present with the Merriwell Co., sponsoring the radio personality "The Old Apothecary" for the National Retail Druggists Association; George Carroll, well-known publicity and public-relations man; and John S. Hall, counsel and secretary for Flavoring Extract Manufacturers of the United States, National Manufacturers of Fruit and Flavoring Syrups, National Manufacturers of Soda Water Flavors and of the National Association of Bakers' Supply Houses.

ANSWER TO WOMEN

The meeting was in reality an answer and a challenge to a meeting in the same hotel on the preceding Saturday of the Cook County League of Women Voters, at which the principal speakers were Charles E. Merrian, of the Uni-versity of Chicago, and Paul Douglas, formerly of the same university, but now an N.R.A. official. It is alleged that at this meeting, Mr. Douglas asked that women voters throughout the country be enlisted to support pending Government legislation, particularly as affecting consumers in connection with food and drugs. In an adjoining room the well-known drug chamber of horrors was on exhibition.

After making the definite statement that the Copeland measure is just as vicious as the original Tugwell bill, Mr. Hall pointed out the specific objections to the provisions directed to misbranding, the regulation of permits for factories, regulations for factory inspection, intended seizure plan, penalties, liability of corporations and their officers, the new procedure in injunction proceedings, court review of regulations and advertising. Mr. Hall declared that the measure would, if adopted, place in the hands of the Secretary of Agriculture authority for a dictatorship without precedent in this country and not only of the most sweeping character, but in every particular of a nature inimical to the industries affected. He said further that it would mean the destruction of the industries involved and make operation on a sound economic basis utterly impossible.

Mr. MARSH. You were yesterday asking Mr. Kallet if he would enter some facts as to how they spent their money, how much they got, and I think that is all right. I wish you would go ahead and do a whole lot of investigating. I would like to read this statement signed by John W. Darr, in a letter of February 2, 1934. He is secretary of the so-called "Joint Committee for Sound and Democratic Consumer Legislation." It sounds beautiful. Lee H. Bristol is vice president. The committee is Lee H. Bristol, S. B. Colgate, and so forth, and "a statement of vital interest" by the same outfit, a photograph of their circular.

JOINT COMMITTEE FOR SOUND AND
DEMOCRATIC CONSUMER LEGISLATION,
February 2, 1934.

(Address physically cut out of photograph.) I am writing you because you are a leader in your field and vitally interested in all matters affecting public health.

This question has been brought into national focus by the so-called "Tugwell-Copeland bill", now before Congress. This bill has as its purpose the protection of public health, but it contains-in the opinions of many-dangerous, bureaucratic, and other unsound elements.

This committee, organized from within industry, is concerned with developing public-health legislation which will protect the public without bureaucracy or the dangers resulting therefrom.

We are writing you

First, in order that we may have an opinion from you in writing, for possible publication, against the bureaucratic elements in the bill, and

Second, for constructive suggestions from you for legislation that will protect both the public health and the public interest.

With this letter we are sending you a folder outlining some of the shortcomings of the present bill, and a digest of those elements which we believe sound and democratic legislation must have.

Won't you read these and let us hear from you? Your opinion is very important at this stage of our activity. JOHN W. DARR, Secretary.

Yours very truly,

A STATEMENT OF VITAL INTEREST TO ALL THOSE WHO DESIRE TO MAINTAIN AND PROTECT THE AMERICAN SYSTEM

The so-called "Tugwell-Copeland bill" now pending in Congress raises an issue of vital interests to all who desire to protect and maintain the American system. This bill, which has for its ostensible purpose the protection of the public health, is dangerous to the public interest and opposed to the broad principles of democratic government.

