774        Regulations  for  Prohibition  Enforcement.  { ASecemberPhi9ri9' 
of  orange),  vinum  carnis  (wine  of  beef),  vinum  pepsini  (wine  of 
pepsin)  and  vinum  pruni  virginianse  (wine  of  wild  cherry)  be  made 
to  the  consumer  only  when  properly  medicated  so  as  to  make  them 
unfit  for  beverage  purposes  or  upon  a  physician's  prescription. 
10.  That  vinum  carnis  et  ferri  (beef,  iron  and  wine)  be  sold  in 
quantities  not  greater  than  one  pint  to  the  consumer  and  only  upon 
the  prescription  of  a  physician. 
The  hearing  on  Friday,  December  5,  was  devoted  to  the  subject 
of  flavoring  extracts.  Commissioner  Kramer  explained  that  the 
conference  had  been  called  to  consider  Paragraph  (e),  Section  4 
of  the  Prohibition  Enforcement  Act,  permitting  the  manufacture 
and  sale  of  "flavoring  extracts  and  syrups  that  are  unfit  for  use  as 
a  beverage  or  for  intoxicating  beverage  purposes." 
Mr.  R.  H.~Bond,  of  Baltimore,  speaking  m  behalf  of  the  Flavor- 
ing Extract  Manufacturers'  Association,  claimed  that  the  intent  of 
Congress  was  that  such  products  should  be  untfit  for  use  by  the 
normal  individual.  Doubtless  persons  of  morbid  tastes  and  with 
intemperate  habits  might  endeavor  to  use  flavoring  extracts  and 
many  other  substances  containing  non-beverage  alcohol  to  satisfy 
their  abnormal  appetites.  He  urged  that  consideration  be  given  to 
the  needs  of  the  public,  which  has  been  accustomed  to  the  use  of 
flavoring  extracts  as  now  manufactured  and  demands  the  continua- 
tion of  such  for  legitimate  purposes. 
Mr.  Thomas  E.  Lennen,  counsel  for  the  National  Manufacturers 
of  Fruit  and  Flavoring  Extracts,  said  that  the  manufacturer  could 
not  follow  his  products  from  the  manufacturing  laboratory  to  the 
ultimate  consumer,  and  if  such  products  were  sold  without  their 
knowledge  by  the  retailer  for  beverage  purposes,  the  responsibility 
for  such  sale  should  rest  upon  the  dealer  who  thus  violated  the  pro- 
visions of  the  law. 
Mr.  J.  G.  Caffrey,  assistant  to  the  Prohibition  Commissioner, 
advised  that  such  has  been  and  will  be  the  attitude  of  the  Depart- 
ment. Commissioner  Kramer,  however,  stated  that  the  manufac- 
turers should  not  lose  sight  of  their  share  of  the  responsibilities 
under  the  law,  and  that  if  their  sales  were "  made  under  circum- 
stances from  which  the  seller  might  reasonably  deduce  that  these 
were  to  be  used  as  beverages,  the  Department  would  assume  that 
the  responsibility  rested  upon  such  manufacturer. 
Mr.  J.  L.  Clawson,  of  Philadelphia,  claimed  that  the  attention 
of  the  Department  should  also  be  directed  to  the  consumer  who 
