United States v. Johnson
Citation | 221 U.S. 488,55 L.Ed. 823,31 S.Ct. 627 |
Decision Date | 29 May 1911 |
Docket Number | No. 433,433 |
Parties | UNITED STATES, Plaintiff in Error, v. O. A. JOHNSON |
Court | United States Supreme Court |
Solicitor General Lehmann, Messrs. Winfred T. Denison, George P. McCabe, and Loring C. Christie for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 489-493 intentionally omitted] Messrs. James H. Harkless, Clifford Histed, and Charles S. Crysler for defendant in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 493-495 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the court:
This is an indictment for delivering for shipment from Missouri to Washington, District of Columbia, packages and bottles of medicine bearing labels that stated or implied that the contents were effective in curing cancer, the defendant well knowing that such representations were false. On motion of the defendant, the district judge quashed the indictment (177 Fed. 313), and the United States brought this writ of error under the act of March 2, 1907, chap. 2564, 34 Stat. at L. 1246.1
The question is whether the articles were misbranded within the meaning of § 2 of the food and drugs act of June 30, 1906, chap. 3915, 34 Stat. at L. 768, U. S. Comp. Stat. Supp. 1909, p. 1187, making the delivery of misbranded drugs for shipment to any other state or territory or the District of Columbia a punishable offense. By § 6 the term 'drug' includes any substance or mixture intended to be used for the cure, mitigation, or prevention of disease. By § 8 the term 'misbranded'
It is a postulate, as the case comes before us, that in a certain sense the statement on the label was false, or, at least, misleading. What we have to decide is whether such misleading statements are aimed at and hit by the words of the act. It seems to us that the words used convey to an ear trained to the usages of English speech a different aim; and although the meaning of a sentence is to be felt rather than to be proved, generally, and here, the impression may be strengthened by argument, as we shall try to show.
We lay on one side as quite unfounded the argument that the words 'statement which shall be misleading in any particular,' as used in the statute, do not apply to drugs at all,—that the statements referred to are those 'regarding such article,' and that 'article' means article of food, mentioned by the side of drugs at the beginning of the section. It is enough to say that the beginning of the sentence makes such a reading impossible, and that 'article' expressly includes 'drugs,' a few lines further on in what we have quoted, not to speak of the reason of the thing. But we are of opinion that the phrase is aimed not at all possible false statements, but only at such as determine the identity of the article, possibly including its strength, quality, and purity, dealt within § 7. In support of our interpretation the first thing to be noticed is the second branch of the sentence: 'Or the ingredients or substances contained therein.' One may say with some confidence that in idiomatic English this half, at least, is confined to identity, and means a false statement as to what the ingredients are. Logically it might mean more, but idiomatically it does not. But if the false statement referred to is a mistatement of identity as applied to a part of its objects, idiom and logic unite in giving it the same limit when applied to the other branch, the article, whether simple or one that the ingredients compose. Again, it is to be noticed that the cases of misbranding, specifically mentioned, and following the general words that we have construed, are all cases analogous to the statement of identity, and not at all to inflated or false commendation of wares. The first is a false statement as to the country where the article is manufactured or produced,—a matter quite unnecessary to specify if the preceding words had a universal scope, yet added as not being within them. The next case is that of imitation and taking the name of another article, of which the same may be said, and so of the next, a substitution of contents. The last is breach of an affirmative requirement to disclose the proportion of alcohol and certain other noxious ingredients in the package,—again a matter of plain past history concerning the nature and amount of the poisons employed, not an estimate or prophecy concerning their effect. In further confirmation, it should be noticed that although the indictment alleges a wilful fraud, the shipment is punished by the statute if the article is misbranded, and that the article may be misbranded without any conscious fraud at all. It was natural enough to throw this risk on shippers with regard to the identity of their wares, but a very different and unlikely step to make them answerable for mistaken praise. It should be noticed still further that by § 4, the determinaton whether an article is misbranded is left to the Bureau of Chemistry of the Department of Agriculture, which is most natural if the question concerns ingredients and kind, but hardly so as to medical effects.
To avoid misunderstanding, we should add that, for the purposes of this case, at least, we assume that a label might be of such a nature as to import a statement concerning identity, within the statute, although in form only a commendation of the supposed drug. It may be that a label in such form would exclude certain substances so plainly to all common understanding as to amount to an implied statement of what the contents of the package were not; and it may be that such a negation might fall within the prohibitions of the act. It may be (we express no opinion upon that matter) that if the present indictment had alleged that the contents of the bottles were water, the label so distinctly implied that they were other than water, as to be a false statement of fact concerning their nature and kind. But such a statement as to contents, undescribed and unknown, is shown to be false only in its commendatory and prophetic aspect, and as such is not within the act.
