he shall determine. No one can foresee how far he might be able to go under this extensive grant of power.

I have commented above (sec. 15) on the other two paragraphe (b) and (c) of this section.

Section 24: For additional "tecth" in the bill, this section provides: “A right of action for damages shall accrue to any person for injury or death proximately caused by a violation of this act."

Section 25: By this section it is provided that if any provision of the act is declared unconstitutional or its applicability to any person or circumstance held invalid, the constitutionality of the remainder of the act and its applicability to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

Section 26: Paragraph (a) provides that the act shall take effect 6 months after the date of approval and that until that time the existing law shall remain in force. But it provides that during the 6 month interval the secretary can conduct hearings and promulgate regulations, definitions and standards under the new act, which shall become effective when the act goes into operation.

Paragraph (h) of this section provides that this act shall not modify or repeal any of certain other acts and that it sha! be held to be in addition to their previsions. Those other law's are: The Tea Import Act, approved March 2, 1897 (U.S.C., title 21, ser8. 41-50); the Virus Act, approved March 4, 1913 (U.S.C., title 21, secs. 151-158); the United States Grain Standards Act, approved August 11, 1916 (U.S.C., title 7, secs. 70–87); the Insecticide Act, approved April 26, 1910 (U.S.C., title 7, secs. 121-134); the Import Milk Act, approved February 13, 1927 (U.S.C., title 21, secs. 141-149); the Caustic Poison Act, approved March 4, 1927 (U.S.C., title 15, secs. 401-411); the Virus, Serum, Toxin, and Antitoxin Act, approved July 1, 1902 (U.S.C., title 42, secs. 141-148). The CHAIRMAN. Thank


We will now call on Mr. Carson P. Frailey, president of the National Drug Trade Conference.

Mr. FRAILEY. I offer for the record the amendment suggested by Dr. Beal, and which was handed up a few moments ago. I should like to request that this be incorporated in the stenographic record so that it may form a part of Dr. Beal's remarks in the record.

The CHAIRMAN. It is already in the record; it has already been given to the reporter. It will appear in the record.

Mr. FRAILEY. Thank you.
Thereupon, at 1:15 p.m., the committee recessed to reassemble at

2 p.m.


The committee met at the expiration of the recess, at 2 p.m., Senator Copeland presiding.

Senator COPELAND. The hearing will come to order. I assume that there are others here who are willing to file briefs instead of making statements. I do not want you to feel that by making this suggestion the committee is desirous of omitting anything from the record that you would care to have in it, but may i say again that we are simply making a record here, and you will be surprised how much these records are used. When it comes to debate, if there are some Members of Congress who are in opposition they get the argument out of the record; so you need not feel at all that the force of your suggestions will be lost simply by reason of having a brief printed instead of a verbal statement before the committee. - I am glad that the witnesses have borne in mind that the purpose of this bill is not primarily to control industry. The purpose of the bill is to protect the public, to protect the mothers and the children, to protect the citizens; and the fact that regulation is needed is pot because the reputable concerns are unwilling to conform to high standards; it is because there are those in the country who are exploiting the public and desirous of imposing their products upon the public for gain. So that is why we have bill before us at all;



it is that the public may be better protected against the unscrupulous than it is at present. I also realize that there are defects in this bill, but this is the bill as it was handed to us. When I say "us," I mean to you and to me.

Now, I assume that there are going to be amendments made to this bili.

There are certain amendments which certainly, so far as I am concerned, I shall insist upon, and as one member of the committee will do all I can to gain the consent of the committee to the inclusion of such amendments. You have presented other amendments. Every amendment presented will be given consideration.

Is there anybody at this meeting who desires to present a brief instead of making a statement, or are all such briefs now in our bands?

We have a 5-minute speaker, Mr. Ray C. Schlotterer, of the New York Board of Trade.


TRADE, NEW YORK CITY, N.Y. Mr. SCALOTTERER. The New York Board of Trade was organized in 1876. It is the second oldest civic association in New York. It cooperated with Government officials at the time the Pure Food and Drugs Act was written in 1906. It believes that the present act only in minor details has been defective, and a complete revision is uncalled for and unnecessary. It opposes the present Tugwell bill because it is anti-N.R.A.

Senator COPELAND. Now just a moment about that. Why is it anti-N.R.A.?

Mr. SCHLOTTERER. I will tell you about that in just a minute, Senator Copeland.

Senator COPELAND. All right.

