and as from 10 to 15 only is necessary, it follows that the excess is in the form of an adulterant.

Such powders are composed of two distinct classes of elements, one an acid and the other an alkali; these two, when moistened, act upon each other and a gas is evolved which produced the effect of making the bread or pastry light and palatable. These two elements only act upon each other in definite proportions, and if more than enough of either is used, the remainder is left as a useless and possibly injurious ingredient in the article of food.

Much has been said and written upon the use of alum as an ingredient of baking powders and scientists appear to be at variance as to its effects. Robinson & Cribb, who are considered as among the best of English authorities, in referring to the use of alum, have the following:

"The objections to the use of alum from a sanitary point of view are that when used in a baking powder, the substance produced by the interaction of the sodium carbonate and alum in the presence of water

are:

"1. Sodium sulphate, a well known and powerful purgative, the medicinal dose of which is half an ounce. A quantity equal to fivesixteenths of an ounce would be left from the amount of powder used for one pound of flour.

"2. Sulphate of potash or ammonia, according to whether ammonia or potash alum has been employed. The action of potassium sulphate is that of a mild purgative in doses of 15 to 120 grains.

"3. Alumina, which is the most objectionable ingredient, having the property of rendering insoluble nitrogenous matters and, therefore, indigestible, and also of combining with any phosphoric acid and rendering it also unavailable as food. About 36 grains would be present in one pound of bread made with an alum powder. It is insoluble in water but soluble in the gastric juice, being converted into aluminum chloride. The medicinal dose of alum (dried) is 10 to 40 grains, the larger amounts being given as an emetic."

Another danger in the use of alum which finds a place in the consideration of English courts is the fact that where alum is used in the baking powder or in the bread, an inferior article of flour may be used without its being shown in the product externally.

A leading authority thus alludes to this phase of the question: "Alum, whether added by the miller or baker, makes the bread whiter and more spongy, probably by rendering the glutin more tenacious and less soluble. It is chiefly of advantage if inferior flour is used, and can only be regarded as an adulterant, added to make the purchaser believe that a first class, instead of an inferior flour has been employed. It is only used in small quantities, generally less than 12 grains to the pound of bread (0.15 per cent.) and does not, therefore, appreciably affect the weight or bulk of the loaf."

In England, decisions have been given to the effect that baking powders are not articles of "food," and that they, therefore, do not come under the provisions of the pure food acts. In the case of James vs. Jones, the presiding judge (Hawkins), charged as follows:

"The alum and bi-carbonate of soda used in making bread, assume another form in which, when eaten with the bread, they are injurious. to health. The sale of alum is in itself not an offense, even though the seller knows the buyer is going to mix it with bread, and, therefore, the fact that the alum is sold mixed with other things does not alter the position. No one would dream of using the ground rice contained in the baking powder as an article of food, as it is a part of the mixture, injurious or otherwise. One might as well say that poison and flour in equal parts was 'food' because flour is food. The test is whether the article when sold is an article of food or not. Though the pur

chaser, if he afterwards mixes it with intent to sell, may commit an offense, the vendor would not be committing one. We are clearly of the opinion that baking powder is not an article of food, and neither the sale of it nor the admixture of it with an article of food, unless such article is intended for sale, is an offense. For his own use anybody may use it, and that being so, it would seem strange for the vendor to be liable to penalties. We do not, however, mean to convey it as our opinion that nothing can be deemed to be an article of food unless made up into eatable or drinkable form, such as flour, butter, salt, mustard, pepper, etc., etc., for although no one would dream of eating them alone, yet they are intended to be consumed by mankind." In referring to this decision, Robinson & Cribb write thus:

"The argument of Hawkins, J., seems inconsistent, for it is certain that baking powder is intended for and used in the preparation of food as much as salt, which he seems to think would come within the limitation of the food and drugs acts. Indeed, so exclusively is baking powder used for preparing articles of food, that it cannot be said that it is intended for any other purpose, and the grounds of the above decision seem equally applicable to mustard, flour or salt, which are all used extensively for purposes other than food, or to pepper or yeast. There are but few articles of food which are not used for other purposes by some persons, and if the act is to achieve its expressed object, it must have been intended to cover articles commonly or usually used for food, which baking powder certainly is."

ADULTERATIONS IN MASSACHUSETTS.

The reports of the Board of Health of Massachusetts inform us that the adulteration of milk, as found from samples sent by inspectors of the Board, has been as follows: