You have been declared an animal by the United States Government ever since the Pure Food and Drug Act was passed in 1906.
In this law you are declared: 'man or other animals'.
Definitions: The Law of the Law
I’ve observed for several years that definitions are the “law” of the “law”.
For example, when the Bible commands “Thou shalt not kill,” does that mean “thou shall not kill anyone”? Or does it mean “thou shalt not murder members of your own community, nation or race—but you can kill all the foreigners that you want?”
As Bill Clinton once observed, when it comes to knowing what a law means, “It all depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is.” In other words, the meaning of every law depends on the underlying definitions of every word used to comprise that law.
This implies that if you’re charged under a particular law and you can successfully refute the presumed definition of just one of the key words in that law, you may be able to defeat the charges.
Recognize that most words have several definitions and you can see that discovering the the meaning of any law can be very complex. For example, suppose there’s a law that consists of ten words and each of those ten words have just two different possible definitions. If I’m doing my math properly, there would be 2 to the 10th power (1,024) possible meanings for that 10-word “law”. So, which of the 1,012 possible meanings for that 10 word law is the law?
As Clinton said, it all depends on what the meaning of “is” is.
The law depends on the definitions of the words used to write the law. Thus, the definitions are the underlying and even superior “law” of the law.
But who gets to declare what that meaning of a word is? Who has authority to define words?
• I subscribe to the hypothesis that since A.D. 1968 (the loss of silver-backed currency): 1) the term “The State” has been generally used by the “system” to describe the States of the perpetual Union styled “The United States of America”; and 2) the term “this state” has been used by the system as a “code” to signify something other than the States of the Union and probably administrative divisions of a single national “territory” under the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of Congress (Art. 4.3.2 of The Constitution of the United States).
I didn’t author that hypothesis, but I’ve supported it for a decade or more. I’ve written a series of articles that touch on that hypothesis (see, http://adask.wordpress.com/category/the-state-vs-this-state/).
For me, one of the most important “finds” in support of that hypothesis was Article 1.04(d) of the Texas Penal Code (see, http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.1.htm) which defines the territorial jurisdiction of “this state” as follows:
“This state includes the land and water and the air space above the land and water over which this state has power to define offenses.”
Note that “this state” is not defined to include any people, nor does it have any geographic borders. Without border, it could be global (or even universal) in nature. It might be the working definition of the territorial jurisdiction of the New World Order.
But, most importantly, I read Texas Penal Code 1.04(d) to mean that the territorial jurisdiction of “this state” exists wherever “this state has power to define offense”.
This implies that it’s all about definitions.
Given that “this state” has no geographical borders (and presumably extends out to Oklahama, Canada, Mexico and even Mars), it appears that if you accept the definitions of “this state,” then you’re presumed to be in the territorial jurisdiction of “this state”. If so, it may follow that if you reject the definitions of “this state,” you are not “in this state” or subject to its territorial jurisdiction.
• Note also that the definition of this state’s territorial jurisdiction relies on the “power to define offenses”—not the “authority to define offenses”.
For example, on this blog, I have the “power” to define words any way I like. If I want to define the word “peace” to mean “war,” I have the power to do so within the “jurisdiction” of my blog. Not one of you can stop me from defining words however I like on my blog.
But. While I may have the power to define words however I please on my blog, I do not have the authority to make any one of you accept my definitions. So long as I have power—but not authority—to define words, you have a choice as to whether you wish to agree that “war” means “war” or “war” means “peace”.
I believe that something similar applies to the territorial jurisdiction of “this state”. The “Achilles heel” of “this state” appears to be that it has much power, but no authority. Today, The States of the Union appear to have virtually no power, but still retain all of the authority. “This state,” conversely, has virtually all of the power, but none of the authority.
