The stock food law of 1907 prohibits abuse and deception.

question. Had the general assembly intended to allow incorpora- tors to organize under the statute of 1899 and thereafter reor- ganize under the same statute, the language most naturally em- ployed would have been organized under this or any other law." A recognized rule of statutory interpretation is to construe descriptive language as referring to things as they exist at the time the law was passed. "A statute must be construed with reference to the time of the passage thereof, or with reference to its going into effect. That meaning must be given to words which they had at the date of the act and descriptive matter therein must refer to things as they existed at the time of its passage." (26 Amer. & Eng. Ency. Law, p. 611). Accordingly, it would do no violence to the present statute to regard it as allowing reincorporation of only such companies as had been organized under previously existing laws at the time the act of 1899 was passed. This view is consonant with the evident pur- pose of the act above indicated; for it can scarcely be supposed the legislature intended to permit incorporators to experiment with the statute, and having failed to effect their purposes as a mutual company, to again appeal to its provisions and reincor- porate as a stock corporation. I am therefore of the opinion that your inquiry should be answered in the negative. CHEMIST (STATE)-STOCK FOODS, ETC. June 21, 1907. Hon. Arthur Goss, Indiana State Chemist, Lafayette, Indiana: Dear Sir-I am in receipt of your favor of June 15th, in which you submit certain wrappers used in the sale of so-called stock foods under the name of "Stock Conditioners." I infer you wish to inquire whether the above change in name will obviate the necessity on the part of the manufacturer, of complying with the stock food law, Acts 1907, Chap. 206. You further ask whether the following rule, adopted by you, is in conformity with. the above mentioned statute: "' Materials sold purely as medicines and so advertised, without any claim being made on the wrapper or adver- tising matter of nutritive properties, and which do not contain in the name the words food, feed or a word or t.erm meaning the same thing, will not have to be registered and tagged. If, however, the word food, feed or a similar term appears in the name, they must be registered and tagged, even if no nutritive properties are claimed for them. '' I am constrained to answer both questions in the negative. The act of 1907 contains the following language: "The term 'concentrated commercial feeding stuff' as used in this act shall include (here follow various feed stuffs, such as meals, etc.) * ° ' condimental feeds, poultry feeds, stock feeds, patented proprietary or trade and market (trademarked) stock and poultry feeds." (See Sec. 11). This statute was the result of agitation upon the subject of adulteratcd feeding stuffs for stock, and was probably framed along the lines suggested by a committee of the Association of Official Agricultural Chemists, which included a recommendation that laws be enacted, subjecting to state inspection, "linseed meals (here follow substantially all of the products set forth in the Indiana statute) 0 * ' condimental foods, poultry foods, stock foods, patented, proprietary or trademarked stock and poultry foods and all other materials of a similar nature." (See New York State Library Bulletin No. 105, "Review of Legisla- tion" 1905, pp. 69, 70). In addition to the above suggestion the legislature probably had before it the laws of Illinois (Ill. Acts 1905, chap. 393), Mary- land (Md. Acts 1900, chap. 287), Massachusetts (Mass. Acts 1903, chap. 122), Michigan (Mich. Acts 1905, chap. 12, Sec. 18), New York (N. Y. Acts 1904, chap. 558), Vermont (Vt. Acts 1902, chap. 84), and Wisconsin (Wis. Acts 1905, chap. 143), which explicitly define concentrated commercial feed stuff as including "condi- mental stock and poultry foods, patented, proprietary or trade- marked stock and poultry foods." In view of this history and course of legislation, it is apparent that the. general assembly of Indiana intended to embrace within the term "Condimental feeds, poultry feeds, stock feeds, patented, proprietary or trade and market (trademarked) stock and ponltry feeds," that; class of articles heretofore known and sold as "stock" or "poultry foods." This is made more certain from the fact that the U. S. Department of Agriculture employes the terms "conJimental feeding stuffs" or "condimental feeds" to include such sub- stances as "Pratt's Cattle Food," "Pratt's Food for Horses and Cattle," and similar compounds. (See House Documents Vol. 65, No. 454 Year Book of Department