Representative ALFRED F. BEITER,

THE J. R. WATKINS Co., Buffalo, N.Y., February 22, 1934.

House Office Building, Washington, D.C.

HONORABLE SIR: In view of the statements contained in your acknowledgment of our letter dated November 17, 1933, relative to the so-called "Tugwell bill", we know you will appreciate our present views regarding the revised Tugwell bill, now known as revised Senate bill 2000.

The bill, in its revised form, contains many provisions that will eventually work a great deal of harm to our employees, our dealers, consumers, and this company.

The enclosed reprint of an editorial from the Chicago Tribune is self explanatory. The editors of the Chicago Tribune have no personal "ax to grind " inasmuch as, in its new form, the Tugwell bill has been so modified that the chief objection raised by the publishing and advertising interests in the country have been removed. Hence, this editorial is based entirely upon the effect of this bill, upon the general public, the economic and industrial activities which would be affected.

Frankly, we believe that without question, this bill is a direct attack on the prepared medicines business and not-as is propagated-a public health measure. When the Tugwell bill was first introduced, persons having only the public interests in mind and believing in reasonable regulation of foods, medicines. cosmetics, etc., prepared another bill for the amendment of the present food and drug law. We refer to House bill 6376 by Representative Black.

We recommend that this bill (the Black bill, House bill 6376) receive your vote and support because the present food and drug laws, with few minor exceptions taken care of by the Black bill, fully protect the public.

Our opposition to the revised Tugwell bill is as fully justified as was our original opposition. A careful study of the present bill will reveal that over a period of time its effect in regard to prevention of self-medication will become every bit as drastic as those contained in the original bill.

We appreciate your consideration of our previous objections and we are confident that our present protest will receive the same careful consideration. We shall again appreciate very much your writing us giving us your ideas of this bill, and we trust that in the interest of general public welfare you will vote against this bill.

Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SIR: Your attention is respectfully drawn to Copeland bill S. 2800. This is a further amendment to bill S. 1944.

All of the objections to S. 1944 can be applied to the last amendment, S. 2800. This latter amendment, which is quoted as meeting the objections to the original bill. actually does not do so and in some particulars is even more objectionable.

The industries affected have no objection to proper control of advertising, but such control should equally apply to all industries and should be adminis tered by the body properly constituted for that purpose, viz, the Federal Trade Commission, and not by the Secretary of Agriculture.

Any law enacted should not leave open the possibility of appointment of an advisory board composed exclusively of medical men who do not hide the fact that even their very primary training is against self-medication.

Bureaucratic control of inspection and permits is subject to the most serious abuse and the industries will not be permitted to exist under it, and it should be eliminated entirely.

We respectfully suggest that a law be enacted permitting and encouraging each of the affected industries to cooperate with the Government agencies to

correct malpractices and compelling correction only after the industries themselves could not or would not act.

We feel sure that this suggestion is in accord with the "new deal" and that bill S. 2800 is foreign to this idea and to American principles, and we would very much appreciate your help in defeating any such attempts to set up this un-American bureaucracy.

Respectfully yours,

THE ARNER CO., INC.

CHAS. W. P. ATKINSON, Vice President and Treasurer.

P.S.-Senator Copeland has given our industry only 20 minutes to present our side of the bill on February 27 at the hearing before the Senate Commerce Committe. If you feel that you are not in accord with any part of this bill, your appearance at the hearing would be very much appreciated.-C.P.A.

Hon. JAMES MEAD,

House Office Building, Washington, D.C.

FEBRUARY 26, 1934.

Your appearance at hearing on Senate bill 2800 tomorrow and your opposition thereto would be greatly appreciated by ourselves and others of your constituents.

SALE LITHOGRAPH CO.

FEBRUARY 26, 1934.

Hon. JAMES M. MEAD,

House Office Building, Washington, D.C. Would greatly appreciate your vigorously opposing before Senate Commerce hearing Tuesday S. 2800 as un-American and highly bureaucratic, tending to Sovietize manufacturing and merchandising business of America, and urging control of advertising remain with Federal Trade Commission.

[From the Chicago Tribune, Feb. 16, 1934]

THE TUGWELL BILL

J. H. CUMMINGS.

The propaganda demanding the enactment of the Tugwell bill without important amendment calls for intelligent discrimination on the part of Congress and the public. In spite of self-righteous assertion of noble motive, it is unscrupulous and reckless of the public good. It ascribes moral turpitude to any critic or dissenter and attempts to cover the deficiencies of the measure or overawe objections by this means. Fair-minded Americans will resent this effort to discredit rational criticism and legitimate objection by a process of bullying which has been employed before to bring about ineffective or injurious legislation.