Why? Because authority over the people flows from the People’s consent. That consent was manifested on a state-wide basis by the Constitution of The State of Texas. “This state,” however, has no express constitution authorized by We the People. Thus, “this state” has no authority over you or me, unless you or I grant that authority on a case-by-case, transaction-by-transaction basis. I might recognize the “authority” of “this state” today in my decision to register my automobile; I might reject the “authority” of “this state” tomorrow when I refuse to pay sales taxes. It’s my choice every time I transact.
Without our presumed consent (actually, assent), “this state” couldn’t exist. This notion seems to underlie the de facto officer doctrine created by the US Supreme Court: If some employee of a private corporation wearing a badge and a gun comes up to you and you say “What seems to be the problem, officer”—it will be presumed that you have just recognized that private employee as an “officer” of the de jure government; that, by your act of “recognition,” you have thereby given that private employee authority (that he didn’t have from his employer) to proceed against you; that you have voluntarily provided that employee with immunity from your subsequent lawsuit against him for impersonating an “officer” of the constitutional State’s government.
Everything I’ve been able to see for ten years indicates that “this state” is all based on your presumed assent. Because you don’t expressly object, it is presumed that you have voluntarily but silently “assented” to the exercise of power by “this state”. However, if you can defeat that presumption (and I don’t suggest that it’s easy to do so), it appears that you may be able to walk right out from under the “power” of “this state”.
• Insofar as definitions are the foundation for the territorial jurisdiction of “this state,” if you don’t asssent to the definitions “proposed” by “this state,” you’re not really “in this state”.
Of course, before you can object to any of the definitions proposed by “this state,” you’ve got to begin to discover those definitions and learn to read them with enough insight to refute them and then claim to use a different definition.
I don’t mean to suggest that you decide to insist on your own, “homemade” definitions as an alternative to the definitions of “this state”. You will not be able to define “war” to be “peace” and expect the courts of “this state” to do much more than grin and ship you off for a psyche evaluation.
In order to challenge the definitions of “this state,” you will have to be able to point to alternative definitions that are supported by some authority that “this state” will not be able to easily deny—especially in front of a jury.
For example, when I was sued by the Texas Attorney General for $25,000/day ($9 million /year) (see, http://adask.wordpress.com/2008/06/17/man-or-other-animals-1/) I devised a “freedom of religion” defense and (after investing 6 years and most of one-half million dollars in the pretrial investigation and hearings in the case), the Texas AG dropped the lawsuit. I didn’t fully understand it at the time (A.D. 2006), but the essence of my defense was a challenge to the definitions of “this state”. The gov-co defined the people to be “animals”. I argued that as Jew or Christian, I cannot be defined as an “animal” without violating a fundamental principle of my faith: that man alone is created in God’s image and given “dominion over the animals” (Genesis 1:26-28). I defined myself as a “man” under God’s law. The AG’s office presumably realized they could never find a jury that included even one Christian or Jew to vote that I and the rest of the People are animals—and dropped the case.
The Texas Penal code’s definition of “this state,” supra, includes no fixed borders and no people. However, if I recall correctly, in the A.D. 1869 case of Texas v White, the Supreme Court defined a “State” (of the Union) to normally include: 1) the People; 2) a fixed territory; and 3) a State government. Such a “State” (of the Union) could exist without fixed borders or even without a functioning State government, but could not exist without any People. Thus, the Supreme Court’s definition of a State of the Union (which includes People) is clearly different from the Texas Penal Code’s definition of “this state” (which apparently has no People).
I infer that if you want to challenge the territorial jurisdiction of “this state” simply identify yourself under oath as one of the People of The State of Texas—just as it says in the Preamble to The Constitution of The State of Texas: “Humbly invoking the blessings of Almighty God, the people of the State of Texas, do ordain and establish this Constitution.”
This strategy is not certain to free you from the “territorial jurisdiction” of “this state”—other tactics may be required to affect your Liberty—but defining yourself under the authority of the Texas Constitution as one of the People of The State of Texas is a big first step in that direction.
• I’ve argued for several months that if you would be free, you must have at least as many dictionaries as you have firearms.
