REPORT OF THE CHEMIST. 217 



535, Circular 80, Office of the Solicitor, Notice of Judgment 4032). 

 In United States r. Ainerican Chicle Company the court instructed 

 the jury, in effect, that if they found that an article contained but a 

 trace of a certain ingredient it was misbranded if named after that 

 ingredient. In United States 'V. 7 Cases of Buffalo Lithia Water 

 (Circular 78, Office of the Solicitor, Notices of Judgment 3809 and 

 4310) a similar principle is involved. An article labeled " Buffalo 

 Lithia Water " was condemned as misbranded on the ground that 

 the article did not contain sufficient lithium to entitle it to be labeled 

 " lithia water." In Hudson Manufacturing Company v. United 

 States (192 Fed. Rep., 90, Notice of Judgment 1451) it was held, in 

 effect, that the use of a designation without well-known trade mean- 

 ing for an imitation food product without giving any indication of 

 Avhat the article is composed, shows a clear case of misbranding. In 

 United States v. Charles G. Dade (40 App. D. C. 94, Notice of Judg- 

 ment 2516) it was held that the presence of Bacteriutn coll and 

 Streptococci in milk in certain cases indicated decomposition or the 

 presence of fecal matter which rendered the milk filthy. Analogous 

 decisions have been rendered with reference to the pollution of oysters, 

 the decomposition of tomato products, of beans, and of other foods, 

 although the action of the courts has not always been uniform. In 

 William M. Gait and Company v. United States (39 App. D. C. 470, 

 Notice of Judgment 2396) it was held that the presence of worms 

 in flour rendered it adulterated because it was " filthy " within the 

 meaning of that word as used in the act, " even conceding that the 

 worms, insects, and beetles could be separated therefrom, the flour 

 would still be contaminated by reason of its contact with them and 

 would still contain more or less husks and excreta from the worms ; 

 that is, it would still be filthy within the meaning of the act." In 

 United States v. 13 Crates of Frozen Eggs (208 Fed., 950, Notice of 

 Judgment No. 2859) it was held that the act prohibits the transporta- 

 tion in interstate commerce of filthy, decomposed, or putrid eggs, and 

 that such eggs, which have not been denatured, may be seized and 

 condemned, even if the shipper intended them to be used for tanning, 

 not for food purposes. 



With reference to the adulteration and misbranding of drugs, the 

 following are some of the more important decisions: In United 

 States V. Sixty-five Casks of Liquid Extract (170 Fed., 449, Notice 

 of Judgment 284) the claimants contended that the quantity or 

 proportion of the drugs specified in section 8 of the act need not be 

 declared in case of drugs which are not labeled or branded. The 

 court ruled adversely to this contention, deciding, in effect, that the 

 act not only requires that drugs shipped in interstate commerce and 

 labeled shall not be misbranded, but requires that they shall bear 

 labels conforming with its provisions. In LJ^nited States v. Anti- 

 kamnia Chemical Company (231 U. S., 654; Circular 76, Office 

 of the Solicitor) the effect of the decision of the Supreme Court was 

 to sustain the validity of a regulation which requires that, in de- 

 claring the quantity or proportion of derivatives of any substance 

 specified in section 8 of the Food and Drugs Act, the name of the 

 specified substance, in addition to the trade name of the derivative, 

 shall be stated. It was held, further, that the act itself requires that 

 the name of the specified substance be stated if the article contain 



