purpose of it is to curb or restrict the license now enjoyed by manile facturers of such articles,

Section 9 is the one relating to advertising:
The CHAIRMAN. I dare say there is sojne dispute about this.

Mr. CAMPBELL. I do not know of any question that has raised such a storm, or of any other item in any othor section of this buil about which there will be such dispute. I understand that there will be reflected in the statoinents made before this committee at these henrings the opposition that exists in certain groups. It reflects the possible and probable effect of the bill in limiting the exploitation of the public by the sale of harmful and worthless nostrums to those who would, perhaps, buy amulets just as readily. The degree of opposition that will become ovident may perhaps exceed thint which has manifested itself heretoforo. Do not think for a monient that this section will not be oljected to. I do not believe that any rostriction could be imposed upon the patent-ine licine business without provoking the advancement of every kind of opposition. We do noi have to go fier to determine the reason. Even in n time of loprossion that has berni. Nourishing industry. Certainly, in normal times it was a very llourishing industry, and equally cerininly it will continuo to be, so long as its stock in trore is ibie exploitation of the public hy appealing to their superstitionis, fears, and emotions. Unquestionnbly, thus proposal will be opposed by patent-medicine makers and people of that class. No provision that serlis to prohibit the patentmedicine manufacturor from deceiving and defrauding thin public will be uopposod. No provision t'unt seeks to compel the patentmedicine manufacturer to let the public know something of the truth about this product will be possed without the keenest opposition. When they take the public into their confidence, as they will to some oxtent through the climination of false representations, the inherent worthlessness of many of their products will become known. This is the type of information than the public will ncquire.

May I say at the outset that the proposal to include, in this bill, provisions which would cover advortising of food and drug products did not contemplato nnd does not now contomplate censorship in the sense in which this term is ordinarily used. Il contenutes setting up no bureaucrnt in the Department, no singlo individual, not evon the President of the Uniiod Sintes, to determine with sinnlity whether advertising is or is not trun. What is does do is to enjoin the use of false advertising in the sale of food, drug, and cosmetic products, There is nothing vicious in that, or unnecessarily or unfnirly restrictive. It makes no difference to what extent Congress my ko to compol by low the use only of truthivi niniements on Inbols of such products, you will not have protected in public unless these provisions are extended to advertising. It was stated by Kepresentative Suboth at the time the Shorloy amendment was before Congress, that the value of that amendment would be slight to the public and that no mendiment that contempinted the curtnilmont of unlimited fantastie deceptive declarations on lubels would be or ny practical value muess the same curtailment were extended to advertising. We buvo patent-medicino fronds withi 118 now just as definitely as we have over hund, the vorintion being only in dngreo. Wont has been dono has been in transfor in large moasure the field of activity for



making false claims. The label is no longer employed so effectively for that purpose. The labels of food products are frequently nieaningJoss, uttorly without any statement or information, of un informative or decoiving kind. The advertising is dictated by just what the manufacturers wish to have it say. There are no restrictions pluced upon it. The proposal now is to extend to advertising some of the beneficient provisions, from the public standpoint of the present law. Whether the advertisement is or is not fulso will be determined in every instance by the court.

Tho clain has been repentedly made that it will ho utterly impossible for advortising activity to contime, that it will mean the loss of hundreds of employcos; that products cannot be put on the market; that the hurslıness of the Jungunge now employed and the use of the words "ambiguity" and "interence" will make it inupossible for the manufacturer to prepare an advertisement without putting himself in a position to be promptly sent to juil; that no manufneturer will Adverlino uuder such circumstances. Il boss been maid that lie conbinatiou of this particular section, the celinition of misbruiding und the dolinition of adulteration of drugs, is extreme, hursh, and so vnigno my to be utterly unreasonable; thut together they are unbound both in principle and in policy.

Those are extravagant statements. The only thing Unt is required to meet the terms of this section is that to muurructuror, in having bis advertisements prepared, take the same precautions to be consistent with the truth that is imposed upon him now in the preparltion of his lubels; nothing more. Wo kuow that there ure ndvertising puls, trade puits. The Supreme Court recognizes that. That license cannot, however, he employed to the deception of the public. Trudle pulls, to which the court bus referred, do not dereive. They are those statements to which there fois been built up a consumer resistence because they are recognized for what they are. The only representations that wo aro anxious to live eliminated from alvortising, the only statements that we desire to have deleted, are those that result in the deception of the public. The protection of the public ajuinst deception is a proper part of this legislation. If it cannot be extended to advertising, the purpose of the bill, and (crtrinly its pructical effects, will fall to the ground.