One dictionary is not enough. You need several dictionaries from several different eras so you can view the meaning of a word in one dictionary from A.D. 1828 and compare it to another dictionary in A.D. 1933 and another from A.D. 2009. By comparing the definitions of a particular word over a century or more, you’ll begin to appreciate how fluid and unfixed meanings can be.
Once you see how quickly definitions can change (especially in law dictionaries), you’ll begin to see that a definition from even yesterday might not be the definition today. Once you appreciate how quickly the definitions can change, you’ll be led to ask, “Who sez what a definition is at any particular time?” In other words, under whose authority is the definition of a word changed or decided at any given time?
In some instances, the authority is the Supreme Court. In some instances, Congress. But in many instances the authority is We the People in the context of our private contracts, notices, trusts and daily communications. Insofar as those definitions are changed by common usage, they’re changed by mutual consent. (For example, today’s common definition of the word “gay” is quite different from the common definition of 50 years ago. That change has been achieved by mutual consent.) If you don’t consent to a definition that depends on your consent, you’re not likely to be bound by the terms of whatever sentences use that word and definition.
• More, even when the Congress or Supreme Court acts with apparent authority to define words (and thus would not seem to require your personal consent) under certain circumstances, their apparent authority can be challenged. If their authority is missing, then the definition cannot be imposed but instead requires your consent.
For example, the 9th Amendment to The Constitution of the United States declares, “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage other retained by the people.” The 9th Amendment is the doorway back to the “Declaration of Independence” that declares that, “all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”. Thus, the 9th Amendment’s protection for rights not expressly “enumerated” in the Constitution opens the door for me to claim the God-given, unalienable Rights first declared in the “Declaration”.
But. Who is defined by the 9th Amendment as being entitled to claim those unenumerated rights? The “people”. (“The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage other retained by the people.”) If you appear in court in the capacity of a “citizen,” “inhabitant,” “individual,” “resident,” “person” or any one of a score of other descriptions, your claim of God-given, unalienable Rights might be ignored. Court is a game of words much like Mother May I or Simon Says. If you don’t say the exactly right word at the right time, you may lose.
• Insofar as the 9th Amendment opens the door for me to claim my God-given, unalienable Rights, it also opens the door to challenge the authority of Congress or the Supreme Court to define any word in a way that would “deny or disparage” any of my unenumerated rights.
For example, the drug laws define the people to be “animals”. If you and I are mere “animals,” then: 1) we are not men made in God’s image and given dominion over the animals (as per Genesis 1:26-28) and endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable Rights (“Declaration of Independence”); and 2) we are not “people” under the 9th Amendment. As “animals,” we have no standing to claim any God-given, unalienable Rights or complain if those rights are violated.
But. Does the Congress or Supreme Court have authority to define you and I to be “animals”? No.
Why?
Because defining us to be “animals” violates our freedom of religion (as protected by the 1st Amendment) and our access to our God-given, unalienable Rights (as secured by the 9th Amendment). Insofar as you can point to authority in the Bible, Declaration of Independence, and 1st and 9th Amendments to show that you are a “man” and one of the “people,” you can claim your God-given, unalienable Rights and individual sovereignty any time you find enough intelligence, knowledge and courage to do so.
What’s the implication?
The implication is that you can be defined and treated as an “animal” only so long as you consent (or assent) to that definition. Would you like to regain your Liberty? Stop assenting to be treated as an “animal” (or any other kind of entity other than a “man made in God’s image, endowed by his Creator with certain unalienable Rights, and one of the People of The State of Texas” (or of some other States of the Union).
If this strategy seems fairly simple, it’s still not easy to execute. You’re not likely to walk into court mumble a few words about the Bible, Declaration and 9th Amendment and see the case against you dismissed.
It’s a word game, remember?
Insofar as that’s true, you must be fluent in the language. You must be adept at using words. You must make it your business to discipline your mind to think and speak in complete sentences. No more “watchamacallits” or “whatisface” or “y’unnerstan?”. You must aspire to write and speak like Thomas Jefferson. Not many of us will achieve that objective. But if you aspire only to talk like one of your “homies in duh hood,” you may be cool, baby, but you be goin’ to jail.