Generally speaking, the bill, even in its moderately amended form, provides for broad and vague powers which no Government bureau should have, and should be thoroughly reconsidered in the interest of legitimate industry. There has been in our legal policy from the first the doctrine that it is better that nine guilty should escape than one innocent suffer, but this doctrine seems to have been reversed by the authors of the Tugwell bill. The definitions of offenses in the bill should be carefully considered in the interests of clarity and justice. The amendments devised by the subcommittee are not adequate in this respect. The legitimate industries and businesses concerned should not be subjected to impossible requirements or vagaries of bureaucratic regulation. Even more important than the correction of defects in the details of the bill is a sensible consideration of its general character and results. The bill as written requires the creation and maintenance of a very large corps of Federal agents to operate throughout the country in investigation and regulation. Congress should consider this aspect of the bill and determine whether public policy justifies the expansion of Federal bureaucratic supervision and regulation to the extent provided by the bill. We doubt that it does, but there can

be no rational doubt that Congress should not authorize any such expansion and public expenditure under the influence of clamor or until it has studied the actual extent of existing evils and considered how they can be corrected or restrained without unnecessarily or improperly burdening and endangering legitimate enterprise and putting upon the shoulders of the taxpayers an unnecessary burden of expense for the maintenance of a huge bureau.

The practical method of correcting the weaknesses of the present system of regulation is to amend it as experience with its operation has demonstrated that it needs amendment for public protection. But this would have fallen short of the ambitions of Professor Tugwell and Mr. Campbell, the authors of the measure, who seem to have an unrestrained enthusiasm for bureaucracy and very little regard for what it costs the public or whether its benefits are in proportion to its cost. The Nation has just rid itself of an expensive and widely demoralizing experiment in Federal regulation, and we are confident if given the chance to consider the new experiment will expect Congress to bring it within sensible proportions.

If there are loopholes in the existing Food and Drug Acts that jeopardize life, health, and fair dealing, they should be closed by appropriate amendment. Advertising and legitimate business should be protected from such abuses. But Congress should show some sense of proportion between the evils existing and the means of correction. There is at Washington at this time an unlimited enthusiasm for the increase of the power of Federal Government and the extension of its activities throughout the life of the Nation. Of this the Tugwell bill is an outstanding expression. But the disposal of the prohibition experiment does not indicate that this enthusiasm is shared by a substantial majority of the American people.

Hon. HUBERT D. STEPHENS,

ROCHESTER, N.Y., February 26, 1934.

Chairman Senate Committee on Commerce,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR SIR: We submit herewith the stand of the Rochester Chamber of Commerce on the so-called food and drugs bills: S. 2000 by Mr. Copeland; S. 2858 by Mr. McCarran. The Rochester Chamber of Commerce has taken this stand by action of its officers following a study of the subject by a special committee made up of representatives of the general public, of local health organizations, and of manufacturers of foods, drugs, and cosmetic products.

S. 2000 should be amended to eliminate the requirement of formula divulgement as provided in section 7 (f). Section 8 (a) should be eliminated in our opinion since the requirement is impracticable and further as a true representation of facts is secured by the application of section 6 (a). Section 17 (g) should be made more inclusive by removing the words "patentable" and "not protected by letters patent." Section 18 (b) should have its wording so changed as to provide that no employee of a person, corporation, or association be held liable for violation unless he actually and knowingly ordered the act which is in violation of the law.

S. 2858 could be improved by changing section 19 (b) to include the qualifications for members of the board of review. Such qualifications should require that the Government, the manufacturers, and the public be properly represented.

As between the two bills we believe no. 2858 is the more practical and should be preferred. We ask that you submit our views to the hearing on these two bills.

Very truly yours,

M. H. ESSER, General Secretary, Rochester Chamber of Commerce.

Hon. HUBERT D. STEPHENS,

WASHINGTON, D.C., February 27, 1934.

Chairman Senate Committee on Commerce,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR SIR: As manufacturers of a variety of food products we are naturally very much interested in the following drug and cosmetic bills which we are informed are now pending in the Senate:

S. 1944 (original Tugwell bill).

S. 2000 (revision of the Tugwell bill, S. 1944, written by Hon. Senator Copeland).

S. 2800 (latest revision of the Copeland bill S. 2000).

We understand that the Senate Committee on Commerce is holding hearings on these bills on Tuesday, February 27, 1934. We are therefore writing to you at this time to present a few facts which we believe you will want to consider. We are heartily in accord with the intention of these bills to increase the effectiveness of the present food law, to fix minimum standards for food and drug products, and to eliminate false advertising. However we respectfully protest against the following specific features of these bills:

(1) The combination of food products and cosmetics in one law.-It would seem that treating two such different types of products under the same bill and on the same basis would be both confusing and difficult to the administration and the public.

