The Federal courts have not agreed as to the effect of the provision for notice and hearing, found in § 4 of the pure food and drug act of June 30, 1906 (34 Stat. at L. 768, chap. 3915, U.S.C.omp. Stat. Supp. 1909, p. 1187). United States v. Nine Barrels of Olives, 179 Fed. 984; United States v. Twenty Cases of Grape Juice, 189 Fed. 331. Whether it confers a right upon the defendant, or results in imposing a duty upon the district attorney, can be determined by a brief examination of a few of the provisions of the act.
Under the pure food law not only a manufacturer, but any dealer, shipping adulterated or misbranded goods in interstate commerce, is guilty of a misdemeanor. In aid of enforcement of the statute, it is made the duty of the Department of Agriculture to collect specimens of such articles so shipped, and the Bureau of Chemistry is required to analyze them. But, even if the specimen, on analysis, is found to be adulterated, there is no requirement that the case should be turned over at once to the district attorney, for the reason that the 'party from whom the sample was obtained' might be a dealer holding a guaranty from his vender that the articles were not adulterated. In such case the dealer is not liable to prosecution, but the guarantor (§ 9) is made 'amenable to the prosecutions, fines, and penalties.' The act, therefore, declares (§ 4) that when, on such examination by the Board of Chemistry, the article is found to be adulterated, 'notice shall be given to the party from whom the sample was obtained. Any party so notified shall be given an opportunity to be heard.' If it then appears that he has violated the statute, the Secretary of Agriculture is required to certify that fact, together with a copy of the analysis, to the proper district attorney, who (§ 5), without delay, must 'institute appropriate proceedings,' by indictment, or libel for condemnation, or both, as the facts may warrant.
But the act also contemplates (§ 5) that complaints may be made to the district attorney by state health officials. In that class of cases, no doubt because the state agents investigate without giving a hearing, the district attorney is not obliged to prosecute unless such state officers 'shall present satisfactory evidence of such violation.' But the very fact that he must do so in that event recognizes that he may begin proceedings against a defendant who has not been given a notice and an opportunity to be heard.
In providing for notice in one case, and permitting prosecutions without it in another, the statute clearly shows that there was no intent to make notice jurisdictional. This view is strengthened by the fact that it contains no reference to giving notice to anyone except 'to the party from whom the sample was obtained.' And if, on the hearing given him, it appears that he is a dealer holding a guaranty, the act, in providing for proceedings against such guarantor, contains no suggestion that a new notice shall be given him before an indictment can be submitted to the grand jury.
In cases like the present, or where foreign goods are labeled as of domestic manufacture and vice versa, no scientific examination may be necessary. But usually a chemical analysis will be required to determine whether an article is adulterated. The Bureau of Chemistry is equipped to do that work, so that in practice most prosecutions will be based on reports made by the Department of Agriculture after notice. But the hearing is not judicial. There is no provision for compelling the presence of the party from whom the sample was received; if he voluntarily attends, he is not in jeopardy; an adverse finding is not binding against him; and a decision in his favor is not an acquittal which prevents a subsequent hearing before the Department, or a trial in court.