UNSOLD. Page. After transportation in interstate commerce of adulterated and misbranded goods it is enough to give the Government jurisdiction over them if the articles are unsold, whether in original packages or not. McDermott et al. v. Wisconsin____ VANILLA EXTRACT OR FLAVOR. An information charging that defendant sold in interstate commerce a liquid labeled “Flavor of Vanilla " which did not contain any extract of vanilla does not state a case of adulteration or misbranding of vanilla extract in violation of the act of June 30, 1906, the words "Extract" and "Flavor" not being synonymous terms. United States r. St. Louis Coffee & Spice Mills. But see United States v. Edward Westen Tea & Spice Co--An article labeled Prime Vanilla Extract, made from the extractive matter of prime vanilla beans, sweetened with cane sugar," which contained only grams of vanilla beans to each 100 cc. of the extract, and which was artificially colored with caramel, and contained added vanillin. held adulterated and misbranded. United States r. Hudson Mfg. Co‒‒‒‒ A flavoring substance, composed of vanillin, coumarin, and burnt sugar, labeled "Extract of Vanillin and Coumarin, Burnt Sugar Color," held adulterated in that it was colored in a manner whereby its inferiority was concealed, and misbranded in that it was an imitation of vanilla extract and was not labeled as an imitation; and further misbranded in that said article was a compound, and was not labeled so as to plainly indicate that it was a compound, and the word "compound" was not stated on the label. United States v. McConnon & Co--- Articles labeled "Extract of Vanilla" and " 'Ext. Vanilla" held misbranded because they were not true extract of vanilla, but were compounds of vanillin and coumarin artificially flavored and colored in a manner whereby inferiority was concealed. United States v. S. Gumpert & Co--- See Lemon Extract or Flavor; Hudson's Extract; Information; Standards of Purity. VANILLIN. Vanillin added to vanilla extract as such constitutes adulteration, and the resultant product is misbranded if labeled "Prime Vanilla Extract, made from the extractive matter of prime vanilla beans." United States v. Hudson Mfg. Co‒‒‒‒ VENUE. See Affidavits. VERIFICATION. See Affidavits; Information; Libel. VINEGAR. Distilled vinegar and boiled cider are unlike substances, and do not compose a blend within the meaning of the act. Held that a substance labeled “Saratoga Brand Vinegar, A Blend of Pure Boiled Apple Cider and Distilled Vinegar," which was composed of distilled vinegar and a small quantity of pure boiled apple cider, was misbranded, as leading the public to believe that the article was composed of pure boiled apple cider vinegar and distilled vinegar. United States r. 10 Barrels of Vinegar_ # * An article labeled Pure Cider Vinegar Guaranteed Cider Vinegar *** *." held adulterated and misbranded for the reason that it was not pure cider vinegar, but consisted wholly or in part of distilled vinegar or dilute solution of acetic acid and a material high in reducing sugars and foreign mineral matter, which had been mixed and prepared in imitation of cider vinegar. United States v. 75 Barrels of Vinegar____ 629 196 999 629 654 335 622 410 497 VINEGAR-Continued. In a libel proceeding for the condemnation and forfeiture of vinegar alleged to be adulterated, the Government, in its proof, is not limited to the tests and standards mentioned in Bulletin No. 65 and Circular No. 19 of the United States Department of Agriculture, nor to the methods of analyses adopted under regulation 4, but may make use of any accurate test. United States r. 100 Barrels of Vinegar___ Where samples of alleged pure cider vinegar showed only from 0.11 per cent to 0.16 per cent glycerine, it was held not to be pure cider vinegar but an adulterated article. Evidence held to establish the accuracy of the glycerine test for the determination of pure cider vinegar. (Ibid.) See Blend; Judicial Notice. WAIVER OF JURY. See Jury Trials. WAREHOUSEMAN. See Shipment. WATER. See Buffalo Lithia Water. WATER-GROUND MEAL. The term "water-ground" means ground by a mill using water power as a motive force applied directly to a water wheel, and does not allude to meal ground by electric power generated originally by water. United States v. 58 Sacks and 70 Sacks of Corn Meal__---See Corn Meal. WATER, SPRING. Croton water drawn from the pipes in New York City furnishing the ordinary city water supply, filtered and bottled after the addition of small quantities of mineral salts and carbonic-acid gas, is not spring water, as that term is generally understood; and the labeling of the bottles as "Imperal Spring Water" constitutes misbranding within the meaning of the act. United States r. Morgan et al---WHEAT. 66 An article sold as No. 2 Red Wheat" held adulterated and misbranded by reason of the fact that an inferior grade of wheat had been substituted for the article and had been mixed and packed with it so as to reduce, lower, or injuriously affect its quality and strength; and in that said article was offered for sale under the distinctive name of another article, to wit, No. 2 red wheat. United States. Hall-Baker Grain Co--- Reversed, Hall-Baker Grain Co. v. United States_ WHISKY. Bourbon whisky is a distillate of corn, made from a mixture of fermented grains, of which mixture corn forms the greatest part, and is distilled in certain localities, particularly in Kentucky. A product distilled at New Orleans, La., out of molasses, sulphuric acid, and water, and labeled "Bourbon Whisky," held misbranded. United States v. 50 Barrels of Whisky. WINE. The word "wine" is, by general acceptance and standard definition, understood to mean the fermented juice of the undried grape. United States r. The Sweet Valley Wine Co.... See Champagne; Extra Dry; Imitation Champagne. WRIGHT'S CONDENSED SMOKE. An article made by distilling wood, for curing meat, held not misbranded by the label "Wright's Condensed Smoke. A Liquid Smoke *" such name being a fanciful or descriptive name referring to the article, and not implying to the purchaser that the article was actually smoke in condensed, liquid form. United States r. Wright et al.