On account of the uncertainty prevailing in our trade at the present time as to how to proceed under the Pure Food Law and regulations regarding what will be considered a blend of whisky, I am taking the liberty of forwarding to you to-day two samples of whisky made up as follows:

Sample A contains 51 percent of Bourbon whisky and 49 percent of neutral spirits. In this sample a small amount of burnt sugar is used for coloring, and a small amount of prune juice is used for flavoring, neither of which increases the volume to any great extent.

Sample B contains 51 percent of neutral spirits and 49 percent of Bourbon whisky. Burnt sugar is used for coloring, and prune juice is used for flavoring, neither of which increase the volume to any great extent.

I have marked these packages "blended whiskies" and want your ruling as to whether it is proper to thus brand and label such goods.

My inquiry is for the purpose of guiding the large manufacturing interests in the trade that I represent.

The question was answered on my recommendation by the Secretary of Agriculture in the following language:

The question presented is whether neutral spirits may be added to Bourbon whisky in varying quantities, colored and flavored, and the resulting mixtures be labeled "blended whiskies." To permit the use of the word "whiskies" in the described mixtures is to admit that flavor and color can be added to neutral spirits and the resulting mixture be labeled "whisky." The Department is of opinion that the mixtures presented cannot legally be labeled either "blended whiskies" or "blended whisky." The use of the plural of the word "whisky" in the first case is evidently improper, for the reason that there is only one whisky in the mixture. If neutral spirit, also known as cologne spirit, silent spirit, or alcohol, be diluted with water to a proper proof for consumption and artificially colored and artificially flavored, it does not become a whisky, but a "spurious imitation" thereof, not entirely unlike that defined in section 3244, Revised Statutes. The mixture of such an imitation with a genuine article cannot be regarded as a mixture of like substances within the letter and intent of the law.

Appeal was made from this decision and the matter was finally referred to the Attorney-General of the United States, by order of President Roosevelt. The Attorney-General of the United States issued a decision on this question on April 12, 1907, the principal parts of which are as follows:

Attorney-General Bonaparte said, "I conclude that a combination of whisky with ethyl alcohol, supposing, of course, that there is enough whisky in it to make it a real compound and not the mere semblance of one, may be fairly called, 'Whisky;' provided the name is accompanied by the word 'Compound' or 'Compounded,' and provided a statement of the presence of another spirit is included in substance in the title. I am strengthened in this conclusion by understanding from the papers you have referred to me that it has been reached by the Department of Agriculture as well.

The following seem to me appropriate specimen brands or labels for (1) 'straight' whisky, (2) a mixture of two or more 'straight' whiskies, (3) a mixture of 'straight' whisky and ethyl alcohol, and (4) ethyl alcohol flavored and colored so as to taste, smell, and look like whisky:

1. Semper Idem Whisky: A pure, straight whisky mellowed by age.

2. E Pluribus Unum Whisky: A blend of pure, straight whiskies with all the merits of each.

3. Modern Improved Whisky: A compound of pure grain distillates, mellow and free from harmful impurities.

4. Something Better than Whisky: An imitation under the Pure Food Law, free from fusel oil and other impurities.

In the third specimen it is assumed that both the whisky and the alcohol are distilled from grain."

This decision of the Attorney-General of the United States was contested by the various interests, in the courts of the United States, and among others, two important decisions were made in the matter, one by the District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Judge Thompson, presiding, and the other by the District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, Judge Hum-phrys, presiding, both sustaining the opinion of the Attorney-General.

These decisions of the court were not satisfactory to the rectifiers and President Taft referred the question to the Solicitor-General. Solicitor-General Bowers heard very extensive testimony on this case, took it under consideration and came to the conclusions stated further on. This decision was referred to the President of the United States, who, after reviewing the various opinions that had been held overruled his Solicitor-General and decided all questions in favor of the rectifiers, thus nullifying the decisions of the courts.

This decision of the President of the United States and the regulations made by the Internal Revenue Bureau in comformity therewith, are now official in this country, and the acts of the law officers having to do with the subject of whisky are guided accordingly, irrespective of the provisions of the Pure Food Law as upheld by the federal courts.

Opinion of Judge Thompson, District Court for Southern District of Ohio.

. . . The affidavits of the complainants do not show that the people - the consumers - were ever advised or knew that complainants' product branded "whisky" was in fact alcohol artificially colored and flavored, and affidavits submitted by the defendants, 7 of wholesalers and 10 of retailers, in Washington and Cincinnati, do show that no wholesaler or rectifier ever offered to sell to them "as whisky a product which such wholesaler or rectifier represented to be alcoholic colored or flavored," and that they "would not knowingly purchase as whisky such a product." . . .

The fact that this practice has been long continued does not establish a right which the court would protect. It misbrands the product in violation of the Food and Drugs Act and of section 3449 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, if that section is applicable to the case (76 Fed. Rep., page 367). It does not truthfully designate "the kind and quality of the contents of the casks or packages," as required by section 3449. The product is not genuine whisky in the making of which age modifies objectionable elements and develops the flavor which pleases the taste and adds so much to the value. It should be branded "imitation whisky."