NOTICE OF JUDGMENT NO. 990.
(Given pursuant to section 4 of the Food and Drugs Act.)
ALLEGED MISBRANDING OF CORN HORSE AND MULE FEED.
On or about February 20, 1909, a libel was filed in the District 
Court of the United States for the Middle District of Alabama, pray- 
ing condemnation and forfeiture of a shipment of "Corn Horse and 
Mule Feed " which was alleged to be misbranded. The feed was con- 
tained in sacks, branded as follows: " Corn Horse and Mule Feed. 
Mixture of ground alfalfa, oats, corn, flax bran, oat and hominy 
feeds, made by the Corno Mills Company, East St. Louis, Illinois. 
Guaranteed analysis: Protein 10%; sugar and starch 58.5%; fat 
3.5%; fibre 12%." Microscopical examination of samples of the 
product, made by the Bureau of Chemistry, showed the presence in 
the feed of about 15 per cent oat hulls and practically no oats. An- 
alysis showed moisture 9.84 per cent, protein 10.63 per cent, and 
fiber 15.24 per cent.
The libel charged adulteration and misbranding, and the case was 
tried on December 13, 1910, on the following statements of facts:
This is an information exhibited against one car load of " Corn 
Horse and Mule Feed," praying a seizure and condemnation for con- 
fiscation, under Section 10 of the Food and Drugs Act, approved June 
30th, 1906.
The libel as amended is based on the following grounds:
First, for that said food is adulterated in this, that the same purports to be, 
and is so labeled and branded, " a mixture of ground alfalfa, oats, corn, flax 
bran, oat and hominy feeds," when in fact and in truth the same is mixed and 
packed with a foreign substance, to wit: oat hulls, so as to reduce and injuri- 
ously affect its quality and strength. Second, for that said food is adulterated 
in that a large quantity of the substance, to wit: oat hulls, has been mixed and 
packed with the same so as to reduce or lower or injuriously affect its quality 
or strength. Third, for that said original packages are misbranded in violation 
of section 8 of said Food and Drugs Act, in this, that they purport to contain a 
2600°—No. 990—11
o
mixture of ground alfalfa, oats, corn, and flax bran, oat and hominy feed, which 
label or brand is false or misleading in that the contents of said packages con- 
tain a foreign substance, to wit: a quantity of oat hulls mixed and packed there- 
with in excess of the amount normally present in oat feed one of the con- 
stituent parts named in the brand on said package.
The usual process having issued, a seizure was made and Hudson 
and Thompson claimed the property and answered the libel, denying 
that the Corno Horse and Mule Feed was adulterated or misbranded, 
but admitting the interstate character of the shipment, the descrip- 
tion of the brands thereon, etc.   A jury trial was waived.
Subsequently, the parties agreed on a statement of facts as follows:
That the car load of Corn Horse and Mule Feed against which this libel is 
filed was contained in original bags or sacks of about 100 pounds and of about 
175 pounds each, and that each of said original packages, being said sacks or 
bags, were branded: " Corn Horse and Mule Feed. Mixture of ground 
alfalfa, oats, corn, flax bran, oat and hominy feeds, made by the Corno Mills 
Company, East St. Louis, Illinois. Guaranteed analysis: protein 10% ; sugar 
and starch 58.5%'; fat 3.5% ; fiber 12%, said brand being contained on each 
sack and label connected therewith. That the said Corno Horse and Mule 
Feed is an article of food within the meaning of the Food and Drugs Act; 
that on February 8th, 1909, the above described bags or sacks of Corn Horse 
and Mule Feed were received in the city of Montgomery, in the State of 
Alabama, by Hudson and Thompson, claimants herein, a partnership composed 
of W. M. Hudson and J. A. Thompson, and that the car load of Corn Horse 
and Mule Feed, aforesaid, was shipped to said Hudson and Thompson on or 
about, to wit: February 4th, 1909 from the city of East St. Louis, in the State 
of Illinois, by the Corno Mills Company of said city of E. St. Louis and that 
said car load or a large portion thereof of the Corno Horse and Mule Feed, 
aforesaid, at the time of the filing of this libel was in the original unbroken 
packages and in the possession of said Hudson and Thompson, in the city of 
Montgomery, State of Alabama, in the Northern Division of the Middle District 
of Alabama, and within the jurisdiction of this Court. It is further admitted 
that there was present in the Corno Horse and Mule Feed, aforesaid, seized 
under the libel herein, a quantity of oat hulls in excess of the amount that 
would have been naturally and normally present in case whole ground oats had 
been used in lieu of the same amount of oat feed—using the term oat feed here 
according to the construction contended for by the claimants herein; namely, 
as a by-product of the oat meal or rolled oat factory, said by-product consisting 
of the entire residue of the oats after the manufacture of the oats into food 
for human consumption, and consisting of the middlings, nubbins, oat dust and 
hulls; by this admission is meant that there was used in the Corno Horse and 
Mule Feed aforesaid, a quantity of the by-product of the rolled oat mill con- 
sisting of the oat hulls, middlings, nubbins and dust as above described.