Mr. SCHLOTTERER. No one will find fault with the underlying principles of this legislation, but is there a public demand for this measure at this time? A nation going through the throes of recovery Deeds a consideration of those problems connected with a revival; these are labor problems, monetary problems, and fiscal problems.

Recovery must be given first consideration and we do not believo that proper study on a subject as complete and as important as the writing of the new Pure Food and Drugs Act will be possible in the coming session of Congress. We have made a study of the effects of this legislation on industry. The passage of this bill affects the employment approximately of 1,775,000 people. The value of the products involved amounts approximately to 17 billion dollars. For this reason we believe that this legislation is anti-N.R.A., both from the standpoint of employment involved, as well as defeating the principles of the N.I.R.A., which is a partnership between government and industry, through the presentation of codes.

How does the public feel at this time on this proposed legislation? A survey was made, asking 100 chambers of commerce if there has been a public demand for a change in the existing act. Sixty replies have been received to date. Fifty-five report that there is no demand at this time.

Senator COPELAND. I wish to read into the record at this timo some of these letters which I have received. They are as follows:




Boston, Mass. In reply to your communications relative to the proposed changes in the Pure Food and Drugs Act, please let me say that while a great deal of interest has been expressed locally in the proposed Tugwell bill I do not think that we can honestly say that any demand for this legislation has manifested itself in this vicinity up to the present.

JAMES H. WALSH, Manager Bureau of Commercial and Industrial Affairs.

The Chicago AssociaTION OF COMMERCE,

Chicago, ju. While we have not had occasion to survey by questionnaire the many thousand business concerns located in our community, I think it fair to say thót so far as the ordinary sources of information are concerned, such as letters, calls at our headquarters, articles in the press, resolutions of business and civic groups, etc., we have not been aware that there was any demand for a change in the act.

We assume that your survey has to do with legislation now pending before Congress said to be sponsored by Prof. Rexford G. Tugwell, Assistant Secre tary of Agriculture, and which, if enacted, would give unlimited powers to the Departinent of Agriculture with reference to preventing the manufacture, shipment, and sale of soods, drugs, and cosmetics.

Louis A. Dumond, Manager Industrial Department.


Des Moines, Iowa. We find that there is no demand on the part of the public for a change in the existing Federal Food and Drugs Act. There have been no flagrant violations out here that we know of. I take it that your letter is written on account of the 60-called “Tugwell bill” which is not in favor generally here. The consensus of opinion by those familiar with the bill is that it is too drastic and will defeat the very purpose for which it is intended. An amendment covering radio and other advertising to prevent false and fraudulent claims and to do away with inferior products that do no specific good or may be harmful, seems to be agreeable.

Local manufacturers are in full sympathy with the efforts of N.R.A. and A.A.A. but are holding down stock and curtailing advertising expenditures owing to the uncertainty of the bills pending.

Our manufacturers feel that the propaganda favoring the bill seems to come from the Department only. The public seems to think that it is an expression of the Bureau's desire for power rather than of what is needed. Any radical changes at this time would tend to cause greater uncertainty just when confidence is renewed. We have a large number of cosmetic and medicine manufacturers that would be seriously affected by such a bill.

John D. Adams, General Secrelary.


Seaule, Wash. Your letter to the Seattle Chamber of Commerce has been referred to me.

Representing over 2,000 retail grocers in the State of Washington, I can say that our association has never had any request for changes in the existing Federal Food and Drugs Act. We have talked over the general provisions of the Copeland plan and view it with considerable alarm as it is loaded with dynamite and could be very destructive in our present trade set-up:

We believe that this is not the time to introduce radical changes in connection with the standards of food and drugs. We are all trying to coordinate the various factors of industry to meet new-trade agreements and if there is any merit in the proposed legislation, it should be taken up only after our present decks are cleared for action.


Portland, Oreg. Subject. Is there a demand on the part of the public for a change in the existing Federal Food and Drugs Act?



Report. If the general public here is desirous of changes in the Federal Food and Drugs Act, that desire has not found noticeable expression. It is probably true of this subject, as of many other, that in the absence of a local campaign for or against change in the act, the general public would not be sufficiently aroused to express its views.

Northwest Canners Association. The canning industry believes that labols should show clearly whether the contents of the can, when considered as food, aro good or bad. But the industry does not believe that the labels should be made to show whether the contents of the can are first, second, third, etc., grade. To illustrate: One of the best known, best selling, and most wholesome brands of food on the Pacific coast-a brand selling at a good price and finding its way to the most discriminating tables, qualifies fully as good” rather than "bad." But if the food sold under this brand were to be graded according to arbitrary, established rules, it might cease to classify as first grade, and might be made to take an even lower grading.

