I wonder if the "Dr Kings New Life Pills" bottle I found last month could be the antidote to sweet old "Aunt Hannah's Death Drops?"
 

 

Carl Steen
 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Skiles <[log in to unmask]>
To: HISTARCH <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wed, Feb 12, 2014 12:55 pm
Subject: Re: Help diagnosing "Aunt Hannah's" glass bottle


American Druggist and Pharmaceutical Record 38 [April 22, 1901]:239

"They do such things as this in the tranquil borough at the further end 
of the Brooklyn Bridge: 'Do you handle Aunt Hannah's Liquid Death Drops? 
If Not, Why Not? Trade prices on application to Aunt Hannah's Nephews, 
Jenkins Bros., 250-2 Pulaski street, Brooklyn, N. Y.' Are the death 
drops for killing rats, bedbugs or book agents? asks the National 
Advertiser. Aunt Hannah's lively nephews [that is to say, her living 
successors] omit to say."

USDA - Insecticide and Fungicide Board - Service and Regulatory 
Announcements No. 31 - Issued November 10, 1920, pp709-710:

[Case] 562. Misbranding of "Aunt Hannah's Liquid Death Drops," U.S. v. 
H. Trauerts & Co. Plea of Guilty. Fine, $10. (I.&F. No. 687, Dom. No. 
13604).

On July 8, 1910, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of 
New York, acting upon a report by the secretary of Agriculture, filed in 
the District Court of the United States for the said district an 
information against H. Trauberts & Co., a corporation, Brooklyn, N. Y., 
alleging the sale and delivery, on June 6, 1917, by the said defendant 
to McKesson & Robbins, New York, N. Y., of a quantity of an article, 
contained in 720 cans, labeled "Aunt Hannah's Liquid Death Drops," which 
was a misbranded insecticide within the meaning of the Insecticide Act 
of 1910. It was further alleged in the information that on June 12, 
1917, the said McKesson & Robbins shipped 36 of the said 720 cans of the 
article, so sold and delivered to it by the said H. Trauerts & Co., from 
the State of New York; that the cans containing the article and the 
contents and labels thereof were not altered in any manner whatsoever 
after the delivery by H. Trauerts & Co. to McKesson & Robbins, and when 
so shipped by McKesson & Robbins from the State of New York into the 
State of New Jersey were intact and in the identical condition as when 
received by McKesson & Robbins from H. Trauerts & Co.; that before the 
time of said sale and delivery of the article by H. Trauerts & Co. to 
McKesson & Robbins, H. Trauerts & Co. affixed to the labels on the cans 
of the article a guaranty, to wit: "Guaranteed by Aunt Hannah's Chemical 
Co., Brooklyn, N. Y. Under the Insecticide Act of 1910, Serial No. 203;" 
and that by reason of the said sale and delivery of the article by H. 
Trauerts & Co. to McKesson & Robbins, and the said guaranty, H. Trauerts 
& Co. was amenable to the prosecutions, fines, and other penalties which 
would, but for the said guaranty, attach in due course to McKesson & 
Robbins.
    Misbranding was alleged in the information (1) in that the packages 
and labels bore statements regarding the article which were false and 
misleading, and (2) in that the article was labeled and branded so as to 
deceive and mislead the purchaser: In this, that statements, borne on 
the labels affixed to the cans containing the article, represented that 
the application of the article in the method and manner as directed by 
the said statements would exterminate bed bugs, roaches, fleas, moths, 
ants, and vermin of all kinds in and about households and human 
habitations, whereas in fact and in truth, the use and application of 
the article in the method and manner as directed by the said statements 
would not exterminate bed bugs, roaches, fleas, moths, ants, or vermin 
of all kinds in and about households and human habitations; and in this, 
that statements borne on the labels affixed to the cans containing the 
article, represented that the use and application of the article on and 
to carpets, bedding, and upholstery in the method and manner as directed 
by the said statements would destroy all germs, would destroy all 
insects, and would destroy all deposits of eggs of all insects in such 
carpets, bedding, and upholstery .... would be effective as a 
disinfectant for sick rooms and toilet rooms ....
    On October 6, 1919, the defendant withdrew a plea of not guilty 
previously entered and entered a plea of guilty to the information, and 
the court imposed a fine of $10."

Bob Skiles

On 2/12/2014 10:25 AM, geoff carver wrote:
> This is particularly interesting:
> WE CONTINUE TO STAND PROUDLY IN SUPPORT OF OUR BRAVE MILITARY FORCES AND
> THEIR FAMILIES WHO ARE SO VALIANTLY DEFENDING OUR NATION AND THE WORLD FROM
> UNGODLY TERRORISTS. THESE WONDERFUL MEN AND WOMEN NEED TO KNOW THAT THE VAST
> MAJORITY OF AMERICANS ARE BEHIND THEM ALL THE WAY AND THAT THEIR CAUSE IS A
> NOBLE ONE. OUR DAILY PRAYERS ARE WITH YOU....AND ESPECIALLY FOR THOSE WHO
> HAVE LOST THEIR PRECIOUS LOVED ONES WHILE SERVING OUR COUNTRY SO HONORABLY.
> MAY GOD BLESS YOU MIGHTILY AND COMFORT YOU IN THE CERTAIN KNOWLEDGE THAT
> THEIR SACRIFICE IS NOT IN VAIN
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
>
> Googling I found this website.  They depict an aqua peppersauce bottle from
> a privy in Louisiana, ca. 1890.
> http://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/aunt-hannahs-sauce-bottle-1890-dug-119
> 676020
>