The defense also admitted that ' oat feed' contains less of protein 
and more of hulls than an equal amount of whole ground oats. A 
great volume of the testimony was taken from manufacturers, 
millers, middle-men, brokers and consumers as to the meaning of the 
term ' oat feed,' and how it was used and understood in commerce 
and trade and among the people generally.
990
3
On May 31, 1911, the court held that the feed was neither adul- 
terated nor misbranded, and directed that the libel be dismissed. 
The opinion of the court follows:
JONES.S, District Judge. The term food, as used in the Food and Drugs Act, 
includes all articles used for food by men or other animals, whether simple, 
mixed or compound. An " article of food " is deemed to be adulterated, " if 
any substance has been mixed or packed with it so as to reduce or lower or 
injuriously affect its quality or strength," or, " if any substance has been sub- 
stituted, wholly or in part, for the article," or, " if any valuable constituent 
of the article has been, wholly or in part, abstracted," or, " if it contains any 
added poisonous or other added deleterious ingredient which may render such 
article injurious to health," or, " if it be mixed, colored, powdered, coated or 
stained whereby damage or inferiority is concealed," or " if it consists, wholly 
or in part, of a filthy, decomposed or putrid animal or vegetable substance," 
etc.
An article of food is misbranded within the meaning of the statute if it be 
" an imitation of, or offered for sale under the distinctive name of another 
article," or, " if it be labeled or branded so as to deceive or mislead the pur- 
chaser," ... or, " if in package form and the contents are stated in terms 
of weight and measure they are not plainly and correctly stated on the outside 
of the package," or, " if the package or label containing it shall bear any 
statement, design or device regarding the substances or ingredients contained 
therein, which statement, design or device shall be false or misleading in any 
particular."
Section 8 contains a proviso, " that an article of food which does not contain 
any added poisonous or deleterious ingredient, shall not be deemed to be 
adulterated or misbranded in the following cases:
First: In the case of mixtures or compounds which may be now or from 
time to time hereafter known as articles of food under their own distinctive 
name, and not an imitation of or offered for sale under the distinctive name 
of another article, if the name be accompanied on the same label or brand 
with a statement of the place where said article has been manufactured or 
produced.
Second: In the case of articles labeled, branded or tagged so as to plainly 
indicate that they are compounds, imitations or blends, and the words " com- 
pound," " imitation " or " blend," as the case may be, is plainly stated on the 
package and the package in which it is offered for sale."
The manufacturer, without violating any of the provisions of the statute 
against adulteration, may mix any number of constituents in his compound, 
so long as these constituents are not poisonous or deleterious to health and 
he give the compound a distinctive name and states where it is manufactured. 
The matter thus produced is " the article of food " whose quality and strength 
the statute seeks to preserve, and the nature of the product in these respects 
is fixed and determined by the elements which enter into it. How is it possible, 
chemically, or in the eye of the law, to "lower or injuriously affect" the 
quality or strength of the particular " article of food," whose characteristics 
are thus produced, and safeguarded by the law as thus produced, under its 
own distinctive name, by mixing in the compound anything which may be law- 
fully incorporated therein? Putting in a mixture of things which may be law- 
fully blended therein cannot amount to Adulteration of the blend, since, other 
things aside, the statute declares, its other conditions being complied with, the 
blend shall not thereby " be deemed to be adulterated." 
