The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1914-07-22
Courts Decision Clarifies Pure Food

Law.
On June 13, 1915 tho United States
circuit Court CT Apreal sitting al
Cincinnati in the Sixth Federal Dis.
trict. handed down decision con-
firming the Judgment Of the Lower
Court In the 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 13,
1911 and was tried ut great length be-
fore jury at Chattanooga, Tenn. A
score Of scientists. including the most
eminent chemists. pl,c-mucologists
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 and
on these two the Court instructed the
jury to return G. verdict in favor of
the Coca Cola Company.
The case was then appcaled. and
the recent decision OF the Circuit
Court Of Appeals at Cincinnati, con-
firming the judgment Of tho Lower
Court, sustains the claim of the Coca
Cola Company. that its product is
neither adulterated nor misbranded
within the meaning Of the Pure Food
Act.
The following quotation from the
official court record will prove inter-
esting alike to the manufacturers and
consumers Of food products as it gives
u clear exposition Of one Of the most
important sections ofthe Pure Food
law. and also defines tho character Of
Coca Cola, the popular soda fountain
beverage. 1t reads as follows:
There Is middle view, which is
sufficient for the purposes Of this case
and which will recognize the COM
posite meaning Of "added deleteriOus"
rather than the separate meaning of
each word. This view is that in using
the word added" with reference to
a possibly deleterious food ingredient,
congress had In mind an addition
above and beyond the quantity in
which such ingredient was normally
found In usual and customary articles
OF food, and that no such ingredient
should be considered as added" If 1t
was present only in the quantity in
which 1t existed in these common ar
ticles of food with which every
member Of congress was familiar, and
which had generally been thought
wholesome. For example: CreosOte
and other products of destructive
wood distillation are, Independently
considered, Injurious. but they have
always been present in smoked hams.
Can the addition Of the same preser-
vatives to the same extent to the
same meat be something that congress
intended to prohibit? The boric acid,
found In apples lis a preservative. If
certain apples which are to be pre-
served are not up to the maximum in
this element. did congress intend to
forbid supplying the deficiency by the
same element from another source? {?
Acetic acid may, Of course, be inju-
riOus. but II. by its use. an artificial
vinegar Is made which Is chemically
and In every way equivalent to the
natural vinegar familiar to the men,
bers Of congress in many compounds
would they have thought of it as a
deleteriOus addition? No example is
80 clear as the very one here involv-
ed. Every member of congress had
been familiar, from childhood. with
tea and coffee; perhaps most of them
drank 1t. The average cup Of coffee
contains more than two grains of caf-
feline; the average cup Of tea, one
and One-half grains. A glass of Coca
Cola, as consulted, contains one and
One-fifth grains of caffeine Tho
chemical qualities and the physiolOgi-
cal effects Of the caffeine which is in
the tea or coffee and of the caffeine
which Is In the Coca Cola are pre-
cisely the same. We are quite con-
vinced that the use In an artificial
beverage Of certain element which
had been one Of its characteristic ele-
ments for many years. and when such
use was In less proportion than the
same element was known to make up
in different natural beverages than in
universal use and generally thought
whOlesOme-that such an element so
employed could not have been within
the meaning of congress when it chose
the words added deleterious ingre-
dent"