18 
ADULTERATION OF HONEY 
manufacturer gave an analysis similar to 
the Government chemists’, but not as full 
as theirs. The Government chemists showed 
that no Cuban nor any buckwheat honey 
ever contained less than .07 per cent ash. 
(The chemist for the manufacturer also 
claimed this.) The sample in question con¬ 
tained only .028 per cent ash, hence there 
could be only 40 parts of these honeys in 
every 100 parts of the mixture, and the 
other 60 was commercial invert sugar which 
had no ash. They also showed that the 
honey in question responded to all the 
color tests indicative of commercial invert 
sugar (the manufacturer’s chemists claimed 
that these color tests were produced by the 
boiling of the pure honey, a point not held 
by the government chemists). The govern¬ 
ment chemists also showed that the sample 
under question contained 0.08 per cent tar¬ 
taric acid, an acid not hitherto found in 
pure honey, and the acid that is used in 
making commercial invert sugar (see In¬ 
vert Sugar). It was also shown that 
Cuban honey at 4% cts. a pound and 
buckwheat honey at 7cts. a pound used 
in the mixture in the proportion of 80 
parts Cuban to 20 parts buckwheat would 
cost $5.10 a hundred pounds, while with 
sugar at 6^ cts. a pound 100 parts of in¬ 
vert sugar would cost $4.55 a hundred 
pounds. Hence a possible motive for the 
use of invert sugar. 
In the course of his charge to the jury 
the judge says: 
“Every man, woman, and child in the 
United States when hungry needs food, and 
when sick needs drugs, but the individual 
citizen is unable to see to it that the food 
purchased or the drugs he must purchase 
are pure, and the Government has taken on 
itself the work of performing that for the 
whole people. So that this is a contest for 
pure food; for the protection of the indi¬ 
vidual citizen who has not the facilities or 
the information to protect himself, and it 
is a very beneficial and commendatory act, 
because we all know that impure foods are 
manufactured and sold, and it is against 
the manufacturer and vendor of these im¬ 
pure foods and the manufacturer and ven¬ 
dor of these impure drugs that this act is 
aimed, and it has no terrors for the man 
who manufactures or sells a pure article 
and brands it what it is. Notwithstanding 
the attempt to throw a very great deal of 
doubt and uncertainty over the work of 
the experts in this case, chemistry has been 
brought to such a high point of efficiency 
that it can be told with certainty, or, at 
any rate, with that degree of certainty 
which should authorize us to act, what is 
contained in almost any substance you put 
into the possession of the expert chemist. 
He can tell whether or not honey is pure, 
or whether it has some substance mixed in 
it, and it may be that he cannot tell it 
with the same degree of certainty that you 
can work a geometrical demonstration, but 
he can say, with a degree of certainty 
that should authorize us to act, in the 
examination of questions which come before 
courts as to whether foods or drugs of a 
specific kind are pure or adulterated or 
misbranded.Now you will notice, 
gentlemen of the jury, that an article is 
adulterated if any substance has been sub¬ 
stituted wholly or in part for the article. 
It is not the dictionary definition of adul¬ 
teration. You must take the statutory def¬ 
inition. It makes no difference what the 
article is; if any substance has been substi¬ 
tuted wholly or in part it is an adulteration. 
There is no question as to whether it is 
deleterious or injurious to health; it may 
or may not be; the substitution may be as 
beneficial as or more beneficial than the 
original article. What the law aims at is to 
guarantee to the consumer that when he 
desires to purchase a certain article, and 
goes to a manufacturer or vendor for that 
article, and states what he wants, he shall 
know that he.gets what he pays for. 
The evidence upon which you will have 
to rely to ascertain whether it was pure or 
adulterated, and, if adulterated, misbranded, 
is the evidence adduced upon the stand by 
the experts for the Government, and by the 
experts and the defendant for the defend¬ 
ant.” 
The jury retired and returned a verdict 
in favor of the United States Government. 
On May 13, 1915, final judgment of con¬ 
demnation and forfeiture was entered, the 
court finding the product adulterated and 
misbranded, and it was ordered that the 
product should be sold by the United States 
Marshal, and the owners should pay all 
costs of the proceedings. 
The winning of this case by the Govern- 