990
4
Corn Horse and Mule Feed is a compound, sold under its own distinctive, 
name. One of the constituent elements which fix and determine the quality 
and strength of that blend is 'oat feed.' The incorporation of 'oat feed' in 
the blend, unless it be noxious or deleterious to health, cannot adulterate the 
blend which has its own standard, quality and strength, made up in part of 
' oat feed.' To make a case of adulteration it must be shown that ' oat feed' 
contains noxious qualities, as described in the statute. Otherwise, it is mani- 
fest that the incorporation of ' oat feed' in the blend has not mixed or packed 
any substance with the blend,—"Corn Horse and MuleFeed"—so as to re- 
duce or lower or injuriously affect its quality or strength," or that " any 
valuable constituent of the article of food has, wholly or in part, been sub- 
tracted from the blend or that any substance has been substituted, wholly or 
in part;" for the " article of food." Corno Horse and Mule Feed is not an 
imitation of, or offered for sale under the distinctive name of another article, 
but is sold under its own distinctive name, and the label or brand contains a 
statement which shows that it is a mixture, and truthfully states its constit- 
uents and the place where the article was manufactured or produced. There 
is no charge or proof of removal of any part of the contents of the package as 
originally put up. It is not claimed or proved that the matter of which the 
' oat feed' consists is deleterious, in any way to man or other animal, or 
charged that the provisions of the statute against adulteration have been 
violated in any way, save by putting ' oat feed' on the label. The libel must 
fail as to the charges of adulteration.
The label here does not contain any design or device of any kind, and 
whether there has been a misbranding within the meaning of the statute must 
depend on the words employed in the label to describe the Corn Horse and 
Mule Feed. Save by the declaration in the statute as to what a label shall 
not contain, no standards are prescribed for brands or labels, or the minute- 
ness or particularity in which they must indulge in describing an article of 
food. The statute should be liberally construed to affect its beneficent pur- 
poses, but no rule of construction permits us to so construe its language, that 
the statute shall operate as a snare or trap to the honest manufacturer or 
producer, who brands or labels his products in descriptive words or devices, 
which fairly inform the purchaser of the nature and ingredients of the product 
offered for sale, and are not so framed as to deceive or mislead the ordinary 
purchaser.
The parties have deemed it important to introduce a vast mass of testimony 
as to the meaning of the term ' oat feed.' As the Court is sitting both as trier 
of the law and the facts, it is deemed unnecessary to determine whether the 
meaning of the term ' oat feed' as here used, is a matter of pure law, or 
whether it is a question of fact, to be ascertained as by a jury from the whole 
evidence. If it be a matter of law of which the Court must take judicial notice, 
the Court may nevertheless resort to any authoritative sources of information to 
enlighten its judgment, and on the other hand, if it be a question of fact, the 
judge sitting as a jury may well determine the meaning of the words here as a 
question of fact, according to the weight of the evidence.
The government claims that ' oat feed' means the whole grain of the oat, 
either crushed or ground, and the ordinary purchaser of the blend so under- 
stands the term ' oat feed' used in the label, though it admits the manufac- 
turer gives a different meaning to it. The manufacturer claims, on the con- 
trary, that ' oat feed' means the by-product of the rolled oat or oat meal 
mills—that part of the grain which remains after the miller subtracts from it 
the portions useful for human food, consisting of nubbins, middlings, hulls and 
oat dust, the entire residue of the grain after the oat is prepared by the manu- 
990
facturer for human consumption,-and that the term has long been so under- 
stood in commerce and trade and by the public at large.
The whole trend of the evidence is, that in nearly all by-products the word 
' feed' when connected with a grain, is used to denote the by-product from that 
grain, meaning the residue of the grain after it is manufactured into food for 
human consumption, and that when it is intended to designate the whole grain 
or the crushed grain entering into articles of food for man, the thing is spoken 
of as food and not feed.
