772 ANNUAL REPORTS OF DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 



if tlie compounds or mLxtures contain no ingredient other than those 

 entering; in the customary process of manufacture. This department 

 is unable to accept this decision as correct, because it operates to 

 exclude from the prohibitions of the act all mixed and compounded 

 articles sold under arbitrary or fanciful names. 



Immediately on notice of the decision of the court the Attorney 

 General, at the request of the Secretary of Agriculture, directed the 

 attorno3''s in charge of the case to take the necessary steps to obtain 

 a review. The Government's motion for a new trial was overruled, 

 and the case is now pending before the court of appeals for the sixth 

 circuit on writ of error. 



The case of the United States v. 443 Cans of Frozen Egg Product 

 (Notice of Judgment 1027), tried in the district of New Jersey, was 

 also decided adversely to the Government. In this case the libel 

 prayed condemnation of a quantity of frozen egg product on the 

 ground that it was adulterated, because it consisted wholly or in part 

 of fdthy and decomposed animal substances, and also on the ground 

 that sugar had been mixed and packed with the product and sub- 

 stituted for eggs. The case was tried by the court without a jury, 

 and it was held that the evidence presented by the Government was 

 insufficient to estabhsh the presence in the product of filthy and 

 decomposed substances, and that the product could not be held to 

 be adulterated on account of the presence of sugar, because it was 

 made just as it was ordered and chrected to be made. An appeal on 

 the questions of law and fact was taken by the Government and the 

 case is now pending before the court of appeals for the third circuit. 



A libel was filed in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia 

 praying the condemnation of a quantity of antikamnia tablets on 

 the ground that they were misbranded. The labels on different 

 packages of the products in question bore the following statements: 

 Contains 305 grains of acetephenetidin," "contains 296 grains 

 acetephenetidin," and "contains 165 grains acetephenetidin." Each 

 package of tablets also bore the following statement: "The * * * 

 tablets in this original ounce package contain no acetanilid, antifebrin, 

 acetephenetidin, morphin, etc." Misbranding was alleged because 

 the label on the packages failed to declare that the acetephenetidin 

 present therein was a derivative of acetanilid, and for the further 

 reason that the statement "contained no acetanilid" was false and 

 misleading. Prior to the fihng of the libel, on January 15, 1909, 

 Attorney General Bonaparte held that the labeling of derivatives of 

 drugs, specified in section 8 of the act, is a proper subject for regula- 

 tion by the three Secretaries, and that a rule or regulation requiring 

 the name of a specific substance to follow that of a derivative would 

 }>e in harmony with the purposes of the act and an appropriate method 

 by which to give effect to its provisions. In conformity ^\^th this 

 opinion, a regulation was made by the Secretary of the Treasury, the 

 Secretary of Agriculture, and the Secretary of Commerce and Labor, 

 on January 27, 1910, provicUng that, in declaring the quantity or 

 proportion of derivatives of any of the substances specified in the 

 act, in addition to the trade name of the derivative, the name of the 

 specified substance shall also be stated, so as to indicate clearly that 

 the product is a derivative of the specified substance. 



The validity of tliis regulation was attacked by claimants' excep- 

 tions to the libel, which were sustained by the trial court. The Gov- 

 ernment appealed to the Court of Appeals for the District of Colum- 