If you want out from under “this state,” your first step is to become fluent in the English language.
• Once you begin to study and learn your own language, once you begin to study dictionaries, you’ll begin to understand that definitions are ultimately consensual in nature. Insofar as the exercise of power by “this state” depends on a preliminary Notice or a meeting of the minds, that Notice and/or “meeting” depend on the parties agreeing to the definitions of the words which comprise that notice of “meeting of the minds”. If you can effectively refute the definitions of “this state,” you may be able to hold “this state” at bay.
The battle against tyranny may devolve into a shooting revolution, but that battle is first and foremost a battle of words. You are ensnared in a seemingly invisible net composed of nothing more than words.
It follows that, insofar as you become adept at discerning between the meanings and definitions of words, you can begin to extricate yourself from the territorial jurisdiction of “this state”.
Pure Food and Drug Act (1906). United States Statutes at Large
(59th Cong., Sess. I, Chp. 3915, p. 768-772; cited as 34 U.S. Stats. 768)
Introduction from the History
of Medicine Division, National Library of
Medicine
For more information on this text, please refer to this text's Historical Note.
AN ACT
CHAP. 3915-
An Act for preventing the manufacture, sale, or transportation of adulterated or
misbranded or poisonous or deleterious foods, drugs, medicines, and liquors, and
for regulating traffic therein, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled, That it shall be unlawful for any person to
manufacture within any Territory or the District of Columbia any article of food
or drug which is adulterated or misbranded, within the meaning of this Act; and
any person who shall violate any of the provisions of this section shall be
guilty of a misdemeanor, and for each offense shall, upon conviction thereof, be
fined not to exceed five hundred dollars, or shall be sentenced to one
year’s imprisonment, for each subsequent offense and conviction
thereof shall be fined not less than one thousand dollars or sentenced to one
year’s imprisonment, or both such fine and imprisonment, in the
discretion of the court.
SEC. 2
That the introduction into any State or Territory or the District of Columbia
from any other State or Territory or the District of Columbia, from any other
State or Territory or the District of Columbia, or form any foreign country, or
shipment to any foreign country of any article of food or drugs which is
adulterated or misbranded, within the meaning of this Act, is hereby prohibited;
and any person who shall ship or deliver for shipment from any State or
Territory or the District of Columbia to any other State or Territory or the
District of Columbia, or to a foreign country, or who shall receive in any State
or Territory or the District of Columbia, or foreign country, and having so
received, shall deliver, in original unbroken packages, for pay or otherwise, or
offer to deliver to any other person, any such article so adulterated or
misbranded within the meaning of this Act, or any person who shall sell or offer
for sale in the District of Columbia or the Territories of the United States any
such adulterated or misbranded foods or drugs, or export or offer to export the
same to any foreign country, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and for such
offense be fined not exceeding two hundred dollars for the first offense, and
upon conviction for each subsequent offense not exceeding three hundred dollars
or be imprisoned not exceeding one year, or both, in the discretion of the
court: Provided, That no article shall be deemed misbranded or adulterated
within the provisions of this Act when intended for export to any foreign
country and prepared or packed according to the specifications or directions of
the foreign purchaser when no substance is used in the preparation or packing
thereof in conflict with the laws of the foreign country to which said article
is intended to be shipped; but if said article shall be in fact sold or offered
for sale for domestic use or consumption, then this proviso shall not exempt
said article from the operation of any of the other provisions of this Act.
SEC. 3
That the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Agriculture, and the
Secretary of Commerce and Labor shall make uniform rules and regulations for
carrying out the provisions of this Act, including the collection and
examination of specimens of foods and drugs manufactured or offered for sale in
the District of Columbia, or in any Territory of the United States, or which
shall be offered for sale in unbroken packages in any State other than that in
which they shall have been respectively manufactured or produced, or which shall
be received from any foreign country, or intended for shipment to any foreign
country, which may be submitted for examination by the chief health, food, or
drug officer of any State, Territory, or the District of Columbia, or at any
domestic or foreign port through which such product is offered for interstate
commerce, or for export or import between the United States and any foreign port
or country.
