Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1910-11-09
The La,u Of Patent Foods


(By VIII b. Wuo'
Mankind has . curious prejudice ir
favor OF the processes Of nature. This
u illustrated In the popular prejudice
against foodstuhs which are produced
by artificial shortcuts Of the chemist
Whisky. for instance. By any othe,
name may Be just a. Intoxicating: bu,
the public won't buy It by the other
name. In recent issue OF MoClure't
Magazine, there was an interesting &C.
count by H. Parker Willis Of the
whisky war which was WaSed thru
the administrations of Presidents
Roosevelt and Taft. and which involv-
ed the Pure Food Bureau on one hand
and the International Revenue Depart
ment on the other. not to mention that
innocent third party without notice. the
public. The fight was between the
straight" d!st!llevs. who produce whis-
Ky by storing the raw Obstinate from,
grain In charred oak barrels. in which
Il ripsns into the co!ored and aromatic
whisky OF commerce. and the d!stillers
who save time and money by rect!fyins
the raw distillate to alcohol, to which
color!ng and fiavors are added to sim
ulate the appearance and taste OF the
whiskys which have been mellowed by
the processes OF time and the dis
solved products OF charred wood.
According to the pure food law. all
drinks as well as food should be label
ed so as to show their real nature. Is
whisky product by chemical aids
properly a whisky, or IS It not? That
was the point over which the legal bat
tie was fought back and forth The
straight distillers claimed that it was
not and the chemical distillers claim
ed that, since it could not be distin-
guished either by chemical analysis or
by popular taste from the aged" wiis-
ky. il in fact was whisky. and had a
right 10 the name. The question was
a serious one financially, because ex-
perience proved that the public would
not buy the artificial whisky under any
other name. ever tho its palate had not
been educated to the point of distin-
gushing the two classes. Both sides
were represented by counsel in extend
ed arguments before President Rooss-
Welt. who confirmed the opinion Of At
.orrey General Bonaparte that the Ia
bells mus, indicate the actual facts IN
regard to the processes used. or. II
was the only true whisky.
Attorney General Bonaparte even
went so far" says Ny. Wills" as TO
suggest the styie of labels to be en-
ployed by producers in describing their
goods Thus. for straight whisky
typical label" said Mr. Bonaparte,
would be 'Semper Idem-A Pure
Straight Whisky blended whisky
might be described as F. Pluribus IN
UNA Blend of Pure Straight Whis-
kys:' mixture of straight whisky aud
grain alcohol nigh, be called Modern
Improved Whsky-A Compound OF
Pure Grain Distillates; while rect!-
fed whisky of the usual type might be
called Something better than WHISKY
An Imitation
This decision was. however. modified
BY the succeeding Administrations;
President Taft and his legal advisers
ruling that all grain liquors are whisky
and NAV be so labeled whether pro-
duced by the agency of time or oN
chemical manipulation.
The patent office has not infreQuent-
~ been impor:uned to confirm the pro-
duction OF artificial foods In 1856 an
enterprising Mr.. Corb:n attempted TO
secure letters paten, for an artificial
honey. which ne wished to place upon
he market in competition with the
product of the busy little bee. The
comm !ssoner's sympathies We're evi-
IDENTIFY on the side OF the bee and. tho
admitting the compound IN he new. and
a most successful imitation OF the gem
uine article for the manufacture or
which the bee had been supposed TO
have a prehistoric monopoly he refus-
ed the application. in April. on the
ground that TO grant the patent would
be 70 make the patent law a. once the
source of the protector OF system or
deception, that. carried out in all its
bearings, would be productive Of much
evil and do great injury to the COM
merce of the chemical dietetical arts.
and destroy confidence in the various
articles offered for public and private
use.
No doubt Mr. Corbin was stung by
the rebuke. but he probably expected
no less in interfering with the bee at
its business end: and. not TO be dis
couraged he brought the matter up
again in June when the attention OF
the bee was diverted to the clover.
Again he was denied
On the principle Of criticism that
what is new isn't true ard what is
true isn't new, the commissioner based
mis- refusal this time upon the ground
that. as syrups were already a we'll
known article Of manufacture. there
was mo patentable novelty involved in
merely selecting materials that had not
Q@QQOo~,