216 ANNUAL EEPOKTS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 



Notices of Judgment 3400 and 4036) it was held that a guaranty in 

 the form of a letter, expressed to be good until revoked on all articles 

 sold continued to be good until revoked. 



In accordance with the regulation originall}^ made for the adminis- 

 tration of the act it became the custom for manufacturers to place 



upon their labels the legend "Guaranteed by under the Food 



and Drugs Act, June 30, 190G." In 1913-14 the regulations were 

 amended so as to require the cancellation of general guaranties filed 

 Avith, and serial numbers assigned by, the Department and to pro- 

 hibit the use upon labels cf the above legend on the ground that 

 the use of tlie legends and numbers upon packages of food and drugs 

 conveys the false and misleading impression to the public that the 

 articles have been examined and approved by the Government and 

 that the Government guarantees that they comply with the law. 



The word " package " as used in the act means the package which 

 passes into the possession of the public, of the real consumer, and the 

 words " original unbroken package " relate to the package in the form 

 in which it is received by the vendee or consignee. (Dr. J. L. 

 Stephens Company v. United States, Notices of Judgment 1891 and 

 2511, Circular 72, Office of the Solicitor). This decision is supported 

 in effect by the decision of the Supreme Court in the State of Wis- 

 consin V. McDermott (McDermott v. State of Wisconsin, 143 Wis., 

 18; 228 U. S., 115), a case not instituted by the Federal Government. 

 In United States v. 5 Boxes of Asafetida (181 Fed., 561) it was de- 

 cided that the taking of samples by claimant for the purpose of 

 examination did not destroy the commercial form of the packages 

 and did not incorporate the goods with the property of the State 

 so as to remove them from the jurisdiction of the act over original 

 packages. 



With reference to the adulteration and misbranding of foods the 

 following cases are of special interest. It was held in United States 

 V. Lexington Mill and Elevator Company (232 U. S., 399, Circular 

 79, Office of the Solicitor) that an article of food is adulterated if, 

 because of any added poisonous or other deleterious ingredient, it may 

 by any possibility injure the health of the strong or the weak, the old 

 or the young, the well or the sick, or any of these, or, conversely, 

 that an article of food is not adulterated, within the meaning of the 

 provision of the act by which an article is declared adulterated, " if 

 it contain any added poisonous or other added deleterious ingredient 

 which may render such article injurious to health," " if it can not 

 by any possibility, when the facts are reasonably considered, injure 

 the health of any consumer," even though it contain " a small addi- 

 tion of poisonous or deleterious ingredients." The same provision 

 of the act was further construed bv the Supreme Court in United 

 States V. 40 Barrels and 20 Kegs of Coca Cola (241 U. S., 265; Cir- 

 cular 86, Office of the Solicitor, Notice of Judgment 4801) in holding 

 that the caffeine in Coca Cola is an " added " ingredient within the 

 meaning of the act contrary to the opinion of the circuit court of 

 appeals, Avhich had held in effect that a mixture or compound sold 

 imder its own distinctive name is not adulterated because it contains 

 as one of its normal ingredients a poisonous or deleterious substance, 

 since such poisonous or deleterious substance is net added to the arti- 

 cle within the meaning of the provision, but is a part of it (215 Fed. 



