« AnteriorContinuar »
Secretary MEYER. With one property account we do not have to, but before, where you had seven property accounts, you are quite right, and you had not a clearing house. Now the naval property account acts as a clearing house. They carry all the supplies of every kind and description. I am not saying that the naval supply account was not necessary before, but having one property account we do not need the naval supply fund.
“I want to say that with this one naval supply account a close watch can be kept of the stock, with a view of reducing the amount of stock to be kept on hand as well, and with the system we have adopted on the ships we have but one stores account. But we have to know in the future whether we are going to have one property account permanently or not, because we can not run it in the air.”
The act of March 4, 1911, provides that the naval supply account as created by the act of June 25, 1910, shall“ govern the charging, crediting, receipt, purchase, transfer, manufacture, repair, issue, and consumption of all stores for the Naval Establishment, excepting the materials named in that act and such other materials as the Secretary of the Navy may designate. It is true the latter act does not contain the word “use,” but, as it was manifestly dealing with the naval supply account as established by the act of June 25, 1910, I do not attach any special significance to this omission.
The purpose of the regulation in question seems to have been to establish a complete, simple, and economical system for the purchase, manufacture, repair, transfer, issue, use and consumption of all stores for the Naval Establishment, with the exceptions named or authorized, by which a proper and accurate cost account could be kept in respect to the several specific appropriations for such supplies.
Specifically answering your question, therefore, I have the honor to advise you that the articles of equipage to which you refer should be again charged against the appropriation “ Equipment of vessels” in 1912, when they are reissued to the vessels mentioned upon their going into commission.
I have also been asked informally by the Assistant Secretary whether it is within your power to exempt from the operation of the naval supply account articles of ships' equipage turned into store upon vessels going out of commission.
The act of June 25, 1910, provided “ that such material as provisions, clothing and small stores, medical stores, and such other materials as the Secretary of the Navy may designate, may be purchased by specific appropriations or transferred to specific appropriations before such materials are issued for use or consumption.” This provision merely authorized the materials named and such others as you might designate to be purchased by or transferred to specific appropriations before they were issued for use or consumption. If so purchased or transferred, such articles would not, I understand, under the practical construction given the act by your department, be charged to the naval supply account if later they were turned in by ships. But there was no authority in this provision of the act of June 25, 1910, to except articles which had been drawn from the general supply account from the operation of the succeeding provision of that statute requiring credit to be given to annual appropriations for material taken from repairs made to ships and for stores turned in from ships. When such articles or materials are turned into store, they are required to be charged to the naval supply account, and hence would have to be charged again to specific annual appropriations when reissued.
But the exceptive clause in the act of March 4, 1911, is different, and due effect, it seems to me, must be given to the change in language. That act provides that the naval supply account, as created by the act of June 25, 1910, “ shall govern the charging, crediting, receipt, purchase, transfer, manufacture, repair, issue, and consumption of all supplies for the Naval Establishment, excepting the materials named in that act and such other materials as you may designate.” While this provision is not to be taken as authority to withdraw from the naval supply account, without charge against the specific annual appropriations concerned, articles which have previously been
charged to that account in accordance with law, it seems to me to be clearly intended to enable you to keep out of that account any article that you may designate. Hence, it would be within your authority, as to the future, if you thought the interests of the Naval Establishment required it, to direct that certain “surveyed materials takeri from repairs made to ships or plant at navy yards and stations or certain “stores turned in from ships” upon going out of commission, should not be charged to the naval supply account, the word “materials” as used throughout both acts evidently being intended to include articles forming part of a ship's equipage. Respectfully,
WILLIAM R. HARR,
Assistant Attorney General. Approved :
GEORGE W. WICKERSHAM.
The SECRETARY OF THE WAY.
MEAT INSPECTION-POST-MORTEM EXAMINATION-MARK
Under the meat inspection amendment of June 30, 1906 (34 Stat.
