« ForrigeFortsett »
The CHAIRMAN. The first gentleman who will appear is Mr. C. C. Parlin of Philadelphia, representing the National Publishers' Association.
STATEMENT OF CHARLES COOLIDGE PARLIN, OF THE CURTIS PUBLISHING CO., PHILADELPHIA, REPRESENTING THE NATIONAL PUBLISHERS' ASSOCIATION
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Parlin, you requested to be allowed to speak for 3 minutes.
Mr. PARLIN. Thank you, sir.
I speak for the National Publishers’ Association, which is composed of approximately 150 periodical publications, including most of the leading magazines and a large number of trade papers, with approximately 50,000,000 circulation. Since we thought it necessary at the public hearing on S. 1944 to object to various provisions of that bill, we have asked permis. ion to read into your records a resolution adopted by a committee of the National Publishers' Association relative to the revised Senate bill 2000 (now S. 2800).
RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY A COMMITTEE OF NATIONAL PUBLISHERS' ASSOCIATION,
FEBRUARY 14, 1934
We believe that those provisions of S. 2000 on which we feel competent to express an opinion are satisfactory. We therefore recommend to the members of the National Publishers' Association not to oppose the passage of Copeland bill S. 2000.
On provisions which manufacturers are more competent than we to express an opinion we recommend full consideration for amendments which manufacturers may offer.
If any amendment materially changing the meaning of provisions which have special interests to publishers be adopted we reserve the right to alter this recommendation.
That is signed by Lee W. Maxwell, chairman, The Crowell Publishing Co., Stanley R. Latshaw, The Butterick Co.; Roy Dickinson, Printer's Ink; Charles Coolidge Parlin, The Curtis Publishing Co.; E. H. McHugh, International Magazine Co., Robert L. Johnson, Time, Inc.; O. J. Elder, Macfadden Publications; John C. Sterling, McCall Corporation.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Parlin, you stated there that you endorsed S. 2000. S. 2800 is the revised Copeland bill. Mr. PARLIN. It was the revised S. 2000.
2000. That is the bill that is now S. 2800, is the bill that we had in mind. We did not have the number.
The CHAIRMAN, What you have said about S. 2000 relates to S. 2800?
Mr. PARLIN. We mean to apply that to S. 2800.
Mr. PARLIN. In that resolution we did not have the number, and we saw fit to enter our resolution, as we made it, and not to revise the number.
Senator VANDENBERG. Just what do you mean by the reference to the manufacturers? Do you mean that if the manufacturers objected to the bill you would have some doubts about it yourself?
Mr. PARLIN. No, sir. We are not going to oppose the measure. There are certain measures upon which the manufacturers are more competent than we to express opinion. We ask you, sir, to give full and fair consideration to those amendments. We do not wish, by our resolution, to head them off or present any obstacles to a fair consideration of amendments upon which they are more competent to speak than we are.
Senator VANDENBERG. Well, do you recommend that the bill pass? Mr. Parlin. I will state it as I did before, sir. The publishers will not oppose the passage of this bill. As to measures on which others are more competent to speak than we, we ask you to give full and fair consideration to what manufacturers may say.
With your permission I wish to say a few words on each paragraph of that resolution. We appreciate the ability, the energy, and the patience with which Senator Copeland has worked to improve S. 1944. Representing, as we do through our own publications, many millions of consumers, we are appreciative of the fact that in all his work on this bill, Senator Copeland has always kept uppermost the protection of the consumers. In our opinion nothing has been done to lessen the protection of consumers either in the matter of health or of false advertising. Some provisions which we believed unnecessary for accomplishing the purposes of the act have been changed. These changes, in our opinion, make the bill more fair. At the same time we are convinced the interests of consumers have been fully protected.
Among the changes that have been made are: First, many of the unwarranted grants of unnecessary power have been removed.
Second. A voluntary inspection system which might have co]. lected toll from unwilling volunteers to build a huge bureaucracy without applying to Congress for appropriations has been eliminated.
