NOTICE OF JUDGMENT NO. 2390.
(Given pursuant to section 4 of the Food and Drugs Act.)
MISBRANDING OF DRIPS.
On October 9, 1912, the United States Attorney for the District of 
Oregon, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed 
in the District Court of the United States for said district a libel for 
the seizure and condemnation of 150 cases of Saratoga Drips, 70 cases 
of White Diamond Drips, and 85 cases of Butter Scotch Drips, 
remaining unsold in original unbroken packages and in possession of 
the Mason-Ehrman Co., Portland, Oreg., alleging that the product 
had been shipped on or before October 5, 1911, by the Long Syrup 
Refining Co., San Francisco, Cal., and transported from the State of 
California into the State of Oregon and charging misbranding in 
violation of the Food and Drugs Act. The Saratoga Drips were 
labeled: (On cases) "Twelve (12) One (1) Gal., (or as the case 
might be Twenty (20) One-half (£) Gal., or Twenty-four (24) 
Quart) cans, Long Syrup Refining Co., Saratoga Drips, San Fran- 
cisco, Calif., U. S. A., Longs. This Side Up. Guaranteed by Long 
Syrup Refining Co., San Francisco, Calif., U. S. A., Serial No. 20599." 
(On cans) "Long's Saratoga Drips, Manufactured By Long Syrup 
Refining Co., San Francisco, Cal. The Contents of This Package 
Are Composed of Corn And Cane Syrup, Maple Flavor Guaranteed 
By Long Syrup Refining Co. Under The Food and Drugs Act, June 
30, '06, Serial No. 20599."
Misbranding of this product was alleged in the libel for the reason 
that the labels thereon were intended to deceive purchasers and to 
convey the impression that the products were obtained by draining 
crystallized sugar. Misbranding was alleged for the further reason 
that the following portion of the label, " The contents of this package 
are composed of corn and cane syrup, maple flavor," was printed in 
inconspicuous, small sized type so as to deceive and mislead the 
purchaser. Misbranding of the 10 cases of quart cans of Saratoga 
Drips was alleged for the reason that the labels thereon were intended 
to deceive the purchasers and to convey the impression that the 
product was obtained by draining crystallised sugar, and further, 
in that the following portion of the label, "The contents of ,this
89625°—No. 2390—13
package are composed of corn and cane syrup, maple flavor ", was 
printed in inconspicuous and small type so as to deceive and mislead 
the purchaser into the belief that the product was obtained by drain- 
ing crystallized sugar, when, in truth and in fact, said product was 
composed of 65.2 per cent of glucose. Misbranding was alleged for 
the further reason that the said quart cans did not contain one quart 
of Saratoga Drips but contained a less amount, to wit, 93.65 per cent. 
Misbranding of the 90 cases of half-gallon cans of the product was 
alleged for the reason that said cans did not contain one-half gallon 
of the product but a less amount, to wit, 94.14 per cent of one-half 
gallon. Misbranding of the 50 cases of one gallon cans of the prod- 
uct was further alleged for the reason that said cans did not contain 
one gallon of the product but a less amount, to wit, 97.3 per cent of 
one gallon.
The White Diamond Drips was labeled: (On cases) "Twenty (20) 
One-half (|) Gallon (or as the case might be Twelve (12) One (1) 
Gal.) Cans Long Syrup Refining Co., White Diamond Drips San 
Francisco, Cal., U. S. A., Long's This Side Up Guaranteed By Long 
Syrup Refining Co., San Francisco, Cal., U. S. A. Serial No. 20,599." 
(On cans): "Long's White Diamond Drips. Manufactured and 
Guaranteed By Long Syrup Refining Co., San Francisco, Cal., 
U. S. A. Under The Food and Drugs Act June 30th, '06. Serial No. 
20599. The Contents of this Package Are Composed of Corn and 
Cane Syrup."
Misbranding of this product was alleged in the libel for the reason 
that the labels thereon were intended to deceive the purchaser and to 
convey the impression that the product was obtained by draining 
crystallized sugar, and further, in that the words, " Composed of corn 
and cane syrup," were printed at the bottom of the label far away from 
the main portion thereof and in inconspicuous type so as to deceive 
the purchaser and to convey the impression that the product was 
obtained by draining crystallized sugar, when in truth and in fact it 
was composed of, to wit, 88.6 per cent of glucose. Misbranding of 
the one-half gallon cans of the product was alleged for the reason 
that each of said cans did not contain one-half gallon of the product 
but a less amount, to wit, 94.06 per cent of one-half gallon, and the 
one gallon cans of the product were alleged to have been misbranded 
in that each of said cans did not contain one gallon of the product 
but a less amount, to wit, 98.73 per cent of one gallon.
The Butter Scotch Drips were labeled: (On cases) "Twenty (20) 
One-half (f) Gal. (or as the case might be, Twelve (12) one (1) 
Gal.) Cans Long Syrup Refining Co., Butter Scotch Drips San Fran- 
cisco Calif., U. S. A., Long's This Side Up. Guaranteed By Long 
Syrup Refining Co., San Francisco, Calif., U. S. A., Serial No. 20599."
2390
(On cans) : "Long's Butter Scotch Drips Long Syrup Refining Co., 
San Francisco, Calif., U. S. A. The contents of This Package Are 
Composed of Corn and Refined Cane Syrup. Guaranteed By Long 
Syrup Refining Co., Under The Food and Drugs Act, June 30, 1906, 
Serial No. 20599."
Misbranding of this product was alleged in the libel for the reason 
that the labels thereon were intended to deceive and mislead the pur- 
chaser into the belief that the product was obtained by draining 
crystallized sugar and the gallon and one-half gallon cans of the 
product were further misbranded in that the labels thereon, particu- 
larly the words " Composed of corn and refined cane syrup", were 
printed at the bottom of the label far away from the main portion 
thereof and in small and inconspicuous type so as to deceive the pur- 
chaser and convey the impression that the product was obtained by. 
draining crystallized sugar, when, in truth and in fact, it was com- 
posed of and contained a large amount of glucose, to wit, 57.6 per 
cent. Misbranding of the one-half gallon cans was alleged for the 
further reason that each of said cans did not contain one-half gallon 
of the product but a less amount, to wit, 94.6 per cent of one-half 
gallon; and the gallon cans of the product were misbranded for the 
reason that each of said cans did not contain one gallon of the product 
but a less amount thereof, to wit, 97.33 per cent of one gallon.
On October 23, 1912, upon motion of the United States Attorney, it 
was ordered by the court that the product should be released and 
delivered to the said Mason-Ehrman Co., claimant, upon filing of 
bond in the sum of $500, in conformity with section 10 of the Act, 
and the payment of the costs of the proceedings.
WILLIS L. MOORE, 
Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
WASHINGTON, D. C, March 3, 1913.
2390
o