The government admits that the words ' hominy feed' mean the by-product 
from the hominy mills and are so used, known and understood. It admits that 
other terms are used in the same way to denote other products. The evidence 
leaves no doubt that the terms " barley feed," " rye feed," " wheat feed," " buck- 
wheat feed," " mixed feed," and other similar terms, are used to designate 
those by-products, and are popularly known and understood as such. It shows 
that ' oat feed' is different from whole ground oats or crushed oats, and that 
the difference is clearly apparent to the naked eye and that at all times the 
price of ' oat feed' is considerably lower than that of the ground oats. It 
further shows that ' oat feed' seldom reaches the consumer as a separate 
commodity, but is most generally offered for sale as an ingredient of a mixed 
feed, or as it is denominated in many of the State Laws, concentrated feed 
stuff. It also shows that the term " ground oats " is universally used to desig- 
nate that product, and that likewise " crushed oats " is used to designate the 
oats when they are crushed, and that " chopped oats " or " oat chops " is used 
to designate the chopped oats, and there is no evidence to show that any of the 
products have ever been designated or understood to mean the same thing as 
" oat feed." Many of the States have recognized ' oat feed' as a by-product of 
the oat, in their food laws; notably New York, Maine, Louisiana, Iowa, Wis- 
consin, Virginia, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Texas, Florida, Connecticut, 
Illinois, Michigan, Massachusetts, Maryland and Tennessee. Bulletins from 
various state agricultural experiment stations were offered in evidence, show- 
ing that ' oat feed ' is recognized as a by-product in New Jersey, Georgia, Ohio, 
Tennessee and Virginia.
Among other testimony introduced by the defense was a letter of January 27, 
1910, from the Board of Food and Drug Inspection concurred in by all its 
members, and addressed to counsel in this case. It is given in full because it 
shows the government was by no means certain as to the correctness of its 
contention as to the meaning of ' oat feed.' It indicates that its inquiries 
tended to show that ' oat feed' in fact means the by-product of the oat mill, but 
that its opinion was that it should not be known as ' oat feed' which the 
Board thought should include ground oats only. In this particular, it is aside 
the issue, for the question is what ' oat feed' describes in our language, and 
not what it ought to describe. Neither the Secretary of Agriculture nor any 
official intrusted with the administration of the Food and Drugs Act has any 
authority to change the meaning of words. The letter, omitting address and 
signature, is as follows:
" Your letter of January 15, 1910, in references to the cases reported to the 
Department of Justice against the Corno Mills Company of East St. Louis, Ill., 
for prosecution under the Food and Drugs Act, has received careful considera- 
tion. Your statement is noted that you are of the opinion that unless the De- 
partment of Agriculture has changed its view as to the meaning of the term 
" Oat Feed" the proceedings against the shipment of Corn Horse and Mule 
Feed seized at Valdosta, Georgia, should not be dismissed, in view of the promise 
of this Department of an early judicial construction of the meaning of the 
990
6
term and the completion of your arrangements for the taking of all necessary 
evidence.
" You are advised in reply that the records of the Board do not show that a 
promise has been made by the Board that the meaning of the term ' Oat Feed' 
shall be construed by the courts at an early date. As you are aware, such 
promise, even if made by the Board, would be ineffective. The duties of the 
Board of Food and Drug Inspection end with the collection of evidence and 
the preparation of reports of violations of the Food and Drugs Act. When the 
evidence is complete and the circumsrances of the violations appear to the 
Secretary of Agriculture to warrant such action, the cases are reported to the 
Department of Justice for prosecution, and the time when a particular case 
may come on for trial rests with the Department of Justice. After cases are 
so reported, whenever additional evidence bearing on the questions involved 
conies to the knowledge of the Board, such evidence is also brought to the 
attention of the Secretary of Agriculture for consideration whether the same 
should be transmitted to the Department of Justice.
" When the question was presented to the Board whether proceedings should 
be instituted against the shipment seized at Valdosta, Georgia, such action was 
recommended on the statement of the Bureau of Chemistry that the term ' Oat 
Feed' properly includes only ground whole oats, and the amount of oat hulls 
found on examination of samples to be present in the product was consider- 
ably in excess of the amount which normally would be present in a product 
containing ground whole oats. Analysts of the Bureau of Chemistry were of 
the opinion that the term ' Oat Feed ' as applied to oat-offal or by-products of 
the oat meal, is misleading, and the Bureau of Chemistry has in its possession 
affidavits of dealers in cattle feed and grain who express the opinion that the 
product sold in the trade as ' Oat Feed' which consists largely of oat hulls, 
should not be known as ' Oat Feed,' and that the term ' Oat Feed' should in- 
clude ground oats only.