___. WRIT OF ERROR. See Appeal and Error. Page. 448 434 300 452 557 174 625 639 OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEYS GENERAL.' IMPORTED MEAT AND MEAT FOOD PRODUCTS MAY BE ADMITTED INTO THE UNITED STATES, AND TRANSPORTED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE FOOD AND DRUGS ACT, JUNE 30, 1906.2 3 [50] DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, September 27, 1906. SIR: In your communication of the 18th instant you ask to be advised whether the prohibition upon transportation contained in the following paragraph of what is known as the meat inspection amendment to the agricultural appropriation act approved June 30, 1906 (34 Stat. 669, 674, 676), applies to meat and meat food products imported from foreign countries: That on and after October first, nineteen hundred and six, no person, firm or corporation shall transport or offer for transportation, and no carrier of interstate or foreign commerce shall transport or receive for transportation from one State or Territory or the District of Columbia to any other State or Territory or the District of Columbia, or to any place under the jurisdiction of the United States, or to any foreign country, any carcasses or parts thereof, meat, or meat food products thereof which have not been inspected, examined, and marked as inspected and passed," in accordance with the terms of this Act and with the rules [51] and regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Agriculture: Provided, That all meat and meat food products on hand on October first, nineteen hundred and six, at establishments where inspection has not been maintained, or which have been inspected under existing law, shall be examined and labeled under such rules and regulations as the Secretary of Agriculture shall prescribe, and then shall be allowed to be sold in interstate or foreign commerce. 86 This provision, on its face, prohibits the transportation in interstate commerce and to foreign countries of all carcasses, meat and meat food products which have not been inspected, examined and marked as required by the act; and as imported meat and meat food products cannot meet this test (no inspection being provided in the act for such articles), question you say has been made by importers, railroads and others as to whether they are not excluded from transportation in interstate commerce. Exclusion from transportation in interstate commerce would amount to a restriction upon importation, since trade in such articles would be confined to the State wherein the port of entry is situated. In determining the meaning of the provision in question reference must be had to the amendment in its entirety and the circumstances 1 For opinions of the Attorneys General, published in Food Inspection Decisions, see pp. 51, 86, 110, 113, 121, and 139, ante. 226 Op. Atty. Gen. 50. See subsequent opinions of the Attorney General, dated Aug. 25, 1911 (29 Op. Atty. Gen. 227), and Mar. 11, 1912 (29 Op. Atty. Gen. 355); also opinion of May 24, 1913 (30 Op. Atty. Gen. 164), p. 800, post. 3 Numbers in brackets refer to pages of bound volume of Opinions of Attorneys General. which gave rise to this legislation. Considering the amendment as a whole in the light of such circumstances, I fail to perceive any support whatever for the suggestion that Congress intended thereby to prohibit the interstate or foreign transportation of meat and meat food products imported from foreign countries. It is well known that the legislation in question was enacted by Congress immediately in response to the message of the President of June 4, 1906, transmitting the report of Messrs. Reynolds and Neill, who had been appointed by him to investigate the conditions in the Chicago stock yards and packing houses. (40 Cong. Rec., 7800.) In that message the President said: The report shows that the stock yards and packing houses are not kept even reasonably clean, and that the method of handling and preparing food products is uncleanly and dangerous to health. Under existing law the National [52] Government has no power to enforce inspection of the many forms of prepared meat food products that are daily going from the packing houses into interstate commerce. Owing to an inadequate appropriation the Department of Agriculture is not even able to place inspectors in all establishments desiring them. The present law prohibits the shipment of uninspected meat to foreign countries, but there is no provision forbidding the shipment of uninspected meats in interstate commerce, and thus the avenues of interstate commerce are left open to traffic in diseased or spoiled meats. If, as has been alleged on seemingly good authority, further evils exist, such as the improper use of chemicals and dyes, the Government lacks power to remedy them. A law is needed which will enable the inspectors of the General Government to inspect and supervise from the hoof to the can the preparation of the meat food product. The evil seems to be much less in the sale of dressed carcasses than in the sale of canned and other prepared products; and very much less as regards products sent abroad than as regards those used at home. I urge the immediate enactment into law of provisions which will enable the Department of Agriculture adequately to inspect the meat and meat food products entering into interstate commerce and to supervise the methods of preparing the same, and to prescribe the sanitary conditions under which the work shall be performed. I therefore commend to your favorable consideration and urge the enactment of substantially the provisions known as Senate amendment No. 29 to the act making appropriations for the Department of Agriculture for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1907, as passed by the Senate, this amendment being commonly known as the Beveridge amendment." 