©655. Adulteration and misbranding of Craig Healing Springs mineral 
water. U. S. * * * v. Craig Healing Springs Hotels, Inc., a 
Corporation. Plea of guilty. Fine, $50. (F. & D. No. 12800. I. S. 
Nos.  15762-r,  17331-r.)
On January 18, 1921, the United States attorney for the Western District of 
Virginia, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the 
District Court of the United States for said district an information against 
the Craig Healing Springs Hotels, Inc., a corporation, Springs, Va., alleging 
shipment by said company, in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, as amended, 
on or about May 28 and September 17, 1919, from the State of Virginia into 
the State of Maryland and the District of Columbia, respectively, of quantities 
of Craig Healing Springs mineral water, the former consignment of which was 
misbranded and the latter adulterated and misbranded.
Analyses of samples of the article by the Bureau of Chemistry of this de- 
partment showed the following results:
Milligrams 
Compounds. 
per liter.
Magnesium chlorid   (Mgm) 
2.7
Magnesium sulphate (MgS04) 
8.1
Magnesium  bicarbonate   (Mg(HC08)2) 
5.9
Calcium  bicarbonate   (Ca(HC03)2) 
319.6
Silica   (Sir) 
13.3
Manganese bicarbonate  (Mn(HCL)2) 
.3
Ferric oxid (Fe203) 
4.4
Alumina    (A1203) 
2.9
Total 
357. 2
Sanitary analysis of the consignment into the District of Columbia showed 
that it contained B. coli in small quantities.
Adulteration of the product involved in the consignment of September 17, 
1919, into the District of Columbia, was alleged in the information for .the 
reason that it consisted in whole or in part of a filthy, decomposed, and putrid 
animal or vegetable substance.
Misbranding of the product involved in both consignments of the article was 
alleged in substance for the reason that certain statements, designs, and 
devices regarding the therapeutic and curative effects thereof, appearing on 
the labels of the bottles or the shipping cases containing the article, as 
the case might be, falsely and fraudulently represented that the product 
involved in -the consignment of May 28, 1919, into Maryland, was effective as 
a relief, treatment, remedy, and cure for diseases of the skin, eczema, scrofu- 
lous sores, cutaneous and dermatic eruptions, indigestion in all its forms, dys- 
pepsia, constipation, bilious diarrhea, catarrhal troubles, and other derange- 
ments of the stomach, leucorrhea, hemorrhoids, diabetes, Bright's disease, 
and rheumatism, and effective to heal and stimulate the kidneys to healthy 
and vigoi-ous action; and that the product involved in the remaining consign- 
ment was effective as a relief for dermatic troubles, scrofula, indigestion, kid- 
ney trouble, Bright's disease, diabetes, and rheumatism, when, in truth and 
in fact, they were not. Misbranding of the product involved in the consign- 
ment of May 28, 1919, into Maryland, was alleged for the further reason that 
it was food in package form, and the quantity of the contents was not plainly 
and conspicuously marked on the outside of the package.
On February 14, 1921, a plea of guilty to the information was entered on 
behalf of the defendant company, and the court imposed a fine of $50.
C. W. PUGSLEY, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.