of Agriculture, 1897, pp. 424, 425). It is notoriously true, that the alleged "stock and poultry foods" are often frauds upon the public, by purporting to reduce the cost of producing beef, milk, eggs, etc., when in fact they materially increase the cost of such production. (See Report of Committee on Adulterations of Foods, Iowa State Department of Agriculture, 1906, pp. 12, 13): by inducing purchasers to pay a price for stock condiments and tonics which could be com- pounded by a local druggist for a fraction of the present cost (See same report pp. 13, 34-35) ; by misleading purchasers there- of through extravagant claims regarding the curative, preventive and tonic effects of the food (same report, pp. 11-12) ; by falsely representing that they are "scientifically blended compounds," when frequently they are merely mechanical mixtures of great variability of composition (see same report, p. 35 and examples p. 37). Moreover, it is questioned on high authority if these stock or condimental foods have any pronounced nutritive value (see House Documents 65, supra, p. 425). The methods of their adver- tisement are often calculated to deceive; the ingredient "red pepper" is advertised as "capsicum," a splendid stimulant. Nothing can take its place to warm up and stimulate the system; common salt is termed "sodium chloride" and it is stated that it "increases the appetite for food and water." The company using these ingredients also advertises, "Our success due to publicity. No secrets. Tonic an open book." These flagrant abuses and deceptions, the act of 1907 is clearly intended to prohibit. It is mere quibbling to try to define between the meaning of "feed" and "food." The legislature employed the word "feed" in precisely the same sense in which the word "food" has been used by other legislatures, and this included medicinal and tonic compounds intended to be used as condi- mental stock or poultry foods and regulators, whether the same were sold strictly upon their alleged nutritive qualities or not. As the Pratt foods were clearly within the letter and spirit of the law, while they were termed "foods," they are equally so when termed "conditioners" and "regulators." My answer to your first question therefore is, that the suggested change in name will be unavailing to prevent the application of the' statute. [15-19395] For the reasons above given, I do not consider you have any authority to make the operation of the act depend upon whether the article is advertised to be a "food," or "feed," or as possess- ing nutritive properties. If it is such a compound or substance as was generally known as a condimental food, poultry food, stock food, patented, proprietary or trademarked stock or poultry food or feed, prior to the enactment of the law of 1907, it is with- in its provisions, whatever be its name. Whether it is such a food is a fact which must be ascertained in each case as it arises. I am therefore of the opinion that the test should be, not what word is used to describe the article nor whether it is advertised to possess nutritive qualities, but whether before the enactment of the statute, it could properly have been described by and of the inclusive terms used in section 11. CUSTODIAN OF PUBLIC BUILDINGS-DRILLING, CON- STRUCTING AND EQUIPPING WELL ON STATE HOUSE GROUNDS. June 22, 1907. Hon. Otway A. Baker, Custodian of Public Buildings, City: Dear Sir-In your communication of June 21, you-ask whether you may lawfully appropriate an unexpended balance of the water fund for the purposes of drilling, constructing and equip- ping a well upon the state house grounds, and whether, for such purposes, you have the right to draw upon the repair and supply fund or the labor fund, or upon all of these. I am of the opinion that the repairs and supply fund can not properly be used for the objects stated. You are permitted under §7783 Burns' Stats. 1901, to "purchase supplies" and "cause repairs to be made" to the state property: but drilling a well does not fall under either of these designations. Section 7784 Burns' Stats. 1901, empowers you to "contract for and have supplied all water 0 0 4 required in the con- venient and efficient discharge of the duties" of the several branches of the state government. You are also, by the same section, authorized to employ all such labor as may be required in carrying out the duties imposed by the act. The appropria- tion law of 1905 provides for a water fid of $2,800. I am of the opinion that if, in your opinion, it is advisable that a water supply be secured by drilling a well on the state house premises, the matter falls within the authority conferred upon you by law; provided, that all contracts and expenditures