66 The Beveridge amendment had been adopted by the Senate on May 25, 1906. (40 Cong. Rec., 7420.) On June 19, 1906, the House substituted for it an amendment recommended by the Committee on Agriculture (id. 8720), which subsequently became the law. Both the Beveridge amendment and the House substitute had the same general object in view, namely, the inspection, [53] "from the hoof to the can," of all meats prepared in the slaughtering and packing establishments of this country for shipment in interstate or foreign commerce. In other words, it was the domestic product and not the foreign article that Congress had in mind. The first paragraph of the amendment finally adopted provides: That for the purpose of preventing the use in interstate or foreign commerce, as hereinafter provided, of meat and meat food products which are unsound, unhealthful, unwholesome, or otherwise unfit for human food, the Secretary of Agriculture, at his discretion, may cause to be made, by inspectors appointed for that purpose, an examination and inspection of all cattle, sheep, swine, and goats before they shall be allowed to enter into any slaughtering, packing, meat-canning, rendering, or similar establishment, in which they are to be slaughtered and the meat and meat food products thereof are to be used in interstate or foreign commerce. 40066-14- -49 Having thus provided for an ante-mortem examination, Congress, in the next paragraph provided that, "for the purposes hereinbefore set forth," the Secretary of Agriculture should cause to be made, by inspectors appointed for the purpose, "a post-mortem examination and inspection of the carcasses and parts thereof of all cattle, sheep, swine, and goats to be prepared for human consumption at any slaughtering, meat-canning, salting, packing, rendering, or similar establishment in any State, Territory, or the District of Columbia for transportation or sale as articles of interstate or foreign commerce," thus in terms indicating that domestic establishments, and hence the domestic product, were alone in view. Provision is also made for the examination and inspection of all meat food products prepared for interstate or foreign commerce in said establishments, and the marking thereof as "Inspected and passed," or Inspected and condemned," as circumstances may require. It is further provided that "the Secretary of Agriculture shall cause an examination and inspection of all cattle, sheep, swine, and goats, and the food products thereof, slaughtered [54] and prepared in the establishments hereinbefore described for the purposes of interstate or foreign commerce to be made during the nighttime as well as during the daytime when the slaughtering of said cattle, sheep, swine, and goats or the preparation of said food products is conducted during the nighttime." Then follows the paragraph in question, forbidding, on and after October 1, 1906, the transportation in interstate commerce or to foreign countries of carcasses, meat or meat food products which have not been inspected, examined, and marked as " Inspected and passed," in accordance with the terms of the act and the rules and regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Agriculture. As the act provides only for the inspection of cattle and meat slaughtered or prepared in domestic establishments, this provision manifestly can have no application to cattle or meats slaughtered or prepared abroad and imported into this country. The scope of the act is also indicated by this paragraph of the amendment, which occurs further on: No person, firm, or corporation engaged in the interstate commerce of meat or meat food products shall transport or offer for transportation, sell or offer to sell any such meat or meat food products in any State or Territory, or in the District of Columbia, or any place under the jurisdiction of the United States, other than in the State or Territory or in the District of Columbia or any place under the jurisdiction of the United States in which the slaughtering, packing, canning, rendering, or other similar establishment owned, leased, operated by said firm, person, or corporation is located unless and until said person, firm or corporation shall have complied with all of the provisions of this act. It is significant that this provision, which emphasizes the fact that domestic establishments, and hence the domestic product, were alone in the contemplation of Congress, immediately followed the provision under discussion in the Beveridge amendment. It was shifted about in the House substitute, which was based on the Beveridge amendment, but apparently without any intention of altering its meaning. The House also added to the provision in question the [55] proviso as to meat and meat food products on hand on October 1, 1906, at establishments where inspection was not maintained or which were |