SEC. 4
That the examinations of specimens of foods and drugs shall be made in the Bureau
of chemistry of the Department of Agriculture, or under the direction and
supervision of such Bureau, for the purpose of determining from such
examinations whether such articles are adulterated or misbranded within the
meaning of this Act; and if it shall appear from any such examination that any
of such specimens is adulterated or misbranded within the meaning of this act,
the Secretary of Agriculture shall cause notice thereof to be given to the party
from whom such sample was obtained. Any party so notified shall be given an
opportunity to be heard, under such rules and regulations as may be prescribed
as aforesaid, and if it appears that any of the provisions of this act have been
violated by such party, then the Secretary of Agriculture shall at once certify
the facts to the proper United States district attorney, with a copy of the
results of the analysis or the examination of such article duly authenticated by
the analyst or officer making such examination, under the oath of such officer.
After judgment of the court, notice shall be given by publication in such manner
as may be prescribed by the rules and regulations aforesaid.
SEC. 5
That it shall be the duty of each district attorney to whom the Secretary of
Agriculture shall report any violation of this Act, or to whom any health or
food or drug officer or agent of any State, Territory, or the District of
Columbia shall present satisfactory evidence of any such violation, to cause
appropriate proceedings to be commenced and prosecuted in the proper courts of
the United States, without delay, for the enforcement of the penalties as in
such case herein provided.
SEC.6
That the term “drug,” as used in this Act, shall include all
medicines and preparations recognized in the United States Pharmacopoeia or
National Formulary for internal or 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 animals. The term “food,” as
used herein, shall include all articles used for food, drink, confectionery, or
condiment by man or other animals, whether simple, mixed, or compound.
SEC. 7
That for the purposes of this Act an article shall be deemed to be
adulterated:
In case of drugs:
First. If, when a drug is sold under or by a name recognized in
the United States Pharmacopoeia or National formulary, it differs from the
standard of strength, quality, or purity, as determined by the test laid down in
the United States Pharmacopoeia or National Formulary official at the time of
investigation: Provided, That no drug defined in the United
States Pharmacopoeia or National Formulary shall be deemed to be adulterated
under this provision if the standard of strength, quality, or purity be plainly
stated upon the bottle, box, or other container thereof although the standard
may differ from that determined by the test laid down in the United States
Pharmacopoeia or National Formulary.
Second. If its strength or purity fall below the professed
standard or quality under which it is sold.
In the case of confectionery:
If it contains terra alba, barites, talc, chrome yellow, or other mineral
substance or poisonous color or flavor, or other ingredient deleterious or
detrimental to health, or any vinous, malt or spirituous liquor or compound or
narcotic drug.
In the case of food:
First. If any substance has been mixed and packed with it so as
to reduce or lower or injuriously affect its quality or strength.
Second. If any substance has been substituted wholly or in part
for the article.
Third. If any valuable constituent of the article has been
wholly or in part abstracted.
Fourth. If it be mixed, colored powdered, coated, or stained in
a manner whereby damage or inferiority is concealed.
Fifth. If it contain any added poisonous or other added
deleterious ingredient which may render such article injurious to health:
Provided, That when in the preparation of food products for shipment they are
preserved by any external application applied in such manner that the
preservative is necessarily removed mechanically, or by maceration in water, or
otherwise, and directions for the removal of said preservative shall be printed
on the covering or the package, the provisions of this act shall be construed as
applying only when said products are ready for consumption.
Sixth. If it consists in whole or in part of a filthy,
decomposed, or putrid animal or vegetable substance, or any portion of an animal
unfit for food, whether manufactured or not, or if it is the product of a
diseased animal, or one that has died otherwise than by slaughter.