Third. In place of an elaborate grading system which had nothing to do with the protection of health or prevention of false advertising and which, we are confident, would have proved injurious both to consumers and to industry, S. 2800 provides for an extension of the McNary-Mapes amendment to all foods. Under this provision the Secretary is authorized to establish for any food one objectively determinable minimum standard which will completely protect health and defend the consumer against fraud and will require manufacturers of permissible products below the minimum standard to label their goods to indicate that the goods are substandard. This we believe to be a sound and adequate provision.
Fourth. A definition of false advertisment which read:
If in any particular it is untrue, or by ambiguity or inference creates a misleading impression. has been changed to read
If it is false or misleading in any particular relevant to the purposes of this act.
This is certainly a great improvement. By our resolution, however, we do not desire to offer any obstacle to full and fair consideration of any amendment which may be offered to this definition.
Fifth. A provision requiring the United States Attorney to bring suit on request of the Secretary has been changed to readEach United States Attorney to whom satisfactory evidence is presented.
Sixth. Boards to assist the Secretary in the establishments of standards have been provided. The board for drugs consists of five members selected with a view to their distinguished scientific attainments. The committee on foods is to be composed of 7 members, 5 from the Department of Agriculture, 3 from the public at large, and 2 from the food-producing industry.
Seventh. Appeal to the courts is provided.
Eighth. The criminal liability of individual directors is limited to violations which they personally order or do.
Ninth. Dealers as vendors of merchandise are exempted from prosecution if they furnish the name and address of those from whom in good faith they purchase merchandise. As advertisers of articles of interstate commerce, dealers may secure exemption from prosecution by obtaining from the person from whom they obtain merchandise or advertising copy a guaranty assuming responsibility. For merchandise not entering interstate commerce dealers are not subject to prosecution for the dissemination of advertising other than by radio broadcast.
Tenth. Minor violations may be dealt with by a suitable notice or warning
In view of these and many other changes from S. 1944, we felt justified in recommending to our members not to oppose the passage of the revised S. 2000.
There are, however, many sections of Senate bill S. 2800 which deal with technical and enforcement provisions upon which others are more competent than ourselves to express an opinion. That we might not, by our resolution, appear to set up any obstacle to the full and fair consideration of any amendment which may be offered on these provisions, we adopted paragraph 2 of the resolution I read, namely:
On provisions which manufacturers are more competent than we to express an opinion, we recommend full consideration for amendments which manufacturers may offer.
We are conscious that some manufacturers, whom we believe to be, as we are, sincerely interested in having legislation which will adequately protect health and prevent false advertising, feel that certain amendments should be made to S. 2800. We feel that it is beyond our province to discuss these suggested amendments or to recommend certain ones for your special consideration.
May we, however, respectfully urge that you give full and fair consideration to amendments which may be recommended by manufacturers. By adopting such of the amendments that may be proposed as appear to you to be sound and consistent with the purpose of the act we believe that you will further perfect the bill which Senator Copeland has so greatly improved.
With reference to paragraph 3: If any amendment materially changing the meaning of provisions which have special interest to publishers be adopted we reserve the right to alter this recommendation
if any effort be made to restore objectionable features to provisions I mentioned in discussing the first paragraph of our resolution, we shall appreciate your courtesy if you will allow us to file a brief in rebuttal before you act upon such suggestions.
Thank you, gentlemen.
Senator NYE. We have understood that as publishers you were objecting to the original draft of the so-called “ Food and Drug Act."
Mr. PARLIN. S. 1944, yes, sir.
Senator NYE. Are we to understand now that the objections which you then raised are now waived by reason of corrections that have been made in the bill, and that, as publishers, you are quite content with the bill in its present order?
