BUREAU OF CHEMISTRY. 263 



the law uiul the chiimuiits requested release under bond for re- 

 labeling. The court held that the release as requested was not manda- 

 tory but discretionary with the couii:. The goods were accordingly 

 not released under bond but were ordered forfeited to the Govern- 

 ment. 



The Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has rendered 

 an important decision in connection with the Shcrley amendment. In 

 the construction to be applied to a label for mineral water which is 

 recommended for the treatment of various diseases, the court held that 

 a statement recommending the water for the treatment of various dis- 

 eases meant that the water was an alleviation or cure for the diseases 

 mentioned, and the contention that the water condemned was not a 

 drug was not tenable after the water had been put in interstate com- 

 merce with the recommendation that it possessed certain elements or 

 ingredients which were claimed to be curative or at least to alleviate 

 the diseases named in the label. 



In a case involving an article labeled as a substitute for eggs, the 

 contention was made by the defendant that the representation on the 

 label Avas not one of fact but of opinion only and therefore not in law 

 misleading. The court held that as the defendant had chosen its own 

 definition for the term '* substitute," when it stated upon the label 

 that the article could be used in place of eggs in baking and cooking, 

 the only inference that could be drawn was that the article would 

 produce the same or similar results as eggs. Accoi'dingly it was held 

 that the allegations of the information that such statements were 

 false and misleading clearh' brought the statements within the cate- 

 gory of the law. 



In a numl)er of judicial districts some difficulty has been encoun- 

 tered in filing libels under section 10 of the act for the seizure of 

 food and drug products shipped in violation of the act. This diffi- 

 culty arises in part from the practice of a number of jurisdictions 

 which require that the libel can not be filed until first signed by the 

 judge. The illness of the judge or his absence from the jurisdiction 

 in such cases sometimes causes a delay in the sei/Aire of goods adul- 

 terated or misbranded under the act and their consequent escape 

 from the penalty of the law. One judge has recentl,v refused to sign 

 the libels unless they are supported by a chemist's affidavit, his posi- 

 tion being that to do otherwise would be a violation of the fourth 

 amendment. 



The sei'vice and regulator}- announcements published during the 

 year contained ^^G opinions and GOO notices of judgment. While there 

 IS evidence that the courts are again tending to impose severer pen- 

 alties for violations of the food and drugs act, the publicity given 

 through the court proceedings and the notices of judgment is still 

 the principal penalty. Indeed, these notices give the most reliable 

 history of the development of the courts' interpretation of the law, as 

 well as of the department's policies with reference thereto. Un- 

 fortunately, these notices are not sufficiently studied by manufac- 

 tureis. If the}' were, infractions of the law could and no doubt 

 would be avoided by them. 



A new edition of the Food and Di-ug IVfanual, containing the pro- 

 cedure and instructions to be followed by the bureau's inspectors and 

 i)V collaboiatiuir officials, was issued for the sole use of these officials. 