Manufacturers and consumers are in hearty accord with the intent of the bill-to protect the public and reputable manufacturers and dealers from fake nostrums, adulterated foods, and harmful cosmetics. They are opposed to the form of the bill which places bureaucratic control of three vital industriesfood, drugs, and cosmetics-in the hands of an appointive governmental employee and his subordinates. Calm thinkers are opposed to the rushing through of legislation of such great importance as an emergency matter. They cannot agree with Prof. Rexford G. Tugwell, Assistant Secretary of Agriculture, that our civilization is in imminent danger of destruction unless this measure (or a similar measure) is adopted forthwith.

They believe that through careful deliberation, government officials, manufacturers, and consumers can work out a pure food and drugs act which will embody the principles of sound and democratic legislation, in the interest of all concerned.

A bill, based on these principles of sound and democratic legislation, should: (1) Protect public health by keeping high standards of purity in food, drugs, cosmetics, and all other items of human consumption.

(2) Encourage research and laboratory experimentation by private industry. (3) Protect the interests of industry which has always taken the initiative in raising standards.

(4) Preserve the American system of legal procedure, in order that the legitimate shall not suffer through uncertainty due to the possible transgressions of the illegitimate.

(5) Preserve the profit motive in business in order that more efficient methods of distribution may result in decreased cost to the consumer.

(6) Leave the making and administering of law in the hands of the duly elected representatives of the people.

NO EMERGENCY EXISTS

66

The questions raised by the pending Tugwell-Copeland proposal: (1) Are the American people willing to have a system of arbitrary regulation" imposed permanently upon so important and essential group of industries?

(2) If these industries are to be subjected to such czar-like' whims and regulations, what is to protect all industry from similar governmental encroachment?

(3) Do the American people desire to abandon the reasonably democratic policies under which industry (in which every citizen has a part directly or indirectly) has thriven in this country, and to substitute despotic industrial control by politically appointed Government officials?

The public is amply protected by the present Pure Food and Drugs Act, until a satisfactory measure can be written which will afford complete protectionwith a minimum of injustice.

To substantiate this statement, Dr. James H. Beal, chairman of the board of trustees of the United States Pharmacopeia, recently declared that the operation of the present Pure Food and Drugs Act has given us the highest quality of food and drugs of any nation.

A committee of the British House of Commons, after a prolonged study of food and drug legislation some years ago, rendered a report in which it referred to the United States Food and Drugs Act as the most efficient law of its kind in existence.

This committee recognizes the importance of sound and democratic consumer legislation to protect the public health wherever the old law has been found to be inadequate. It urges further deliberation in the fulfillment of this objective:

To supplant completely the present act with emergency legislation would wipe off the statute books all the laws and decisions accumulated during 27

years. It would wipe out the series of interpretations which have been essential to the success of the exising law and essential to the public health, and demand new interpretations of "ambiguities and inferences" which are bound to exist in any hurried legislation.

The Tugwell-Copeland bill is dangerous and un-American, because of the unprecedented powers it places in the hands of the Secretary of Agriculture—any Secretary of Agriculture, no matter how competent or incompetent he might happen to be.

It is unwise and inexpedient from the public interest to rush through legislation of the contemplated sort.

A BRIEF LEGAL ANALYSIS OF THE TUGWELL-COPELAND BILL

The following points are made as to the legal content of the Tugwell-Copeland bill, and are reasons why this committee urges further study before any measure is approved:

(1) The Tugwell-Copeland bill, under the guise of protecting the public health, retains the un-American and bureaucratic factory permit system which is not justified by any existing or contemplated emergency, placing in the hands of one Government officer and his department the existence and life of every business in the three industries.

(2) The Tugwell-Copeland bill sets up, in some matters, control between the Secretary of Agriculture and a group of departmental advisers, who can pronounce life or death over what is or what is not adulterated food, over what is or what is not sound advertising, over what is or what is not sound method of manufacture, placing in the hands of this group legislative and judicial function.