" Inasmuch as the foregoing views of the Bureau of Chemistry were earnestly 
controverted by the Corno Mills Company and other manufacturers of cattle 
feeds and many dealers in cereal products, letters of inquiry were addressed 
by the Solicitor of this Department to representative manufacturers and dealers, 
and replies were received indicating that ' Oat Feed' is generally understood 
among the trade to be the by-product of the oat meal mill and consisting of oat 
hulls, oat nubbins, oat dust and middlings. It further appeals from these 
replies that screenings from oat elevators are also known and sold as ' Oat 
Feed' and that ground whole oats are never sold as ' Oat Feed' but as ground 
oats.
" In view of the difference of opinion as to the significance of the term ' Oat 
Feed,' as set forth above, the crop technologist in charge of grain standardiza- 
tion in the Bureau of Plant Industry in this Department, who has a thorough 
knowledge of the grain industry in this country, was consulted. The crop 
technologist stated, so far as he is informed, the term ' Oat Feed' in the grain 
trade means the by products of the oat mill, including oat hulls, oat nubbins, 
oat dust, middlings, and screenings from oat elevators; he further stated that 
ground whole oats are not designated as ' Oat Feed ' because ground whole 
oats are a superior product and command a higher price in the market than 
oat feed.
" When, therefore, the United States Attorney in charge of the proceedings
against the seizure at Valdosta requested the opinion of the Department of
Agriculture concerning the disposal of the case,  in view  of the stipulation
which had been entered into with the defendants for the taking of testimony,
990
7
he was informed by the Solicitor of all the facts hereinbefore related in refer- 
ence to the meaning of the term ' Oat Feed' and was advised that the Depart- 
ment of Agriculture was satisfied to leave to his discretion the question whether 
the case should be prosecuted or dismissed. After consideration of the matter, 
the United States Attorney decided to dismiss the case.
" When the department was advised of this action of the United States At- 
torney it was deemed advisable to inform the United States Attorneys at Mont- 
gomery, Alabama and Danville, Illinois, to whom cases involving the same 
question had been referred for prosecution, of all the facts within the knowl- 
edge of the Department of Agriculture concerning the meaning of the term 
'Oat Feed.' They have been informed accordingly, and have been requested to 
advise the Solicitor of this Department whether, after consideration thereof, 
they are of the opinion that the cases pending in their respective districts based 
on shipments of Corn Horse and Mule Feed, should be prosecuted or dismissed. 
The Department is not yet in receipt of the opinions of the United States At- 
torneys. Pending the decision of the United States Attorney at Montgomery, 
Alabama, and the United States Attorney at Danville, Illinois, whether cases 
can be maintained under the Food and Drugs Act which are based on the 
significance applied to the term 'Oat Feed' by the Bureau of Chemistry, the 
Board of Food and Drug Inspection has not determined whether cases shall 
be reported for prosecution in the future in which the same issue is presented. 
When the replies of the United States Attorneys are received, however, the 
Board will consider and determine what attitude shall be taken in this particu- 
lar, and when a decision has been reached you will be informed accordingly."
The testimony introduced on behalf of the defense was from manufacturers, 
middle-men, wholesalers, retailers and consumers, and covered not only the 
United States but two foreign countries as well, and showed that in them for 
a great many years the term ' oat feed' has been used and understood not only 
by the manufacturer and all classes of middle-men, but also by the ultimate 
consumer, to mean the by-product of the rolled oat or oat meal mills, in the 
same way that other by-products have been known by similar names. No wit- 
nesses, except Mr. Brown, testified that he ever heard the term ' oat feed ' 
applied to whole, ground or crushed oats. Dr. Voorhecs, of the New Jersey Ex- 
periment Station and Mr. Fuller of the Indiana Experiment Station showed 
very clearly from their examinations and experience, the term ' oat feed ' in 
commercial usage and wherever used in trade and commerce, is known and 
understood to be the by-product of the oat mill.