This executive does not fear the results of fair regulations of the food industry, but does deplore the tendency on the part of many of the subordinates of the Department to set themsevles up as “czars” and pass judgment on their own whims, rather than on the merits of the case.

Flour and cereals. An executive in this industry is aware of pending changes in the act, but is not aware of any special interest in the proposed changes on the part of the western flour and cereal manufacturers.

Retail drug trade. The secretary of the local association reports that the national association and local druggists feel that the existing act should not be changed. They regard a new law as likely to be oppressive to legitimate business

FRANK M. Bram, Manager.



Salt Lake City, Utah. There is absolutely no demand on the part of the general public of the intermountain area concerning the activities of the Pure Food and Drugs Act.

The present existing laws are satisfactory and I am of the opinion a great deal of the agitation regarding the supervision of the food and drug allied industry, is coming from those who may have a personal interest in attempting to establish one more bureaucracy.

Gus P. BACKMAN, Secrelary. Mr. SCHLOTTERER. Gentlemen, I do feel, the board of trade feels, that this legislation is anti-N.R.A.

Senator COPELAND. Just a moment. I would like to know more specifically why this is against the N.R.A.

Mr. SCALOTTERER. Senator Copeland, we have codes; the induso tries have presented codes.

Senator COPELAND. Are they permanent codes?

Mr. SCHLOTTERER. We do not know, sir. They are for 2 years This survey was made at this time: "Is there a demand for a chango in the present Food and Drugs Act at this time?” These letters, and others I have, prove that they would work against the so-called spirit of the N.R.A.

Senator COPELAND. Have you been here at these hearings?
Mr. SCHLOTTERER. I was not here yesterday.
Senator COPELAND. You are assuming, of

course, in all your stato ments that this bill is to be enacted as it is written; and, perhaps, if I were to pass judgment upon the bill exactly as written, I might agree with

you; but when you say there is no demand upon the part of the American people and the women of this country to have protection against fraudulent, misleading, and harmful substa aces, I do not think the board of trade is on solid ground.

Mr. SCHLOTTERER. Senator Copeland, the codes that have been presented



Senator COPELAND. We hope there will be such a revival of industry that there will not be a need for the continuance of the codes. This is a temporary emergency well understood by every body; but this is not an emergency measure in that sense; this is permanent control on the part of the Government for foods and drugs.

Mr. SCHLOTTERER. In my first statement I said we believed that the emergency problems, the emergency measures, should be considered at this time, and we do not feel that with the coming session of Congress, which will be filled with monetary measures, fiscal measures, and of all kinds and descriptions, that it is the time to consider the rewriting of a bill.

Senator COPELAND. What you mean is that we must spend all our time protecting the banks and the holders of securities and that sort of thing, and must give no thought in such time to the physical needs of the people.

Mr. SCHLOTTERER. I believe the recovery should be first.

Senator COPELAND. And then the physical recovery later. Do you believe that is the sentiment of the Board of Trade of New York?

Mr. SCHLOTTERER. Senator, we feel, and these letters here prove, that there is no demand on the part of the public for a change in the existing act.

Senator COPELAND. But you think there is a demand, do you, on the part of the public for the relief of the great bankers?

Mr. SchloTTERER. I know some people feel that they would like to get their money frozen in various banks. I know there are communities shouting that the reason business is not improving is because the banks are closed.

Senator COPELAND. You and I live in the same city. I do not know that I have ever seen you before.

Mr. SCALOTTERER. Yes; you have. Senator COPELAND. I am here to say that the people of New York City are anxious to be protected against harmful food and drugs and cosmetics. Mr. SCHLOTTERER. There is no question about that. They cer

As I said in the very beginning, the New York Board of Trade finds no fault with the underlying principle of this suggestion.

Senator COPELAND. That is good. I hope you will leave it there, because I would not want the impression to prevail here that the great representative body of New York was opposed in principle to this measure.

Mr. SchlotTERER. But I did go on to say, is there a public demand for this measure at this time?

Senator COPELAND. What difference would it make if there is not & public demand, if there is a public need?

Mr. SCHLOTTERER. I wish to present what these various chambers of commerce have said about that question.

Senator COPELAND. We are glad to have them and we will include them in the record.

(The statements of the various chambers of commerce referred to are as follows:)


Trenton, N.J. Know of no particular interest locally in proposed revision.


« ForrigeFortsett »