Speaking about the effect of such legislation and what it would do in an industrial sense, I do not know anything better that I can do than to quoto from an article propared and published by one of the leading authorities on nevertising; one that is recognized more or less gonerally 19 a louder in that field.

Exactly 22 years ago, when this particular writer, whom I sball quoto and who was, I believo, then editor of the publication in which his article appeared, wns advocating legal measures to suppress fulse and inislonding advertising, liv took into account tho very same thing that hins been very recently expressed by llotchkiss. Tho latter has said that:

'There still roinnins a considerable proportion thut is grossly exaggeratoil or on the border line of the unethical. It violiites no statuto and contains no untruths, but it novertheless convoys false impressions. No outside authority that is now avuilublo scome capable of climinating this study advertising. Unless it now statulo can be formulated to cover it--which seems doulotilla-improvement must corne by voluntary restraint on the part of urivertisers.



The author recognized 22 years ago that the same type of abusos in advertising about which Hotchkiss comments in the foregoing quotation provoiled then. The same condition of which he complained provnils today.

The CHAIRMAN. How long ago was that?

Mr. CAMPBELL. Twenty-two years ago. In the concluding portion of his article the author says:

I do not want to close this introductory paper without emphasizing the great importance of the goal. First, there nro the ethical and moral considerations involvod, and about those we are all agreed.

Second, there is the vast benefit to be conferred upon advertising itaelf. If we can eliminate the dishoncat, the mixlcalling, the indecent from nivortising, we will double or triple or quadruple the confidence of the public in advertising. This means that inore people will read and respond to advertising than at prement. Jt moans that advertisers will get betier results from advertising than they are now getting. It means a reduced cont in distribution vin the advertising road. It means that space in advertising mediuins will command, and will be worth higher prices. It means that the rewards for the individual worker in the advertising ficld will be larger. In fact, it is n matter in which we can all make common Causc—advertisers, publishers, and advertising men generally, is not for ethical and moral reasons, then at least for motives of self-interest.

Advertisemonts are written to produce very definite effects. This is particularly emphasized in the food-and-drug line. I have heard it asserted and truly, I think, that advertisements of foods and drugs must move the products. They are written to crente a vory dofinite impression and offect in the mind of the roader. This talk about no manufacturer, under tho torms of this bill, having tho courago to propare an advertisement through fear that some stntoment unwittingly mado might inferentially deceive or misload the roader is without merit.

Advertisements are studiously prepared to create an impression on the ronder and a demand for a product. These advertisements should be preparod with a full senao of obligation on tho part of the writer of them that he should be truthful in every statement, and should not nunbiguously or inferontially make any statemont of any character which will decoive or mislead.

I know of no great authority that I can cite to maintnin that it possible, that it is practicable, and, in fact, oasy to prepare advertisements that will not misload and doceive, than the Suprome Court of the Unitod Statos, I refer to the case of tho United States v. 95 Bar. rels, more or lone, alleged apple cider vinegar, Dougins Packing Co., claimant, 265 U.8. 438, where it is said:

The statutc in plain and direct. Ito comprehensive terma condemn ovory statoment, design, and dovico which may misical or deceive. Decoption may result from tho 1180 of statements not tochnically falso or which may be literally true. The aim of the statute is to prevent that resulting from indirection and ambiguity, as well as from statements which arc Alec. It is not diflicult to choose statements, designs, and devices which will not deceive. Those which are ambiguous and liable to nilalead should be read favorably to the accomplishment of the purpose of the ant. The statuto applica to food, and tho ingredients and substances contained therein. It was enacted to enable purchasers to buy food for what it really is.

The Chainman. Did you givo a citation of that?

Mr. CAMPBALL. Yns, sir; I gave it. Our purpose is to insist that in advertising thero bo nn clomont of honosty, which has not oxtonsively characterized a large proportion of this business in the past.



Senator McNary. If a newspaper should publish an advertisement from which an inferenco might Now that the contonts do not have valuos theroin stated, what would happen to tho newspaper man?

Mr. CAMPBELL. Nothing, undor tho provisions of this bill. You will find in section 17 u list of penalties. If you will look on pago 24, line 19, you will find the specific language exempting publications. Let me say as a prelude to the quotation of this language that the draftors of this measure fully realize that publishers cannot readily determine the truth about food and drug products. It is impracticable for them to muintuin laboratories and a corps of experts to muko analyses und decide with respect to a particular advertisement whethor statoinents contained in it aro true or fulso. There aro sonne publications that attompt to do so in a mousure, but to oxpoct them to do it complotoly and oxnctly is out of the question. The responsibility in this matter ouglıt to be put on the individual who hus knowledge of the things ho is advertising, and that is the manufacturer himself. That wils contemplated in paragraph (d) of section 17, which reads:

No porson acting in the capacity of publisher, udvertising agency, or radio broadrust liconMCC will be prosecuted under paragroupolis (Lv) or (c) of this section for clinseminating a fillse avertineinent if, on request of uw officer or employee duly designated by the Secretary, he furnished the nume and post-otlice adresy of the person who contracted for or caused him to disseminate such advertisement.