In view of what we have said by way of simple interpretation we think it unnecessary to go into considerations of wider scope. We shall say nothing as to the limits of constitutional power, and but a word as to what Congress was likely to attempt. It was much more likely to regulate commerce in food and drugs with reference to plain matter of fact, so that food and drugs should be what they professed to be, when the kind was stated, than to distort the uses of its constitutional power to establishing criteria in regions where opinions are far apart. See American School v. McAnnulty, 187 U. S. 94, 47 L. ed. 90, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 33. As we have said above, the reference of the question of misbranding to the Bureau of Chemistry for determination confirms what would have been our expectation and what is our understanding of the words immediately in point.
Judgment affirmed.
I am unable to concur in the judgment in this case, for the following reasons:
The defendant was charged with delivering for shipment in interstate commerce certain packages and bottles of drugs alleged to have been misbranded in violation of the food and drugs act of June 30, 1906, chapter 3915, 34 Stat. at L. 768, U. S. Comp. Stat. Supp. 1909, p. 1187.
The articles were labeled respectively 'Cancerine tablets,' 'Antiseptic tablets,' 'Blood purifier,' 'Special No. 4,' 'Cancerine No. 17,' and 'Cancerine No. 1,'—the whole constituting what was termed in substance 'Dr. Johnson's Mild Combination Treatment for Cancer.' There were several counts in the indictment with respect to the different articles. The labels contained the words, 'Guaranteed under the Pure Food and Drugs Act, June 30, 1906;' and some of the further statements were as follows:
In each case the indictment alleged that the article was 'wholly worthless,' as the defendant well knew.
In quashing the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Autogiro Company of America v. United States
...below the surface and found that Congressional intent was the opposite of the surface manifestation. 7 United States v. Johnson, 221 U.S. 488, 496, 31 S.Ct. 627, 55 L.Ed. 823 (1911). 8 Rule 75(d): "The claim or claims must conform to the invention as set forth in the remainder of the specif......
-
Abigail Alliance for Better Access v. Von Eschenbach
...however, limit individual access to new drugs or regulate therapeutic claims by drug manufacturers. Cf. United States v. Johnson, 221 U.S. 488, 31 S.Ct. 627, 55 L.Ed. 823 (1911). It thus appears that a patient still could obtain access to any new drug for medicinal use, even if the drug had......
-
Abigail Alliance v. Von Eschenbach
... ... Dept. of Health and Human Services, Appellees ... No. 04-5350 ... United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit ... Argued October 21, 2005 ... Decided ... Cf. United States v. Johnson, 221 U.S. 488, 31 S.Ct. 627, 55 ... Page 482 ... L.Ed. 823 (1911). It thus appears that a ... ...
-
United States v. Glasgow, Crim. No. 1028-73.
...admonition by Justice Holmes that "the meaning of a sentence is to be felt rather than to be proved." United States v. Johnson, 221 U.S. 488, 496, 31 S.Ct. 627, 55 L.Ed. 823, 826 (1911). 8 Words used in 18 U.S.C. § 4209 and in the Youth Corrections Act "should be accorded the same meaning" ......
-
Appended post-passage Senate Judiciary Committee report: unlikely "legislative history" for interpreting section 5 of the Reauthorized Voting Rights Act.
...First, the Court has used the language to refer to reasonably expected interpretations of language. See, e.g., United States v. Johnson, 221 U.S. 488, 502 (1911) (arguing that the statutory language at issue would not "naturally occur" to a draftsman with a particular purpose). In the secon......
-
The War on Drugs: How KSR v. Teleflex and Merck v. Integra Continue the Erosion of Pharmaceutical Patent Protection
...available at http://www.fda.gov/opacom/backgrounders/miles.html [hereinafter Milestones]. 24 Id. 25Id. (citing United States v. Johnson, 221 U.S. 488 (1911)). 26Johnson, 221 U.S. at 495. The product was titled “Dr. Johnson’s Mild Combination Treatment for Cancer” and the label purported tha......
-
THE CONSENT BURDEN IN CONSUMER AND DIGITAL MARKETS.
...Act, Pub. L. No. 59-384, 34 Stat. 768 (1906) (repealed 1938). (192.) Meadows, supra note 190, at 16. (193.) United States v. Johnson, 221 U.S. 488 (1911) (holding that the Pure Food and Drugs Act did not permit the government to seize medicine misleadingly labeled as a cure for (194.) Meado......
-
Generic pharmaceutical regulation in the United States with comparison to Europe: innovation and competition.
...Admin., http://www.fda.gov/oc/history/historyoffda/fulltext.html (last visited Jan. 13, 2009). (14.) Id. See United States v. Johnson, 221 U.S. 488 (1911) (holding that a label claiming a tonic to be cancer-curing is not "misbranding" under the meaning of the Food and Drug Act; this demonst......