Am  jour  Pharm.)       National  Food  and  Dru?s  Act.  367 
August,  1909.     J  <->  \j  1 
who  might  accept  it.  The  statement  that  it  was  a  brain  food  was, 
therefore,  false  and  misleading  within  the  statute.  The  further 
statements  in  the  circular  heretofore  mentioned  that  the  preparation 
was  a  most  wonderful,  certain,  and  harmless  relief,  and  contained 
no  poisonous  ingredients  of  any  kind  were  clearly  false,  because, 
in  the  opinion  of  the  Department,  the  preparation  did  contain 
poisonous  ingredients — one  very  powerful  poisonous  ingredient, 
namely,  acetanilid ;  therefore,  it  could  not  be  a  harmless  relief, 
particularly  as  there  was  nothing  in  the  circular  or  on  the  bottle  or 
the  carton  that  would  tend  to  restrain  the  purchaser  from  consum- 
ing as  much  of  the  preparation  as  his  strength  and  endurance  would 
permit  him  to  swallow.  The  facts  were  duly  reported  to  the 
Department  of  Justice,  and  in  January,  1908,  the  United  States 
Attorney  filed  an  information  in  the  Police  Court  of  the  District 
of  Columbia  against  the  manufacturer  of  this  preparation ;  in  Feb- 
ruary thereafter  the  defendant  was  put  upon  his  trial  which  lasted 
for  sixteen  days,  at  the  expiration  of  which  the  jury  returned  a 
verdict  of  guilty  and  the  defendant  was  sentenced  to  pay  a  fine  of 
$700. 
This  was  the  first  case  tried  in  the  United  States  under  the 
Food  and  Drugs  Act.  This  case  contains  several  points  that  will 
be  of  considerable  interest  to  you,  but  I  wish  to  direct  your  attention 
to  one  in  particular,  and  that  is,  that  if  in  the  preparation  for  com- 
merce of  a  drug  product  you  accompany  it  with  a  descriptive  cir- 
cular in  which  there  are  false  and  misleading  statements,  you  are 
liable  under  the  Act,  because  this  circular  is,  in  the  eyes  of  the  law, 
just  as  much  a  part  of  the  label  as  the  label  pasted  on  the  bottle. 
Shortly  after  this  case  was  tried,  the  Department  received  in- 
formation that  a  druggist  in  Washington  was  selling  promiscuously 
cocaine  in  small  bottles  upon  which  there  were  no  labels.  You 
recall  that  provision  of  Section  8  of  the  Act  which  provides  that  a 
drug  is  misbranded  if  it  fails  to  bear  a  statement  on  the  label  of 
the  quantity  or  proportion  of  alcohol,  cocaine,  etc.  Now,  a  casual 
reading  of  this  provision  of  the  law  seems  not  to  require  that  a  label 
actually  appear  on  the  bottle  or  package,  yet  when  this  is  necessary 
in  order  to  state  the  quantity  of  alcohol,  cocaine,  etc.,  in  the  eyes  of 
the  law  a  label  must  be  there  in  order  to  fulfil  the  requirements 
of  the  law  that  the  presence  of  these  drugs  must  be  declared ;  and 
I  may  say  to  you  that  where  this  question  has  arisen  in  the  courts 
there  has  been  no  dissent  from  the  ruling  that  a  label  must  be  put 
