770 ANNUAL REPORTS OF DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 



or affirmation as of their knowledge to the facts constituting the 

 offense created by the section. 



In United States v. American Druggists Syndicate (18G Fed., 387), 

 prosecuted in the eastern (Ustrict of New York, an information was 

 filed alleging that a so-called "Peroxide Cream" was misbranded 

 because it contained an inconsiderable quantity of peroxide, and 

 further because there was inclosed with the article a circular con- 

 taining a false representation that the article was a pure skin cerate. 

 Defendant demurred to the information, and in sustaining the 

 demurrer the court, construing the Government's contention that 

 the article was misbranded because it failed to contain peroxide as 

 an important ingredient to be, in effect, a contention that the article 

 did not possess the remedial effect claimed for it, held that false or 

 misleading statements of this character do not fall within the scope 

 and purpose of the food and drugs act; and further, that advertising 

 circulars inclosed wdth articles inside the cartons in which they are 

 offered for sale do not induce sales nor deceive prospective purchasers, 

 and false and misleading statements therein do not amount to a 

 misbranding under the meaning of the act (186 Fed., 387). The 

 department is unable to accept the view that the name "Peroxide 

 Cream" is not a statement regarding the article and the ingredients 

 or substances contained therein and does not amount to a repre- 

 sentation that peroxide is a substantial ingredient, nor the view 

 that false and misleading statements contained in circulars inclosed 

 ^vith packages of drugs are not statements borne by the package or 

 label within the definition of section 8 of the act. As the state of 

 the record did not permit the taking of steps to secure a review of 

 the decision, at the suggestion of the Attorney General new cases 

 are in course of preparation for prosecution presenting similar 

 questions. 



The term "Oat Feed" was defined by the district court for the 

 northern district of Alabama in United States v. 1 Carload of Corno 

 Horse and Mule Feed (188 Fed., 453) to mean the by-product of the 

 oat, and a libel alleging misbranding of stock feed on the theorv^ that 

 the name "Oat Feed" means ground whole oats was dismissed (188 

 Fed., 453). 



In United States v. 2 Barrels of Desiccated Egg (185 Fed., 303) 

 the district court of Minnesota overruled claimant's exceptions to 

 the libel and stated the follo\\ing propositions of law: (1) Seizures 

 under the food and drugs act are properly made by a w^arrant of 

 arrest following the filing of a Ubel lor condemnation and forfeiture; 



(2) libels filed on behalf of the United States need not be verified; 



(3) libels for condemnation and forfeiture of adulterated foods are 

 not defective for failure to allege the date when such foods are shipped 

 in interstate commerce; (4) adulterated eggs transported from one 

 State to another to be used in the manufacture of other products are 

 liable to seizure under the food and drugs act; (5) adulterated food 

 is liable to seizure after interstate slupment while the food remains 

 in original unbroken packages (185 Fed., 303). This decision follows 

 closely Hipolite Egg Co. v. United States, and United States v. 

 George Spraul & Co., supra. 



In United States v. 10 Barrels of Vinegar (186 Fed., 401), the con- 

 struction of paragraph 4 of section 8 of the act, in case of food, was 

 drawn in question. Claimant of the goods labeled "Saratoga Brand 

 Vinegar ' m large print^ then in smaller type "pure boiled apple 