Senator, the suggestion has been made that this exemption is a joker; that the department, if it wished to institute prosecution against a publisher, could do it very sinply. In other words, if it woro the purpose of tho Dopartment to instituto a prosecution agninst al publisher, it could do so by resorting to the expedient of not having a representutive request the name and address of the responsiblo party. The Assistant Secretary of Agriculture and others have disavowed that intont, and have stated that they are persoctly willing to see this langungo mado niore certain so that there can be no possibility of it operating in that way. I am suggesting, in line 20, on pige 24, that tho word "if" be eliminated and that the word "umless" substituted, and on line 21, the word "furnishes” bo deloted, and that the words "refuses to furnish” be substituted so that that sentence will reud:

No personi ucting in the capacity of publisher, advertising agency, or radio brondcunt licorisee shuu!l be prosecuted under paragraphe (b) or (c) uf this section for disseminating a false advertisement uuless, ou request of an officer or einployce duly designated by the Secretary, he refuses to furnish the name and post-office address of the person who contructod for or caused him to disseminate such advertiseinent.

Senntor McNary. Doctor, I just want to get your view regarding the interpretation of section 9. If the newspaper publisher should Advertise cortain values involved in a certain patent inedicine and one individual who bought a bottlo of it felt they bad created a misleading impression, would that individual huvo a separate action against the newspaper


Sonator McNary. What does thuc mean, thon? Is that an individual or a group?



Mr. CAMPRELL. Perhaps by curoful investigation you could find an individual who would be unable to understand a statement written in the plainest and most specific tornig. I cannot conceivo that any misloniling impression which would be renched hy n person so incapable of intorproting the English langungo would constitute a basis upon which court action could be inaugurated. This section, like the present misbranding section of the food and drugs act, would be onsorced by undertaking to determine what would be the inference or conclusion to bo reached by a reasonably intelligent person or people from that language. I think that was tho attitude the Supremo Court had in mind in rendoring the opinion to which I referred. Administrative officers must first rench n conclusion on the question. We would consider totally unreliable the testimony of an individual who definitely misinterpreted a specific and accurate statement.

Senator McNary. Would your department attempt to docido whother the ad appeared to be unisunderstood?

Mr. CAMPRELL. It would bo required to do so in the first instance. Quite naturally it must reach a conclusion that the ad is foise and misleading before it could take the steps indicated in this hill to rofor the multer to the courts on a charge that it is false and mislending.

Senntor McNary. Does tho Department docido wlotlıer there is nny mistrading langungo or not?

Mr. CAMPBELL, The Department decides it, but the Department must assumn in every case to sustain by ndegunte evidence that its findings in that respect are correct.

Senator MoNany. By ovidence tending to prove that that had been inisleading and false?

Mr. CAMPBELL. Yos, a number of witnesses. It would not be possible to try it on ono isolated instance.

Senator McNary. The point is if it is inferred. This is a thing that is not easy to understand. Why do you say "by ambiguity or inferenco crento a mislending impression") What is the resison you go beyond untruth? You musi first establish the untruth of the articlo.


Sonntor McNary. Why do yon iso the words “ambiguity" or "inference cronting a misleading impression"?

Mr. CAMPBELL. That is indeed a portinent question, Senator, and I hope to explain it by referring to the rdvertisoinent'I showed you a moment ako, with the word "luborculosis" scross the top of tho page. I snid when presenting it that I did not think there was porunpen single sentenco in it that could be considerod positively untruo ---penkin of the individual senioncos.

However, I think thint the inforonco to bo drawn from the entire advertisement is so obvious that fow would hesitate to consider it inise, That is the sort of inislending advertisement covered by this longuage.

The CHAIRMAN. I think you can use langunge, which would be better if you bnd it rend “or is capable of creating a misleading impression."

Mr. CAMPBELL. II mny expluin briesly, Senator, our purpose in using that lingunge was to employ the most explicit tornis possible in writing the definition. That is made possible by using the langungo of the Supreme Court in interpreting the existing terms of the

« ForrigeFortsett »