CONGRESS,

CONGRESS,

No.

FRAUDULENT ADVERTISING IN THE DISTRICT OF

COLUMBIA.

MAY 17, 1916.-Ordered to be printed.

Mr. JOHNSON of Kentucky, from the Committe of Conference, submitted the following

CONFERENCE REPORT.

[To accompany H. R. 10490.]

The conference committee on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendments of the Senate to bill (H. R. 10490) entitled "An act to prevent fraudulent advertising in the District of Columbia," having met, after a full and free conference, have agreed to recommend, and do recommend, to their respective Houses as follows:

That the House recede from its disagreement to the Senate amendment numbered 1, and agree to the same with an amendment by also striking out the article "a" at the end of line 13, page 1, so that instead of only striking out the word "fraudulent " the part stricken out should be a fraudulent".

แ

That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 2, and agree to the same with an amendment. The Senate amendment numbered 2 adds the following language to the bill: purchase any goods, wares or merchandise or anything of value or to.

That amendment numbered 2, is amended by striking out the word "purchase" therefrom and inserting in lieu thereof the words sell, barter or exchange.

That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendments of the Senate numbered 3 and 4.

That the Senate recede from its amendment numbered 5.

STATEMENT OF THE MANAGERS ON THE PART OF THE HOUSE.

The managers on the part of the House relative to the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendments of the Senate to H. R. 10490, entitled "An act to prevent fraudulent advertisement in the District of Columbia," herewith submit the following statement concerning the result of the conference:

Relative to amendment numbered 1 the managers on the part of the House have to state that the said bill passed the House containing the language "a fraudulent intent to deceive, mislead, etc." The Senate struck out the word "fraudulent," being of the opinion that the words "deceive, mislead, etc.," were sufficient. The managers on the part of the House agreed to that amendment, but called attention to the fact that the article "a" which immediately precedes the word "fraudulent" should also be stricken out. The reason for striking out the article "a" is quite apparent upon reading the bill.

The original draft of the bill contained a clause relating to the "sale of goods, wares, or merchandise" as the result of fraudulent advertising. However, just before the bill was introduced some of its friends struck out that clause and the bill was introduced without it. When the bill was under consideration by the House it was conceded that the language should be restored, but at the moment when attention was called to this omission the section which should have contained it had been passed. It was then deemed advisable to permit the bill to pass in its then present shape and let the correction be made by the Senate. The attention of the Senate was duly invited to the omission referred to; but, by inadvertency, the word "purchased" was used instead of the word "sell." Then, in conference, it was deemed best not only to use the word "sell,” but to use the three words, "sell, barter, or exchange"; so that the bill when thus amended reads, "with intent to sell, barter, or exchange any goods, wares, or merchandise, or anything of value, or to deceive, mislead, etc."

Amendment numbered 3 is the striking out of the second use of the word "fraudulent," the words "to deceive, mislead," etc., again being deemed sufficient.

Amendment numbered 4 is exactl similary to amendment numbered 3, and the word "fraudulent" was again stricken from the bill.

Senate amendment numbered 5 strikes from the House bill the words "for a valuable consideration." However, the Senate receded, and that language is restored.

That part of section I after the semicolon in line 9, page 2, wherein appear the words " for a valuable consideration" undertakes to create an offense where three persons figure in the transaction.

The first of the three is the one who makes the misrepresentations for another, and not for himself.

The second of the three is the one to whom the misrepresentations are made.

The third of the three is the one for whose advantage the misrepresentations are made by the first of the three.

If the first of the three, by use of any of the means set out in the act, should induce the second of the three to use the services of the third and pay a fee or give a valuable consideration for those services, then the offense would be complete; but, upon the other hand, if no fee were charged or paid, or no valuable consideration passed, then there would be no offense, as the second party of the three would have suffered no wrong.

It is the intention of this provision in the bill to punish the act only in event some one is injured.

It is also sought to differentiate between the " capper" or "booster" for a falsely advertised business or alleged profession upon the one hand and the overzealous man or woman upon the other hand who, for instance, innocently writes a letter or in good faith gives a testimonial commending the "incorporated dental parlor" which claims that its employees, without the use of a drug, can painlessly extract teeth. Neither is it intended to punish the admiring, overconfident, and gullible friend of the "quack" who claims to be able to permanently cure all human ailments out of the same bottle or with the same pill.

However, it is hoped that the bogus claim agent and patent attorney, of whom there are many in Washington, may be compelled not only to stop his extravagant and untruthful advertising; but, at the same time, become unable to find "boosters" for his cheating game. Also, the "ambulance chaser" for some of the legal fraternity may find his occupation neither profitable nor agreeable if this bill becomes law.