The defense also introduced bulletin No. 108, issued by the Department of 
Agriculture, April 2, 1908, regarding the " Commercial Feeding Stuffs of the 
United States." This is a very valuable paper prepared by Dr. J. K. Haywood, 
Chief of the Miscellaneous Laboratory, and one of the principal witnesses for 
the government in this case, Mr. Warner, the Chief Chemist, and Mr. Howard, 
Chief of the Microchemical Laboratory. The paper is the result of chemical 
examinations of the various stock foods, their methods of manufacture and 
analyses of commercial feeding stuffs conducted at a number of the State Ex- 
periment Stations. Table 17 of ' Oat Feed ' deals with the contents of seven 
different samples of ' oat feed.' The bulletin says, on page 12, " the main 
source of oat feed is the breakfast food factories. In many cases they are 
composed almost entirely of the oat hulls and light oats left as waste from 
oat meal manufacture." It distinguishes between oat meal and ground whole 
oats. In Farmers' Bulletin No. 170, issued by the Department of Agriculture 
it is shown that ' oat feed' is recognized by the Department as a by-product of 
oats.
990
8
The government offered testimony of a considerable number of witnesses, 
consumers and dealers in feeding stuffs, near Washington, St. Louis, Knoxville, 
Kansas City and Montgomery. Almost without exception, the result of the 
testimony of these witnesses when analyzed amounted to no more than their 
expression of opinion as to what the term ' oat feed' should mean, not disclos- 
ing any knowledge of its actual meaning as understood by customers familiar 
with the product. Dr. Haywood, Chemist of the Board of Food and Drug In- 
spection ; Mr. Lynch, Inspector and Hon. L. F. Brown, of New York gave the 
strongest testimony for the Government as to what ' oat feed' meant. Upon 
cross-examination, Dr. Haywood testified, that without first telling the person 
that ' oat feed' was a part of the label describing a compound commodity, or 
asking whether he was acquainted with the commodity, he would ask him' what 
he would expect to get if he were buying oat feed? That practically nobody 
whom he interviewed had ever heard of that particular commodity, which 
counsel for the defense called ' oat feed' and when questioned by Dr. Haywood 
about the term ' oat feed,' the persons questioned, would immediately answer, 
" Yes, ground oats." Dr. Haywood further testified on cross-examination, that 
at the time of his enquiries, a year or two before this proceeding was instituted, 
he had never heard the term ' oat feed' used to designate ground oats, and 
that in his opinion, the term ' oat feed' meant ground oats, and that such was 
the result of his investigations. He further testified, on cross-examination, 
that he had never heard of the term ' oat feed' being used to designate ground 
whole oats; but that ground oats is a term well understood throughout the 
length and breadth of the country; that ground oats means the oats ground up, 
without anything added or substracted, the whole grain with nothing taken 
away or added; that he had never heard of anybody offering ground oats, 
crushed oats or chopped oats or oat chops under the name ' oat feed.'
Mr. Brown, the Chief of the New York State Department of Agriculture, 
testifies that the meaning of the term ' oat feed' with the New York State 
Department of Agriculture was ground oats, either crushed, whole or ground 
oats, from which nothing had been taken away or added, and that the term was 
so understood throughout the State. His practical experience, however, was 
limited to Cobleskill, a town of about 2,500 inhabitants, some fifteen years ago. 
His testimony on this point is directly opposite to that of the numerous wit- 
nesses called by the defense as to the understanding of the term ' oat feed' 
in New York State, and its weight is destroyed by the fact that the laws of the 
State of New York, relative to feed stuffs, recognize the distinction between oats 
and oat feed, classing the latter among the by-products. It is not unlikely that 
Mr. Brown's experience at Cobleskill was a confusion of the expression ' feed 
of oats ' with the commodity term ' oat feed.'
