- mercial operations were submitted, with the request that an opinion be given as to whether
or not they conformed to the provisions of the law. Two separate opinions were asked of the Attorney-General in regard to this law.
First, in the case of a firm, , established in one State and dealing in goods which were grown and manufactured in another State, the labels, however, bearing the name and address of the firm in its central place of business, the direct question asked was:
Is not the label as it stands a distinct statement that the product bearing it is manufactured
and prepared in (address of the firm given)?
One particular object of the law appears to be to prevent the utilization of the name of
localities which have become noted for the production of a certain food product in connection
with other food products of a similar nature made elsewhere.
The second point on which the opinion of the Attorney-General was asked was as follows:
The question which I desire to propose to you now is, whether, under the provisions of
the two acts referred to (Public—No. 158, approved March 3, 1903, regulating the importation
of goods, and the act first mentioned above) it will be possible to prevent the misbranding
of foreign products. In other words, would the provisions of Public—No. 223,
referred to first above, apply to any foreign product entering into interstate commerce, or
do they apply only to articles of food of domestic manufacture?
From correspondence conducted with large manufacturing firms, it is evident that they
desire at once to conform to the provisions of these laws if they can only be distinctly made
known. To this end I have deemed it advisable to publish the decisions of the Attorney-General
on these questions, omitting merely the names of the firms specifically referred
to, for the information of manufacturers, dealers, and consumers.
James Wilson,
Secretary of Agriculture.
Department of Justice,
Washington, D. C., June 22, 1903.
The Secretary of Agriculture.
Sir: I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 11th instant, inclosing one addressed to you by the Company, of Milwaukee, Wis., together with two samples of labels which they have submitted for your approval, and in which you say:
These labels do not seem to fall within either class on which you passed your opinion
of September 20. The goods described by these labels purport to be in every respect goods
manufactured by the Company. They say in their letter, however, that
they purchase all their goods in Iowa.
The question which I desire to propound particularly in this respect is the following: Is not the label of , as it stands, a distinct statement that the product bearing it is manufactured and prepared in Wisconsin?
One of the labels considered in the opinion of September 20 (24 Opin., 125) read:
"Packed for Company (Limited), wholesale grocers, Shreveport, La."
The other omitted the words "Packed for" and "Wholesale grocers," and was in these
words: "The Brand Lima Beans, Company (Limited), Shreveport,
La." They were held not to come within the act of July 1, 1902, c. 1357 (32 Stat.,
632), regulating this subject.
The labels now submitted (which are to be used on canned goods) are substantially alike in form and character. One bears the words " Daisy Sugar Corn, Company, Milwaukee, Wis." In the other, "Tip Top" takes the place of the word "Daisy."
