24039. Adulteration and misbranding of white pine and tar compound 
cough syrup. U. S. v. Charles W. Link <C. W. Link Drug Co.). 
Plea of guilty. Fine, ?75. Fine remitted. (F. & D. no. 31474. 
Sample no. 42936-A.)
This case involved a drug preparation, the labels of which bore unwarranted 
curative and therapeutic claims. Analysis showed that the article contained 
less chloroform than declared on the label.
On November 19, 19:34, the United States attorney for the Southern District 
of New York, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the 
district court an information against Charles W. Link, trading as the C. W. 
Link Drug Co., New York, N. Y., alleging shipment by said defendant in viola- 
tion of the Food and Drugs Act as amended, on or about November 19,1932, from 
the State of New York into the State of Pennsylvania, of a quantity of white 
pine and tur compound cough syrup which was adulterated and misbranded. 
The article was labeled in part: " Each fluid ounce contains 4 minims chloroform."
Analysis by this Department showed that the article contained 1.5 minims of 
chloroform per fluid ounce, and consisted essentially of extracts of plant drugs, 
small portions of pine tar and a gum, a trace of alkaloids, glycerin, alcohol (5 
percent by volnme), sugar, and water.
The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength and purity fell 
below the professed standard and quality under which it was sold, in that each 
fluid ounce was i epresented to contain 4 minutes of chloroform; whereas each 
fluid ounce contained less than 4 minims, namely, not more than 1.5 minims of 
chloroform.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statement, " Each fluid 
ounce contains 4 minims chloroform ", borne on the carton and bottle label, was 
false and misleading, since each fluid ounce of the article contained less than 4 
minims of chloroform. Misbranding was alleged for the further reason that 
the article contained chloroform and the label failed to bear a statement of the 
quantity or proportion of chloroform contained therein. Misbranding was 
alleged for the further reason that certain statements, designs, and devices re-
garding the therapeutic and curative effects of the article, borne on the cartons 
and bottle labels, falsely and fraudulently represented that it was effective as a 
reliable remedy for coughs, hoarseness, laryngeal and bronchial inflammation, 
loss of voice, rawness and soreness resulting from dryness of the throat or air 
passages; and effective as a treatment, remedy, and cure for bronchitis, hoarse- 
ness, loss of voice, and other inflamed conditions of the lungs and air passages. 
On November 22, 1934, the defendant entered a plea of guilty, and the court 
imposed a fine of $75 which was ordered remitted.
M. L. WILSON, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.