Mr. Lynch, the Inspector, conducted his investigations along the same lines 
as Dr. Haywood. He would show the person of whom he inquired, a copy of 
the label and ask what meaning it conveyed; and if the answer should be 
ground oats, crushed oats or whole oats, he would ask the person if he found 
out, in purchasing feed thus labeled that he had gotten the oat refuse or by- 
product of an oat meal mill, would he consider that he had been deceived- 
That he did not first ascertain from the person, of whom he inquired, whether 
he had any knowledge of the commodity ' oat feed.' In most instances the per- 
son, of whom the inquiry was made, had little, if any, knowledge of by-prod- 
ucts or any feeding stuffs except hay and in some instances wheat by-products, 
and they were the ones who were asked to give their opinions as to the 
meaning of the term ' oat feed' in the Corno Horse and Mule Feed label. 
Lynch states that he interviewed about two hundred people in the different 
990
9
Southern States, and almost without exception, they would expect to get ground 
or crushed oats, from looking at the term ' oat feed' on the label.
The issue, however, is not what such persons with such lack of familiarity 
with the product would understand ' oat feed' meant, but what idea the term 
ought to convey to persons of ordinary intelligence, who are conversant with 
our language. The power of Congress to pass the statute is derived solely 
from its authority to regulate commerce, and it must have uniform operation 
throughout the United States. It deals with .articles of food which enter 
into inter-state commerce. It would be unthinkable that Congress intended 
that a product could be seized in one district and not in another for a mis- 
leading brand, according or not as the generality of persons in those districts 
understood or were deceived by the brand on the particular product.
Language is " the expression of thought by means of spoken or written 
words," and words are but signs of ideas. If a person does not know 
English, he cannot understand the idea or conception or sign meant to be 
conveyed by a word. So as to a commodity term; people unfamiliar with the 
terms or its meaning, seeing on a label the word which stands for a commodity 
term, would not know what it meant, and numbers of them would state, quite 
honestly, that seeing the word, ' oat feed' on the label, they were deceived as 
to what it meant and thought ' oat feed' meant to describe the grain of the 
oat, rolled, crushed or chopped.
All words in the beginning were arbitrary signs. They became part of the 
language only by common usage among the people after they had generally 
been accepted or taken to express or stand for a particular thought or idea. 
When a word obtains such currency or general acceptation, the people use it 
to convey that particular idea to the persons to whom it is addressed, and the 
word continues to have that meaning and function in the language until 
common usage among the people accords another and different meaning to it. 
Language grows and changes with the growth and changes in social and 
economic conditions, and expressions creep into the language by a gradual 
process of evolution wrought by the necessity for more precise expressions 
and greater convenience in depicting old ideas or new conditions and things. 
Words are thus being constantly coined and put in circulation, and their mean- 
ing being generally understood among the people they become accepted parts 
of our speech, sometimes for years, before they are formally acknowledged and 
incorporated in standard dictionaries. A century ago no one would have under- 
stood what idea was meant to be conveyed by the words " chloroform," " tele- 
phone," " telegraph," " aeroplane," " automobile," " x-rays," and the like. Now 
they are common nouns, parts of common speech, and understood by all who 
speak our language.
The evidence satisfies the Court, if that be the only means by which it can 
ascertain the fact, that when our people speak of the products of a particular 
grain or vegetable and use the word by which that grain or vegetable is com- 
monly called and add the suffix ' feed' they mean to convey the idea that the 
substance described is the by-product of that grain or vegetable—the residue 
after subtracting from the grain or vegetable those parts which are useful 
for human food. The evidence shows that this meaning has so long been under- 
stood in the dealings between persons who buy and sell feed stuffs, and from 
the designation given the product, in laws, trade journals, market reports, in 
the newspapers, and in official publications in reference to food for man or other 
animals, that the term ' oat feed ' and other like terms, have become common 
nouns in our vernacular, and describe by-products, and therefore, ought not 
to lead anyone, who understands English and reads the label, to reach the 
990
10
conclusion that the term ' oat feed' means the whole, ground or crushed grain j 
especially when the term ' oat feed' is used 'in juxtaposition with the word 
' oats' on the label, and inevitably implies that the 'oat feed' contained in the 
mixture is something different from the ' oats' therein.