FACTORY PERMIT SYSTEM

If the Secretary of Agriculture deems distribution of any drugs, foods, or cosmetics injurious to public health, he may formulate regulations and require affected manufacturers or packers to obtain permit conditioned on compliance with such regulations. Therefore, the same officer who determines conditions allegedly detrimental to health has the power to govern the future conduct of the business regulated. As the result of this provision of the new bill, judicial review is not permitted until after the manufacturer is deprived of his right of shipment in interstate commerce. This is primarily a matter for State authorities, with Federal authorities cooperating, instead of exercising arbitrary control.

DUAL CONTROL

The committees provided to cooperate with the Secretary of Agriculture in his decisions may not be composed of persons having financial interest in any drug, food, or cosmetic. Yet such members inexperienced in the affected industries have the power to veto over the acts of the Secretary and are given influence to enforce their views upon the department.

STANDARDS OF FOOD

The provision authorizing Secretary to establish minimum standards of quality, identity, and fill for foods would strip the Federal Trade Commission of much of its power and influence, which has been built up over a period of 20 years. If the Federal Trade Act needs strengthening, teeth should be placed there. We can see little point in creating another governmental bureau to take the place of an experienced commission.

I should also like to ask, Mr. Chairman, that I should have read into the record from page 11, of this book, Medical Care for the American People, the list of outstanding physicians and those representing institutions and special interests in the public, something like 50 in all, who make the statement that practically all of this $360,000,000 a year taken by these patent-medicine purveyors-I was trying to think of a word that would express my judgment of them and still not be libelous-purveyors will cover the situation-what they

say about this thing. If it will be agreeable, so as not to take the time to read it, I shall ask to have it inserted.

The CHAIRMAN. All right. That will be done. (The matter referred to is as follows:)

LIST OF MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE COSTS OF MEDICAL CARE, OCTOBER 31, 1923

Private practice: Lewellys F. Barker, M.D.; Walter P. Bowers, M.D.; * A. C. Christie, M.D.; William Darrach, M.D.; * George E. Follansbee, M.D.; * M. L. Harris, M.D.; J. Shelton Horsley, M.D.; * Kirby S. Howlett, M.D.; * Arthur C. Morgan, M.D.; † Herbert E. Phillips, D.D.S.; Stewart R. Roberts, M.D.; † C. E. Rudolph, D.D.S.; Richard M. Smith, M.D; Walter R Steiner, M.D.; *N. B. Van Etten, M.D.; * Robert Wilson, M.D.; Rollin T. Woodyatt, M.D.

Institutions and special interests: W. Irving Clark, M.D.; Louis I. Dublin, Ph.D; Elizabeth Fox, R.N.; Ambrose Hunsberger, Phar.M.; Alfred Owre, D.M.D., M.D.; W. S. Rankin, M.D.; Mary M. Roberts, R.N.; * Alphonse M. Schwitalla, Ph.D.; Winford H. Smith, M.D.; * Olin West, M.D.

Public health: George H. Bigelow, M.D.; Herman N. Bundesen, M.D.; Haven Emerson, M.D.; John Sundwall, M.D.; ‡Edgar Sydenstricker; C. E. A. Winslow, Dr.Ph.

Social sciences: Michael M. Davis, Ph.D.; William T. Foster, Ph.D.; ‡ Walton H. Hamilton, Ph.D.; Wesley C. Mitchell, Ph.D.; William F. Ogburn, Ph.D.; Henry C. Taylor, Ph.D.

The public: Winthrop W. Aldrich; Morris L. Cooke, D.Sc.; Mrs. Wm. Kinnicutt Draper; Homer Folks, LL.D.; John P. Frey; Mrs. Walter McNab Miller; William J. Schieffelin, Ph.D.; Amelia Sears; Ray Lyman Wilbur, M.D.

Asterisks (*) indicate the 8 physicians and the 1 layman who present the first minority report.

Daggers (†) indicate the two dentists who present the second minority report. Double daggers (‡) indicate the two members who present separate personal statements.

