Rensselaer Semi-Weekly Republican, Volume 41, Number 64, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 30 April 1909 — “NOT GUILTY” SAYS THE JURY. [ARTICLE]

“NOT GUILTY” SAYS THE JURY.

Twelve Men All Tele for Acquittal of Joe Larsh on Weakened Ammonia Sale Indictment Joe Larsh, the druggist, decided to stand trial on the charge preferred against him for violating the pure food law in the sale of ammonia that did not analyze the full strength required by the United States Pharmacopoeia- Mr. Larsh and B. F. Fendig and A- F. Long were arrested, two weeks ago on information furnished by Frank W. Tucker, state pure food inspector, who made purchases of ammonia, iodine and lime water at X each of the three drug stores last June, and had his purchases analyzed by the state chemist. - Mr. Tucker was here Monday, and was accompanied by the assistant state chemist. Miller. Messrs. Long and Fendig plead guilty to the charge of selling ammonia that was not of the required strength, although they were not aware at the time that they were doing it; in fact the only evidence they had that it did not meet the requirements was the test made by the state authorities. They considered their arrest on such trivial cause a persecution and the public regard it in the same light, but they believed that they might be proven technically guilty and .thbught it would be cheaper to plead guilty and pay the minimum fine of SIQ and costs. This they did on the ammonia charge and the other charges were dismissed. Mr. Larsh, however, decided that he would "give them a race” and he entered a plea of “not guilty.” The case was called for trial and Fred Longwell, the prosecuting attorney, represented the state. Attorneys Leopold and Halleck represented Mr. Larsh and the trial was by Jury. In his examination of the jury Mr. Longwell asked each Juryman if he knew anything about the case and all of them had read the accounts in the Rensselaer newspapers, but testified that they had not been influenced in such a manner as to be prejudiced and that they could give the state as well as the defendant a fair hearing. ~ Hone of them were challenged and the defense accepted the jury without examination. Mr. Tucker testified that on Juno 16th last year he had purchased 5 cents worth of ammonia and other articles at the Larsh drug store. That he had labeled them with his mark and sent them to the state chemist. The assistant chemist Was also here and testified that he had made the analysis and found that the drug contained only 3.05 per cent of gaseous ammonia. The United States Pharmacopoeia which is the authority cited by law for pure drug formulas, Was admitted in evidence. It showed that 10 per cent in weight of gaseous ammonia was required to make the drug standard. Six Rensselaer physicians testified that, while ammonia was regarded as a medicine and recommended by some authorities for use in certain cases, they were none of them in the habit of using it and, in fact, not one of these doctors had ever given or prescribed it for internal use during their periods of practice. It was developed that it is sold exclusively lo Rensselaer for the purpose of cleansing, largely for scrublng and window washing. It was also shown that whenever a Jug or other vessel containing the drug is opened to make a sale the vapor escapes and that the drug is weakened and it is impossible to keep It at any fixed strength. Mr. Larsh took the Btand and testified that he did not sell the drug himself, but thought it possible that his clerk might have sold it. He did not make chemical analysis of his drugs but bought them prepared, of reputable wholesale houses and was of the impression that they were all right, although he could not say positively. That about concluded the testimony, and after the argument of the attorneys and the instructions of the judge the Jury retired and cast a ballot. It .was unanimous for acquittal. The Jury took the same position that Che public has held and that was that it was the rankest injustice to send out a pure food Inspector whq devoted his time to the selection of articles of uncommon use and prosecuted the dealers when no Intent

could be shown on the part of the accused to defraud, and when no Injury resulted to any person on earth from the sale. Even the prosecuting attorney, whose duty It was to prosecute the case, did not feel very much Interest in the case. • To the public it looks a great deal like the case of a man trying to hold a job, and feeling it necessary once in awhile to secure a conviction in order to make good. It is said that Tucker made the statement while here that when he is defeated in a case he proceeds to find other fault with the accused and makes life a burden to him. He even cited a case of a druggist at Plymouth, Ind., that he put clear out of business by finding first one thing and then another * ' \

against him. This seemed to greatly please Tucker, whose high regard for his department and for the law causes him to quash indictments against one druggist that will plead guilty on another charge and to persecute a druggist that stands trial and is acquitted. The sentiment here is so very strong against Tucker and his method of procedure that it is improhable that he could secure a conviction of any one in this county.. The druggists have made no attempt to defraud the public, and unless it is proven that they do, there should be no convictions.