contains
a large proportion of sour or damaged beans, known in the trade as
"black jack," or damaged coffee, as found in "skimmings." "Black jack"
is a term applied to coffee that has turned black during the process of
curing, or in the hold of a ship during transportation; or it may be due
to a blighting disease.

Another ruling is intended to prevent the sale of artificially "sweated"
coffee, which has been submitted to a steaming process to give the beans
the extra-brown appearance of high grade East Indian and Mocha coffees
which have been naturally "sweated" in the holds of sailing vessels
during the long journey to American ports. Up to the time that the Pure
Food and Drugs Act went into effect, artificial "sweating" was resorted
to by some coffee firms; and out of that practise grew a suit[320] that
resulted in a federal court decision sustaining the Pure Food Act, and
classifying the practise as adulteration and misbranding.

The Act also is intended to prevent the sale of coffees under trade
names that do not properly belong to them. For example, only coffees
grown on the island of Java can properly be labeled and sold as Javas;
coffees from Sumatra, Timor, etc., must be sold under their respective
names. Food Inspection Decision No. 82, which limited the use of the
term Java to coffee grown on the island of Java, was sustained in a
service and regulatory announcement issued in January, 1916. Likewise
the name Mocha may be used only for coffees of Arabia. Before the
pure-food law was enacted, it was frequently the custom to mix Bourbon
Santos with Mocha and to sell the blend as Mocha. Also, Abyssinian
coffees were generally known in the trade as Longberry Mocha, or just
straight Mocha; and Sumatra growths were practically always sold as
Javas. Traders used the names of Mocha and Java because of the high
value placed upon these coffees by consumers, who, before Brazil
dominated the market, had practically no other names for coffee.

One of the most celebrated coffee cases under the Pure Food Act was
tried in Chicago, February, 1912. The question was, whether in view of
the long-standing trade custom, it was still proper to call an
Abyssinian coffee (Longberry Mocha) Mocha. The defendant was charged
with misbranding, because he sold as Java and Mocha a coffee containing
Abyssinian coffee. The court decided that the product should be called
Abyssinian Mocha;[321] but since then, general acceptance has obtained