674), the Federal mark of inspection can not be lawfully placed upon any meat-food product unless the animal from which it was derived received a post-mortem examination by the inspectors of
the Bureau of Animal Industry. Imported meats and meat-food products are entitled to admission
into this country and to interstate commerce subject only to the provisions of the food and drugs act of June 30, 1906 (31 Stat. 768), even though they should be further manufactured in this country, provided they are not mixed with domestic meat and meat products, but they can in no instance bear the Federal
mark of approval provided for by the meat inspection act of 1906. The opinion of August 25, 1911 (29 Op. 227), modified.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
March 11, 1912. Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 22d of November last, inclosing a letter to you from Dr. Melvin, Chief of the Bureau of Animal Industry, and asking to be advised whether
“ Under the meat-inspection amendment the inspectors of the Bureau of Animal Industry are in any case authorized to place the mark of inspection upon a meat-food product which is derived from the carcass of any one of the four animals covered by the act, if the carcass of that animal did not receive a post-mortem inspection by an inspector of the Bureau of Animal Industry.”
In Dr. Melvin's letter it is stated that by a post-mortem inspection meat-inspection authorities understand an inspection, not only of the carcass, but of the head and organs while attached thereto (with which meaning the term will be hereinafter used); and that it is a fact of universal recognition by such authorities, both in this country and abroad, that it is impossible for a qualified inspector from an examination of the meat or other product only, and without such post-mortem inspection, to be certain whether the animal was affected with a disease which might render such meat or products unsound, unhealthful, unwholesome, and unfit for human food.
The answer to your question depends upon the construction to be given the meat-inspection amendment of June 30, 1906 (34 Stats. 674), in determining which a brief review of the earlier legislation upon the subject will be helpful.
The Bureau of Animal Industry, by which the meatinspection laws are enforced, was created by the act of May 29, 1884 (23 Stat. 31), entitled “An act for the establishment of a Bureau of Animal Industry, to prevent the exportation of diseased cattle, and to provide means for the suppression and extirpation of pleuro-pneumonia and other contagious diseases among domestic animals.” This act was confined to domestic animals, and authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to take the necessary steps to prevent the exportation of diseased live stock, and prohibited interstate commerce therein. It made no mention of the carcasses and products of such diseased animals.
The act of August 30, 1890 (26 Stat. 414), provides that the Secretary of Agriculture may cause to be made a careful inspection of salted pork and bacon intended for exportation, with a view of determining whether the same is wholesome, sound, and fit for human food. Such inspection was to be made only when required by the laws of the country to which the meat was to be exported, or when requested by the seller or buyer thereof, and might be made at the place of packing or of exportation.
The act of March 3, 1891 (26 Stat. 1089), entitled “An act to provide for the inspection of live cattle, hogs, and the carcasses and products thereof which are the subject of interstate commerce, and for other purposes," provides in section 1 for an inspection of all live cattle exported to foreign countries; and in section 2 for an inspection of all live cattle, the meat of which is intended for exportation to any foreign country, with a view to ascertain whether such cattle are free from disease and their meat sound and wholesome.
Section 3 requires an ante-mortem inspection of all cattle, sheep, and hogs the carcasses or products of which are to go into interstate commerce, and authorizes “ in all cases where the Secretary of Agriculture may deem necessary or expedient, under rules and regulations to be by him prescribed," a post-mortem examination of the carcasses of such animals.
Section 4 provides that after said examination, the carcasses and products of all animals “ found to be free of disease, and wholesome, sound, and fit for human food, shall be marked as provided by the rules”; and section 5 prohibits the introduction into interstate commerce of the carcasses of animals found to be unsound or diseased.
Section 7 provides that the act should not apply to animals slaughtered by a farmer upon his farm, unless such carcasses should go into a packing establishment and be intended for transportation in interstate commerce.
The regulations made pursuant to this statute provided for a post-mortem examination of all animals slaughtered at any establishment where official inspection was maintained. Dr. Melvin states that from that time forth, as well before as after the act of 1906, the Federal mark of approval was placed only upon the meat of animals thus examined.