benefits arising from the treaty of 1830. They have not been deprived by the agreement of anything to which they were entitled before its conclusion; neither does the agreement extend to them the right to identification solely because they are children of an ancestor himself identified by reason alone of his full blood.

I therefore advise you that the conclusion heretofore announced by the Department of the Interior in reference to this matter is incorrect and should not be adhered to.

Respectfully,

The SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR.

P. C. KNOX.

FALSE LABELING OF DAIRY AND FOOD PRODUCTS.

The use of the words "Birkenwald's Daisy Sugar Corn, S. Birkenwald Co., Milwaukee, Wis.," by that company on canned goods produced in another State, is a violation of section 1 of the act of July 1, 1902 (32 Stat., 632), which prohibits the false labeling or branding of dairy or food products. These words clearly imply that the goods referred to were manufactured or prepared in Wisconsin. Wherever the natural inference to be drawn from the form or words of a brand or label is contrary to the fact as to the State or Terrritory in which the article referred to is made, produced, or grown, the case would seem to be within the letter and spirit of the above-named act.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

June 22, 1903.

SIR: I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 11th instant, inclosing one addressed to you by the S. Birkenwald Company, of Milwaukee, Wis., together with two samples of labels which they have submitted for your approval, and in which you say:

"These labels do not seem to fall within either class on which you passed your opinion of September 20. The goods described by these labels purport to be in every respect goods manufactured by the S. Birkenwald Company. They say in their letter, however, that they purchase all their goods in Iowa.

"The question which I desire to propound particularly in this respect is the following: Is not the label of S. Birk

enwald, as it stands, a distinct statement that the product bearing it is manufactured and prepared in Wisconsin?”

One of the labels considered in the opinion of September 20 (24 Opin., 125) read: “Packed for W. L. Taylor Co., Ltd., wholesale grocers, Shreveport, La." The other omitted the words "packed for" and "wholesale grocers," and was in these words: "The T. C. Brand Lima Beans, W. F. Taylor Co., Ltd., Shreveport, La." They were held not to come within the act of July 1, 1902 (32 Stat., 632), regulating this subject.

The labels now submitted (which are to be used on canned goods) are substantially alike in form and character. One bears the words "Birkenwald's Daisy Sugar Corn, S. Birkenwald Co., Milwaukee, Wis." In the other "Tip Top' takes the place of the word "Daisy."

Section 1 of the act of July 1, 1902, provides:

"That no person or persons, company or corporation, 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."

Section 2 makes a violation of the act a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not less than $500 nor more than $2,000.

In the opinion of September 20, after stating that the mere omission of the place of manufacture can not be said to constitute a violation of the law, and that the name of the wholesale dealer on the label or brand is not necessarily a representation that he is the producer or manufacturer of the goods, it was observed:

"Of course, if goods are manufactured or produced in one State, and the wholesale dealer is a resident of another, and the label or brand is so worded as to represent the dealer as the producer, there would be a violation of the law if such commodities were introduced into one State from another."

The S. Birkenwald Company, it is stated, purchase all their goods in Iowa. But the words, "Birkenwald's Daisy Sugar Corn, S. Birkenwald Co., Milwaukee, Wis.,” clearly imply that the goods referred to are manufactured or prepared by that company in Wisconsin. The general public, unfamiliar with trade practices, would inevitably reach that conclusion. It seems to me, therefore, that these labels come within the statute as above construed. To hold otherwise would be to say that nothing short of direct and positive misrepresentation is inhibited. But that is more than the rule as to the strict construction of penal statutes can be said to require. The act in question aims to prevent the false labeling or branding of food and dairy products entering into interstate commerce. It does not, however, undertake to say what shall be held to constitute a false label or brand. Each case must therefore rest upon its own particular facts. But wherever the natural inference to be drawn from the form or words of a brand or label is contrary to the fact as to the State or Territory in which the article referred to is made, produced, or grown, the case would seem to be within both the letter and the spirit of the law.

The papers inclosed are herewith returned as requested. Respectfully,

The SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE.

P. C. KNOX.

NAMING THE BUREAUS IN THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND LABOR.

The Secretary of Commerce and Labor is authorized, under the act of February 14, 1903 (32 Stat., 825), creating the Department of Commerce and Labor, to change the names of the Department of Labor, the Fish Commission, and other offices thereto assigned, as the business and good government of his Department requires.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

June 22, 1903.

SIR: You desire to know whether or not you are authorized, under the act creating the Department of Commerce and Labor, to change the names of the offices of your Department; whether you have the authority, for example, to

designate the Fish Commission as the "Bureau of Fisheries," and the Department of Labor as the "Bureau of Labor."

I assume that the object of your question is to learn whether, for your own purposes as the head of the Department of Commerce and Labor, you have authority to designate the offices in question, and cause your subordinates to designate them in official communications by names other than those hitherto borne by such offices.

Congress has transferred to and made part of your Department a number of branches of the public service, some of which have been parts of other departments and others independent. They will acquire new relations to each other and with regard to you and the Department as a whole. They are placed under your control, and section 161 of the Revised Statutes provides:

"The head of each department is authorized to prescribe regulations, not inconsistent with law, for the government of his department, the conduct of its officers and clerks, the distribution and performance of its business, and the custody, use, and preservation of the records, papers, and property appertaining to it."

If the new relations acquired by these branches of business and the good government of the Executive Department you are expected to organize for the efficient execution of the laws require, in your opinion, the employment of certain names, I know of no statute or rule of law which forbids. Congress has not seen fit to so hamper a co-ordinate branch of the Government. Its own use of names is not such a prohibition. There is no legal objection to the employment of two names or many names for the same object, nor will it be "inconsistent with law" for you to make use of other names than those used by Congress. Names are ordinarily free for the person speaking or writing to choose, and I do not think that Congress, in entrusting you with certain machinery to be employed in executing the laws, desired to restrict your freedom in designating the divisions of what was of course intended to be an organized Executive Department and not a mere gathering together of distinct institutions.

The Department of Labor, which you mention, was originally a bureau. Congress raised it to the position of an independent department and gave it a name appropriate to such position. Congress has now given it a different position and one which makes its name, in the sense in which Congress used it, a clear misnomer. It is now no longer a department in that sense and it can hardly be supposed that Congress intended it to be designated and designated only as the Department of Labor of the Department of Commerce and Labor, the words "department of labor” acquiring the new meaning of a division or bureau of the new Department. The "Fish Commission," also specially mentioned by you, as such, was never established by law. A commissioner's office and certain subordinate offices were created, and these are referred to by Congress as the "Fish Commission." Congress has now incorporated them in your Department, and their position in it was neither forbidden to be appropriately designated nor can it be supposed that Congress had any other expectation than that you would so designate it. I therefore answer your question in the affirmative.

Respectfully,

P. C. KNOX.

The SECRETARY OF COMMERCE AND LABOR.

CENSUS OFFICE APPROPRIATION.

The unexpended balance of the census appropriation referred to by the proviso in the act of March 3, 1903 (32 Stat., 1059), is available for census purposes, notwithstanding the specific appropriations made therefor by the act of February 25, 1903 (32 Stat., 896).

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

June 23, 1903.

SIR: In your letter of the 12th instant, inclosing one of the same date addressed to you by the Director of the Census, an opinion is requested respecting the availability for census purposes of the unexpended balance of a previous appropriation referred to by the proviso in the deficiency appropriation act of March 3, 1903.