Mr. MARSH. Now, I would like to come to another section of this bill, pages 27 and 28, section (e). It reads:

No dealer shall be prosecuted under paragraph (b) of this section (1) because of commerce in any article he has purchased or received in good faith if he furnishes on request of an officer or employee duly designated by the secretary the name and address of the person from whom he purchased or received such article, or (2) if he establishes a guaranty or undertaking signed by the person residing in the United States from whom he received in good faith

May I refrain from reading it all, because it has been read into the record?

I would like to point out what I think that does. It relieves the local man who sells a deleterious article, who violates this law, from prosecution, so that the action, if I construe it correctly-and if I don't, I know some member will correct me-so that any action has to be taken against the manufacturer who sells this stuff, and it is difficult under the new deal" as under the "old deal to prosecute a hundred million dollars.

66

Therefore it gives the manufacturers of these poisonous and deleterious and putrid drugs and foods, and so forth, practically an immunity bath, as we see it, because the retailer can say, "I am not to blame. I bought it from the fellow higher up ", and, before you can get almost any attorney general in the United States down to finding out whether it is safe to prosecute a wealthy corporation, the poor devil that bought the stuff has been nicely decomposing for several years in his grave; and it sounds as though you are protecting him, but you aren't. This bill is not of any use until the Con

gress of the United States passes a law, and the President signs it, insuring that anybody who is killed by poisonous stuff which he buys shall be resurrected as soon as this bill becomes law. Now, just because you cannot do that—and that suggestion of mine is no more impractical than a lot of the things the administration is trying to do-just as soon as you can guarantee resurrection of those killed by this stuff this bill will be very appropriate. Until that time it is just playing "new deal" politics with human misery.

I now come to page 30. Before I read that let me say that I do not want to criticize Tugwell. Tugwell just lost his nerve. He apparently did not get the backing of the President. The President lost his nerve in fighting these big interests. That is not your concern. The first Tugwell bill would have gone quite a distance, but the consumers of America cannot be permanently fooled, a fact which every political party finds out occasionally to its sorrow. Now we come to page 30, section 19 (a), which reads:

Each of the following acts is hereby declared to be a public nuisance: (1) The repetitious introduction into interstate commerce of any adulterated or misbranded food, drug, or cosmetic.

(2) The repetitious dissemination of any false advertisement by radio broadcast, United States mails, or interstate commerce for the purpose of inducing, directly or indirectly, the purchase of food, drugs, or cosmetics.

(3) The repetitious dissemination of a false advertisement by any means for the purpose of inducing, directly or indirectly, the purchase of food, drugs, or cosmetics in interstate commerce.

Now, I read that several times. As I understand it, it says you shall not break the law more than so often. I wish somebody would define "repetitious." I do not know what it means by it. When they wrote it once, I thought maybe they had something in mind. When they wrote it the second time and the third time, it seems an immunity for every violator of the law, as far as I can see it; and where do you protect the public by saying you can break the law as often as you want to we have protected you. At the same time, of course, you claim that you have protected the consumer, although saying that the violator of the law is not going to be prosecuted.

I would like to ask the drafter of this bill how many hundreds of times a manufacturer is going to be allowed to violate this law before the injunction is going to obtain against him. It is so preposterous à proposal I can hardly understand it, and perhaps there will be some explanation of it made later.

Senator COPELAND. Of course, Mr. Marsh, you realize from your careful study of the bill that there is a penalty for the first time a man violates it, but this is to make certain that if he continues his violation that even though court procedure is slow, or the ordinary procedure is slow, if he makes repetitious statements regarding it, he is then going to be restrained by injuction, which would estop him from doing the very evil thing which you are talking about.

Mr. MARSH. Why do you wait for him to break the law 3 or 4 times before the injunction?

Senator COPELAND. No. You have other ways of dealing with the man who violates it the first time, but those processes are often very slow. But if this man goes on the radio or repeatedly makes statements which are misleading and harmful to the public, then there is a way to stop him.