Mr. Parlin. I will express it in this way: We are satisfied that the provisions to which we objected have been satisfactorily changed. There remain provisions upon which we did not speak, because they were out of our field of competency, provisions affecting methods of procedure, things affecting the technical sides which at that hearing we very definitely declined to speak upon. Those provisions we leave entirely in the judgment of this committee, urging them to give such fair and full consideration to manufacturers as the situation, in your judgment, warrants. We would not like, by our resolution, or by any reply I might make in answer to a question, to seem to set up before you the fact that this is a blanket approval in which we head the manufacturer off from discussing the things that are primarily his. So far as the measures upon which we are able to speak, we are satisfied, and we therefore shall not oppose Senate bill 2800 unless some of those 10 provisions of which I spoke are materially altered in a way to make them objectionable. The other provisions we leave entirely in your hands, and merely ask you to give full and fair consideration to everything that may be presented and in your own judgment to do what seems to you best on those measures.
Is that a fair answer to the question?
Senator VANDENBERG. Well, would it be fair to say that you are satisfied with the advertising provisions of the bill?
Mr. Parlin. Yes, sir. I would say this, however, there are some who feel that the definition of advertising should be further modified. We would not like, by our resolution, to head them off from a fair consideration of the viewpoint they may express. The publishers are sincerely interested, as we believe that most manufacturers are, in having a good, fair, workable bill that will adequately protect consumers, and at the same time will be fair to industry; and so far as the range of items upon which we are able to speak, we are satisfied with bill 2800.
Senator OVERTON. Your view of that is that you neither approve nor condemn the bill as a whole, but that as publishers, you have no objection to S. 2800, as now offered ?
Mr. PARLIN. I think that is a fair statement, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. Congressman Lamneck is here, and he wants to occupy 5 minutes. He is in a rush, of course, to get back to his duties on the House side. We will hear him next.
STATEMENT BY CONGRESSMAN ARTHUR P. LAMNECK,
Mr. LAMNECK. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee. I am a Representative in Congress from Columbus, Ohio. I am here to oppose the passage of this bill. I do not know which one you are considering now, whether it is 1944, 2000, or 2800.
The CHAIRMAN. S. 2800 is the bill.
Mr. LAMNECK. The people that I represent are opposed to all three of them. Now, in my district I have large wholesale houses, I have many manufacturers engaged in the manufacture of drugs, foods, and cosmetics, and if I reflect their sentiments, I believe I am safe in saying that there is no public demand for this bill. They seem to feel that the present bill should be amended, if there is anything wrong with the way the Drug Act or this Pure Food Act is being handled. They oppose very strongly the passage of this bill, because it gives an executive of a department autocratic powers and, expressing my personal opinion, I believe that Congress, in the last few years, is delegating powers to executives which they should not do, and as far as I am concerned, I expect to oppose that tendency in legislation, and I think I could say that you gentlemen know that many bills that we have passed during this session and in the previous session, have delegated powers to executives, which I do not think we should do.
Now, if there is anything wrong with the old Pure Food Act, that was passed in 1906, why not amend it, and put the amendments in that bill, to make it a good law? I think it is a good law, now, except that it does not include some of the things that have developed since the original act was passed.
Another thing I want to call your attention to is that 46 cities in the Union have passed laws based upon the old act, and if that old act is repealed, I am not so sure that you will seriously affect the laws that are now in effect in the various States. It will affect many court decisions, and I am told that one of the reasons for the passage of this act is that the department which has been trying to enforce the old law, has found many judicial cases decided against them, and that they are trying to pass a law which will make their decisions effective.
Now, I don't know whether that is true or not, but if it is, it seems to me it is a very poor plan to follow.
Now, you take some of your definitions, take your definition of advertisement; it includes - all representations of facts or opinions disseminated in any manner, by any means other than by labeling or label."
Now, it seems to me that is a very poor decision, and is going to get us into a lot of trouble. Take your definition of a drug. A drug is deemed misbranded if a disease is mentioned for which the drug is not a specific cure. Now, I am told that there are only four specific cures known to medicine, and I believe that a man that thinks aspirin is a good thing for a headache, as I do, if he wants to call it a cure for headache, that is all right, and if they advertise it as a cure for headache, it is to me in many cases; it cures my headache; maybe not permanently, but it cures it temporarily anyway. Now,