The term 'oat feed' on the label is not false, but truthfully designates that 
portion of the constituents of the blend which consists of the ' oat feed' and 
is correctly described by these words. The purchaser buys the product for 
cattle food and knows it is put upon the market for that purpose. On the label 
here, after giving all the elements which enter into the blend, follows a plain 
statement of the qualities and nutritive values of the combined product for 
cattle food. After naming the elements put in the blend, the purchaser is told 
of the proportions of protein, sugar, starch, fat and fibre, thus giving him 
additional means of ascertaining and judging of the nutritive properties and 
\alues of the product for cattle food. All who interest themselves in food 
supplies know, for instance, that protein serves to build up new tissues, replace 
broken down cells, and may also serve as a source of heat and energy, and so 
of the properties of sugar and starch, fat and fibre, and their relative nutritive 
values. It might as well be said that the stated analysis of the product in 
these respects was misleading, because the manufacturer did not particularly 
define in the statement in reference thereto, the offices which the different 
elements performed in lowering or increasing the nutritive properties of a 
particular product—as to the charge that the use of the word ' oat feed' was 
misleading, because- it did not go further and descend to minuteness of particu- 
lars and description of the thing of which ' oat feed ' consists and states on 
this label, descriptive of stock food, that it consisted of the residue of the grain 
after the most valuable parts of the oat had been subtracted by the manu- 
facturer for human food.
The great object of the statute is to prevent injury to health and deception 
by words or devices on the label which may naturally lead the purchaser to 
believe that he is getting one thing when in reality he is getting another. Cer- 
tainly the manufacturer meets all these requirements when he truthfully de- 
scribes the elements of his product by the use of common nouns which fairly 
describe the things which enter into it, according to the English vocabulary and 
adds, as he is not required to do by the Federal Statutes, an analysis of the 
life-giving properties of the different elements, thus affording additional means 
of judging of the real value of the blend for cattle food, the use for which it is 
manufactured and put upon the market.
Of course, if ' oat feed' meant the whole grain of the oat, either crushed, 
ground or rolled, and oat hulls were packed in the blend " in excess of the 
amount normally present" in whole, ground or crushed oats, the label would 
be misleading; but, there is no ground for such charge when it is ascertained 
that ' oat feed' does not mean the whole grain of the oat in some form, but 
only the by-product of the oat—' oat feed.' The admission as to the quantity of 
oat hulls " naturally and normally present" in ' oat feed' relates only to the 
whole grain of the oats, and not to the ' oat feed' which is a mere by-product, 
which the term on the label correctly described. If there were a greater quan- 
tity of oat hulls in the by-product, sold under this label as ' oat feed,' than in 
such feed as generally sold, the brand ' oat feed' might be misleading in that 
respect; but no such contention was made, and if it had been, the proof would 
not sustain it. The admission of the parties as to the quantity of 'oat hulls' 
'• naturally and normally present" in ' oat feed' is an admission to that extent, 
only in case the whole ground oats had been used in lieu of the same amount of 
' oat feed.' 
990
11
One other observation seems pertinent. Under the statute compounds known 
as articles of food can be sold under their own distinctive names, so long as no 
deleterious matter is put in the product and the label states where the product 
is manufactured and it is not an imitation sold under the distinctive name of 
another article. The manufacturer here would have fully obeyed the statute 
if he had put nothing on his product but the name " Corns Horse and Mule 
Feed," complying with its requirements in other respects. Such a brand would 
not give purchasers the hundredth part of the information of the elements and 
value of the product which is imparted by the more elaborate brand which was 
put upon the product.
It would be a very harsh construction of the statute to hold that it required 
the forfeiture of the product on the ground that the label was misleading, be- 
cause some person, unfamiliar with the commodity and the common use of lan- 
guage in designating it, might believe he was buying the whole oat when he was 
getting only the by-product, in consequence of the label which truthfully de- 
scribed the product as ' oat feed' not descending into greater minuteness of 
description and telling the particulars wherein ' oat feed' differs from oats.
Let the libel be dismissed.
This decision is accepted by the Department of Agriculture. No 
appeal will be taken.
JAMES WILSON, 
Secretary of Agriculture. 
WASHINGTON, D. C, June 26,1911.
990
o