(2) The combination of the advertising regulation into these food bills.—It would seem that regulating this advertising could be handled more accurately and effectively entirely independent of the other provisions of the food regulations which are sufficiently complicated in themselves.

(3) The establishment of food standards by the Department of Agriculture. This is fundamentally under our Constitution a function of the legislative branch of our Government and not of the administrative.

While we realize that if the Congress of the United States were to pass on each food standard, they would have time for no other business, would it not be practicable for Congress to designate an impartial commission representing both manufacturers and consumers who could establish these food standards? Under the present law, as you know, "custom" is the basis for defining the various standards for food products, and surely the consumers and manufacturers are the best possible judges of just what is the accepted customary standard. The Department of Agriculture would naturally administer the standards after they had been established, but it would seem foreign to the spirit of democracy to have these standards determined in the first place by a bureau of the Federal Administrative Department.

(4) The proposed requirement that all manufacturers submit to factory inspection by Federal authorities.-An inspection of this sort should be more properly the function of the State government, and every effort should be made to have the State inspection very rigid. Furthermore, as a Federal inspection would apply only to factories doing interstate business, this requirement naturally could not be imposed upon firms doing business entirely within one State. Therefore this requirement would not apply equally to all food manufacturers, since those doing intrastate business would be exempt.

(5) The requirement that manufacturers secure a factory permit from the Federal Government.-This, too, would apply only to those firms doing an interstate business and would subject them to a regulation which could not be imposed upon manufacturers doing business entirely within one State, so that those doing an intrastate business could evade any regulations which might be placed by the Federal Government on the manufacturers who were required to have a Federal factory permit.

Furthermore, this regulation could be quite simply evaded even by manufacturers who do an interstate business, since they could set up a sales company independent of the company operating as the factory. The sales company could handle all the selling and distribution of the products, buying them direct from the factory company so that the factory company would technically be doing an intrastate business, selling to the sales company, and, therefore, would not be required to have a Federal factory permit under the law. In view of these possibilities it would seem that this particular feature might easily lead to bootlegging, since it would be just as difficult to enforce as was the prohibition law.

As mentioned above we are heartily in accord with the general intent of these bills. We feel, however, that their effectiveness would be increased by the removal of the features mentioned above, and we would appreciate your cooperation in having the bills amended along these lines.

Yours very truly,

SAMUEL H. BANKES, Blanke Baer Extract & Preserving Co.

WASHINGTON, February 27, 1934.

Hon. HUBERT D. STEPHENS,

Chairman Committee on Commerce, United States Senate,

Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Missouri Pharmaceutical Association, on behalf of its many members and their patrons all over the State, respectfully protest against the enactment of S. 2800 for the following reasons:

1. The present Federal Food and Drugs Act has served its purpose for 28 years, the number of cases of injury to the public from misbranded or adulterated food and drugs having been few compared to population.

2. There is no public demand for the repeal of the present law, because the public sees no need for it and certainly would ask its repeal if there was need. 3. Necessary amendments should be made by the enactment of S. 2355, or H.R. 6376, proposed by the National Drug Trade Conference, representing all branches of pharmacy and the drug trade and best qualified to prepare amendments. 4. The proposed law places the food, drug, and cosmetic industries at the mercy of the Secretary of Agriculture, aided by appointees of the President, except a small minority.

5. When formulae, labels, and advertising must be determined by the national administration it should assume full responsibility for the conduct of these industries by investing the necessary capital and relieving the enterprises now responsible for them.

6. Retail druggists would be responsible for representations made to their customers and wholesale druggists for statements of their salesmen to retail druggists under the provision of the bill governing advertising.

7. Congress enacted the National Industrial Recovery Act to promote reemployment and business recovery. The revised Tugwell bill would defeat this by unduly restricting the manufacture, advertising, and distribution of food, drugs, and cosmetics.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Secretary P. J. Garvin, of the Connecticut Pharmaceutical Association, wires the writer under date of the 27th instant as follows: "Connecticut Pharmaceutical Association unalterably opposed to the revised Tugwell bill. Giving any one man exclusive power is preposterous."

It is clear that the provision in the revised bill creating 2 committees to aid the Secretary of Agriculture in drafting regulations is being interpreted as in no way curtailing the Secretary's power to govern the industries affected by regulations made by the administration, because all of the members of the committees except 2 are to be apointed by the President who appointed the Secretary, and the 2 not appointed by the President shall be selected from the Food and Drug Administration by the Secretary. The integrity of our worthy President cannot be questioned, but the question of placing the control of private enterprises under the Government without the Government assuming financial responsibility for these enterprises may well be questioned. If the public policy reflected in the revised Tugwell bill is sound and necessary it should and must be applied to all industries now conducted by private enterprises and they should be relieved of all responsibility.