I002
T H E J 0 I’ R ATA L 0 F I ATD U S T RI A L A N D ENGINEERILVG C H E M I S T R Y
To confirm my conclusions, I shall give a strict legal interpretation of the law in such particulars as are of essential importance for the views advanced above. Section 3 of the law does ~ z o tconfer legislative power on the three secretariesPurely executive powers are conferred, and therefore the rules and regulations of the Bureau of Chemistry are of a similar nature, as rules and regulations enacted by the district attorney of New York County for the purpose of administering the executive functions of his office. The legal reasoning is clear, for Congress cannot delegate i t s legislative powers to any other body. Kotwithstanding the efforts of certain editorial writers on various trade journals, no decision of the Supreme Court exists which contradicts this statement: Congress cannot delegate its legislative powers. The second point I wish to make is the definition of the word, Drug. Many definitions for various purposes may be found but for the enforcement of the “Pure Food Law” only the definition given by t h a t law may be used. I t has surprised me how rarely, if a t all, courts have attempted to dwell on this point. Section 6 of the law reads: That the term Drug “as used in this Act shall include all medicines and preparations recognized in the United States Pharmacopeia or National Formulary for internal and external use, and any substance or mixture of substances intended to be used for the cure, mitigation, or prevention of disease of either man or other animal.” Let us examine this definition. The phrase, “all medicines and preparations recognized by the United States Pharmacopeia or hTational Formulary for internal or external use” requires t h a t the prosecution must prove I-That i t is medicine or preparation. a-That said medicine or preparation is recognized by the United States Pharmacopeia. 3-That it is so recognized for internal or external use. What a medicine or preparation is the law does not say, and that question is, therefore, a question of fact for the jury and not a question of legal definition. But whatever a medicine or preparation is, it must be such as is recognized by the United States Pharmacopeia or Xational Formulary. Now examining the history of pharmacopeia for the last two centuries throughout all parts of the world, i t must be agreed upon t h a t no pharmacopeia recognizes any commodity that does not comply with its tests or definitions. Therefore, a n article of commerce that does not comply with such tests or definitions cannot be defined as a drug under that part of the laws, phraseology as stated above. Furthermore, such medicines and preparations must be recognized for internal or external use. There are many substances in the U. S. P. not recognized for internal or external use. Clearly, then, if a n article of commerce does not come under the phrase, of the laws’ definition, as stated above, we may proceed and examine the definition as it continues: “And any substance or mixture of substances intended t o be used for the cure, mitigation or prevention of disease of either man or animal .” We note the words “intended to be used,” and also the words, “for the cure, mitigation or prevention of disease.” A mere intent to be proven by the circumstances of each particular case is all t h a t is necessary, but i t must be a direct intent; of indirect intent the law takes no notice. Furthermore, i t must be for the cuye, mitigation or prevention of disease. Therefore, articles of commerce used or intended t o be used for manufacturing, even though the products resulting from such manufacture are substances intended t o be used as a cure, mitigation or prevention of disease, do not come under the law. I call particular attention to this fact, because
irol. 7 , No. r i
the administration and enforcement of the law has not always been conforming to this legal conclusion, especially in cases of importations of articles of commerce into United States. Finally, Section I I of the law deserves some notice. The notice has gone abroad as evidenced by numerous communications on the subject, that executive officers have absolute legislative and executive powers to exclude goods offered to be imported into this country, t h a t there is no legal remedy for any wrongful acts on the part of such executive officers. Let me say that the writ of injunction still exists, and t h a t it is applicable where “there is no adequate remedy at law,” a statement that should be considered where a n executive officer is about t o usurp legislative functions. 1221 L I N C O L N PLACE.BROOKLYN. h’. Y. LOUIS HOGREFE September 3, 1915
PAPER REAGENT Some time ago the writer noticed the following article in a drug journal, the name of which he does not a t present recall: “Detection of Wood Pulp in Paper: The Repertoire de Pharmacie republishes from the B u l l e t i n de la Socie‘tk de Chemie Belge a reagent for the detection of wood It consists of paranitroaniline, 2 0 cgm., dispulp in paper. solved in 80 cm. distilled water and sulfuric acid, sp. gr. I , 7 6 7 : 2 0 milligrams. This has the advantage over the alcoholic solution of phloroglucin and hydrochloric acid in t h a t it may be kept for years. It is also preferable t o anilin sulfate, which, although i t is stable, gives with wood pulp a yellow color, which is not easily distinguished by artificial light. The paranitroaniline colors wood pulp orange to brick-red, and it can be seen under any mode of illumination. The reagent has the further advantage of yielding a color to unbleached cellulose.” The writer made up this reagent and tested different papers and pulps with the following results: ‘ I
I-Mechanical wood-pulp dull orange t o orange. 2-Unbleached sulfite pulp very similar t o above. 3-Bleached sulfite pulp -3 yellow.
+
The writer found t h a t the distinction between the mechanical wood pulp and the unbleached sulfite pulp was not very marked and proved rather troublesome when testing unknown pulps. The writer has discovered, however, a method whereby the detection is made plainer. He used the above reagent in conjunction with ammonium molybdate solution and obtained the following results: 1-Mechanical wood-pulp ----f bright reddish orange. 2--Unbleached sulfite pulp dull orange, f a i n t ; or f a i n t brown. 3-Bleached sulfite pulp colorless.
By experiment it was found t h a t when the ammonium molybdate is applied first and then the paranitroaniline, better results are obtained. Also, on waiting for one or two minutes, the reaction is complete and the distinction is then very sharp. The above certainly seems t o be a n excellent test for distinguishing paper pulps, and could no doubt be applied t o certain other substances as a test for presence of lignin. NATIONAL CLOAK& SUIT Co. NEW YORK CITY September 28, 1915 -.
Wu. J. SCHEPP Chief Chemist and T e x t i l e Expert ..
THE SCHOOL OF CHEMISTRY OF T H E UNIVERSITY PITTSBURGH
OF
The new professional School of Chemistry of the University of Pittsburgh began its work on Spetember 2 7 , 1915, under the deanship of Dr. Raymond Foss Bacon, Director of the Mellon Institute of Industrial Research. A prescribed four-year undergraduate curriculum leads t o the degree of Bachelor of Chemistry; the staff of instruction includes the regular faculty of the University and fellows from the Mellon Institute of Industrial Research who are especially qualified in various theoretical