SEC. 8
That the term “misbranded,” as used herein, shall apply to
all drugs, or articles of food, or articles which enter into the composition of
food, the package or label of which shall bear any statement, design, or device
regarding such article, or the ingredients or substances contained therein which
shall be false or misleading in any particular, and to any food or drug product
which is falsely branded as the State, territory, or country in which it is
manufactured or produced.
That for the purposes of this Act an article shall also be deemed to be
misbranded:
In the case of Drugs:
First. If it be an imitation of or offered for sale under the
name of another article.
Second. If the contents of the package as originally put up
shall have been removed, in whole or in part, and other contents shall have been
placed in such package, or if the package fail to bear a statement on the label
of the quantity or proportion of any alcohol, morphine, opium, cocaine, heroin,
alpha or beta eucaine, chloroform, cannabis indica, chloral hydrate, or
acetanilide, or any derivative or preparation of any such substances contained
therein.
Third. If in package form, and the contents are stated in terms
of weight or measure, they are not plainly and correctly stated on the outside
of the package.
Fourth. If the package containing it or its label shall bear any
statement, design, or device regarding the ingredients or the substances
contained therein, which statement, design, or device shall be false or
misleading in any particular:
Provided, That an article of food which does not contain any
added poisonous or deleterious ingredients shall not be deemed to be adulterated
or misbranded in the following cases:
First. In the case of mixtures or compounds which may be now or
from time to time hereafter known as articles of food, under their own
distinctive names, and not an imitation of or offered for sale under the
distinctive name of another article, if the name be accompanied on the same
label or brand with a statement of the place where said article has been
manufactured or produced.
Second. In the case of articles labeled, branded, or tagged so
as to plainly indicate that they are compounds, imitations, or blends, and the
word “compound,” ”imitation,” or
“blend,” as the case may be is plainly stated on the package
in which it is offered for sale: Provided, That the term blend as used herein
shall be construed to mean a mixture of like substances, not excluding harmless
coloring or flavoring ingredients used for the purpose of coloring and flavoring
only: And provided further, That nothing in this Act shall be construed as
requiring or compelling proprietors or manufacturers of proprietary foods which
contain no unwholesome added ingredients to disclose their trade formulas,
except in so far as the provisions of this Act may require to secure freedom
from adulteration or misbranding.
SEC. 9
That no dealer shall be prosecuted under the provisions of this Act when he can
establish a guaranty signed by the wholesaler, jobber, manufacturer, or other
party residing in the united States, from whom he purchases such articles to the
effect that the same is not adulterated or misbranded within the meaning of this
Act, designating it.
Said guaranty, to afford protection, shall contain the name and address of the
party or parties making the sale of such articles to such dealer, and such case
said party or parties shall be amenable to the prosecutions, fines, and other
penalties which would attach, in due course, to the dealer under the provisions
of this Act.
SEC. 10
That any article of food, drug, or liquor that is adulterated or misbranded
within the meaning of this Act, and is being transported from one State,
Territory, District, or insular possession to another for sale, or, having been
transported, remains unloaded, unsold, or in original unbroken packages, or if
it be sold or offered for sale in the District of Columbia or the Territories,
or insular possessions of the United States, or if it be imported from a foreign
country for sale, or if it is intended for export to a foreign country shall be
liable to be proceeded against in any district court of the United States within
the district where the same is found, and seized for confiscation by a process
of libel for condemnation. And if such article is condemned as being adulterated
or misbranded, or of a poisonous or deleterious character, within the meaning of
this Act, the same shall be disposed of by destruction or sale, as the said
court may direct, and the proceeds thereof, if sold, less the legal costs and
charges shall be paid into the Treasury of the United States, but such goods
shall not be sold in any jurisdiction contrary to the provisions of this Act or
the laws of that jurisdiction: Provided, however, That upon the payment of the
costs of such libel proceedings and the execution and delivery of a good and
sufficient bond to the effect that such articles shall not be sold or otherwise
disposed of contrary to the provisions of this Act, or the laws of any State,
Territory, District, or insular possession, the court may by order direct that
such articles be delivered to the owner thereof. The proceedings of such libel
cases shall conform, as near as may be, to the proceedings in admiralty, except
that either party may demand trial by jury of any issue of fact joined in any
such case, and all such proceedings shall be at the suit of and in the name of
the United States.
