The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1914-08-12
Courts Decision Clarifies Pure Food
Law.

On June Is, 1914, the United States
Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting at
Cincinnati in the Sixth Federal Dis
trict. handed down decision con-
frming the Judgment of the Lower
Court In tho Coca Cola case. This
case was originally brought before
Judge Sanford of the District Court
Of the United States for the Eastern
District OF Tennessee on March Is,
1911 and was tried at great length be-
fore a jury at Chattanooga, Tenn. A
score Of scientists, including the most
eminent chemists, pharmaco cologists
and physicians of America. testified
as expert witnesses. At the conclu-
sion of the trial the government with
drew all Of the charges expect two AMI
on these two the Court instructed the
jury to return a verdict in favor of
the Coca Cola company.
The case was then appealed and
the recent decision Of the Circuit
Court OF Appeals at Cincinnati. con.
flrming the Judgment of the Lower
court, Sustains the claim of the Coca
Cola company, that it's product is,
neither adulterated nor misbrandcd
within the meaning of the Pure Food
Act.
The following quotation from the
omcial court record will prove inter-
esting alike to the manufacturers and
consumers Of food products AS it gives
clear exposition of one of the mos,
important sections Of the Pure Food
law and also defines the character o.,
Coca Cola. the popular soda fountain
beverage 1t reads as follows:
Ifere is a middle view, which is
suihclent for the purpose of this case.
ana which will recognize the com
pOsite meaning of added dclcterious'
ratner tnan the separate meaning of
eacn Word. This view is that i'm using
the word added" with reference to
possibly delctcriOus food ingredient.
congress had in mind an addition
aDoVe and beyond the quantity i'm
winch such ingredient was normally
round In usual and customary articles
or fOOd, and that no such Ingredient
should be considered us added if il
was present only i'm the quantity i'm
which IT existed in these common ar
ticles Of food with which every
member of congress was familiar. an,,
which had generally been thought
wholesome. For example: Crcosotr
ana other products of destructive
wood dlstillatiOn are, INDEPENDENTS
considered. injurious, but they have
always been present in smoked hams.
Can the addition of the same preser-
NatlEcS 10 the same extent to the
same meat be something that congress.
intended to prohibit? The boric acid
round In apples, is a prcsCrvativc If
certain apples which are to be pre-
served are not up to the maximum i'm
this element, did congress intend to
forbid supplying the deficiency by the
same element from another source >
Acetc acld may, of course, be I'M
riOuS, Dut If, by its use, an artiiicin
vinegar is made which is chemically
and III every way equivalent to the
natural vinegar familiar to the mem
bcrs of congress i'm many COMPOUNDS
would they have thought of it as a
dcletcriOus addition? No example i,
80 clear as the very one here involy-
ed. Every member of CONGRESS had
been familiar, from childhocd. with
tea and coffee; perhaps most of then,
drank it. The average cup of cofrc,
contains more than two grains of caf-
feline: the average cup of tea. one
and onc-half grains. \ glass; of Coca
Cola, as consumed, contains one and
OnC-fifth grains of caffeine. Th,
chemical qualities and the phNsioluyi-
cal effects Of the caffeine which is il,
thc tea or coffee and of the catIciu,
which IL IN the Coca cola are pre-
CiscIy the same. We are quite ocn-
Ninccd that the use i'm an nrtilicial
beverage Of certain element which
had been one of its characteristic rlC-
mCnts for many years. and when such
use WAS in Il les proportion than the
same element was known to make uI
in different natural beverages than i'm
universal use and GcncrHlIN thoucht
WhOlcsomc--that such an element <,
employed could not have been Within
the meaning OF congress when il
chose the words added dClctcrious
| juVCpdinnt' -