branding of such articles imported from foreign countries after they have passed the custom-house and are delivered to the consignees; and whether the act last referred to above applies to such articles imported from foreign countries, or applies only to articles of domestic production.
In reply to your question, I have the honor to say that, under the provisions of the act of March 3, 1903, to which you refer, the jurisdiction and power of your Department, and that of the Treasury Department, in respect of the matter here considered, end with the delivery of the imported article from the custom-house to the owner or consignee, and this provision of the act confers no power to prevent or punish the false labeling or branding of such imported articles after such delivery to the owner or consignee. The whole power there conferred in this respect is to examine such imported articles before such delivery, and to refuse delivery if found to come within the ban of the act. Whatever power there may be to prevent or punish the false labeling or branding of such imported goods after such delivery must be looked for elsewhere.
If the evils of false labeling of such imported articles have reached a magnitude requiring Congressional legislation, it would seem almost, or quite, as important to prevent such false labeling after the articles have passed the custom-house as before; and it would seem that Congress, while having the matter directly in hand, has omitted what would have been very appropriate legislation. But this omission cannot be supplied by those called upon to interpret or administer the law.
But I think the act of July 1, 1902, may be resorted to for partial relief from the evil to which you refer. The first section provides:
That no person . . . shall introduce into any State or Territory of the United
States or the District of Columbia, from any other State or Territory of the United States
or the District of Columbia, or sell in the District of Columbia or in any Territory, any
dairy or food products which shall be falsely labeled or branded as to the State or Territory
in which they are made, produced, or grown, or cause or procure the same to be done by
others.
The second section provides the penalty for violation of the act.
The prohibition is of the introduction into any State or Territory or the District of Columbia from any other State or Territory or the District of Columbia, and the sale in said District or any Territory, of dairy or food products which are "falsely branded or labeled as to the State or Territory in which they are made, produced, or grown."
It is important to notice that the prohibition extends to falsely labeled articles introduced or brought from another State or Territory, and is not confined to articles which are made, produced, or grown in some other State or Territory of the United States. If dairy or food products which are falsely labeled or branded as to the State or Territory of their origin are introduced or brought into one State or Territory or the District of Columbia from another State or Territory or the District of Columbia, or are sold in any Territory or said District, this is clearly within the prohibition of the act, no matter whether such articles were of domestic or foreign origin. I repeat the section does not confine or purport to confine its prohibition to the introduction of falsely labeled articles made, grown, or produced in this country, but extends it to all such articles introduced from another State or Territory which are falsely labeled "as to the State or Territory in which they are made, produced, or grown."
But, as I have stated above, the act can give only partial relief. For it is plain from the context that the words "State or Territory" refer to a State or Territory of the United States, and can not be extended to include the wider signification of foreign country. Thus, if articles of foreign origin are imported into New York, for example, and thence introduced into another State or Territory with a label or brand falsely stating their origin as to another foreign country, the case would not fall within the provisions of the statute. On