SEC. 11
The Secretary of the Treasury shall deliver to the Secretary of Agriculture, upon
his request from time to time, samples of foods and drugs which are being
imported into the United States or offered for import, giving notice thereof to
the owner or consignee, who may appear before the Secretary of Agriculture, and
have the right to introduce testimony, and if it appear from the examination of
such samples that any article of food or drug offered to be imported into the
United States is adulterated or misbranded within the meaning of this Act, or is
otherwise dangerous to the health of the people of the United States, or is of a
kind forbidden entry into, or forbidden to be sold or restricted in sale in the
country in which it is made or from which it is exported, or is otherwise
falsely labeled in any respect, the said article shall be refused admission, and
the Secretary of the Treasury shall refuse delivery to the consignee and shall
cause the destruction of any goods refused delivery which shall not be exported
by the consignee within three months from the date of notice of such refusal
under such regulations as the Secretary of the Treasury may prescribe: Provided
, That the Secretary of the Treasury may deliver to the consignee such goods
pending examination and decision in the matter on execution of a penal bond for
the amount of the full invoice value of such goods, together with the duty
thereon, and on refusal to return such goods for any cause to the custody of the
Secretary of the Treasury, when demanded, for the purpose of excluding them from
the country, or for any other purpose, said consignee shall forfeit the full
amount of the bond: And provided further , That all charges for storage,
cartage, and labor on goods which are refused admission or delivery shall be
paid by the owner or consignee, and in default of such payment shall constitute
a lien against any future importation made by such owner or consignee.
SEC. 12
That the term "Territory" as used in this Act shall include the insular
possessions of the United States. The word "person" as used in this Act shall be
construed to import both the plural and the singular, as the case demands, and
shall include corporations, companies, societies and associations. When
construing and enforcing the provisions of this Act, the act, omission, or
failure of any officer, agent, or other person acting for or employed by any
corporation, company, society, or association, within the scope of his
employment or office, shall in every case be also deemed to be the act,
omission, or failure of such corporation, company, society, or association as
well as that of the person.
SEC. 13
That this Act shall be in force and effect from and after the first day of
January, nineteen hundred and seven. Approved, June 30, 1906
[Historical Note]
The Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 was the first of a series of significant consumer
protection laws enacted by the Federal Government in the twentieth century and led
to the creation of the Food and Drug Administration. Its main purpose was to ban
foreign and interstate traffic in adulterated or mislabeled food and drug products,
and it directed the U.S. Bureau of Chemistry to inspect products and refer offenders
to prosecutors. It required that active ingredients be placed on the label of a
drug’s packaging and that drugs could not fall below purity levels
established by The United States Pharmacopeia or The
National Formulary.
One of its primary proponents was Harvey W. Wiley, chief chemist of the Department of
Agriculture, whose research into food adulteration caused him to be concerned about
serious threats to the public’s health. Aggressive and sometimes
sensational journalists, known as Muckrakers, took on the issues of food and drug
dangers, bringing a great deal of pressure on the administration of Theodore
Roosevelt to pass legislation regulating the industry.
Despite a great deal of lobbying by patent drug manufacturers and the meat packing
industry, the Pure Food and Drug Act and a piece of matching legislation, the Meat
Inspection Act, were passed on June 30, 1906, both taking effect on January 1,
1907.
For more information on the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906, read this article at the
FDA’s website: http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~lrd/history1.html
[Electronic text]
Edited by Michael North, History of Medicine Division,
National Library of Medicine, for Medicine in the Americas, April,
2004.]
