But I prefer to discover the true object of the organization of the "Proprietary Association of America" in another document than Article II of the by-laws. Consider the annual report of the treasurer, say for 1904. The total of money paid out during the year was $8,516.26. Of this, one thousand dollars was for the secretary's salary, leaving $7,516.26 to be accounted for. Then there is an item of postage, one of stationery, one of printing—the little routine expenses of every organization; and finally there is this remarkable item:
Legislative Committee, total expenses, $6,606.95.
Truly, the Proprietary Association of America seems to have severalobjects, as stated in its by-laws, which cost it very little, and one object—not stated in its by-laws at all—which costs it all its annual revenue aside from the routine expenses of stationery, postage and secretary. If just a few more words of comment may be permitted on this point, does it not seem odd that so large an item as $6,606.95, out of a total budget of only $8,516.26, should be put in as a lump sum, "Legislative Committee, total expenses"? And would not the annual report of the treasurer of the Proprietary Association of America be a more entertaining document if these "total expenses" of the Legislative Committee were carefully itemized?
Not that I mean to charge the direct corruption of legislatures. The Proprietary Association of America used to do that. They used to spend, according to the statement of the present president of the organization, Mr. F. J. Cheney, as much as seventy-five thousand dollars a year. But that was before Mr. Cheney himself discovered a better way. The fighting of public health legislation is the primary object and chief activity, the very raison d'etre, of the Proprietary Association. The motive back of bringing the quack doctors and patent-medicine manufacturers of the United States into a mutual organization was this: Here are some scores of men, each paying a large sum annually to the newspapers. The aggregate of these sums is forty million dollars. By organization, the full effect of this money can be got and used as a unit in preventing the passage of laws which would compel them to tell the contents of their nostrums, and in suppressing the newspaper publicity which would drive theminto oblivion. So it was no mean intellect which devised the scheme whereby every newspaper in America is made an active lobbyist for the patent-medicine association. The man who did it is the present president of the organization, its executive head in the work of suppressing public knowledge, stifling public opinion and warding off public health legislation, the Mr. Cheney already mentioned. He makes a catarrh cure which, according to the Massachusetts State Board of Health, contains fourteen and three-fourths per cent, of alcohol. As to his scheme for making the newspapers of America not only maintain silence, but actually lobby in behalf of the patent medicines, I am glad that I am not under the necessity of describing it in my own words. It would be easy to err in the direction that makes for incredulity. Fortunately, I need take no responsibility. I have Mr. Cheney's own words, in which he explained his scheme to his fellow-members of the Proprietary Association of America. The quotation marks alone (and the comment within the parentheses) are mine. The remainder is the language of Mr. Cheney himself:
"We have had a good deal of difficulty in the last few years with the different legislatures of the different states.... I believe I have a plan whereby we will have no difficulty whatever with these people. I have used it in my business for two years and know it is a practical thing.... I, inside of the last two years, have made contracts with between fifteen and sixteen thousand newspapers, and never had but one man refuse to sign the contract, and my saying to him that I could not sign a contract without this clause in it he readily signed it. My point is merely to shift the responsibility. We to-day have the responsibility on our shoulders. As you all know, there is hardly a year but we have had a lobbyist in the different state legislatures—one year in New York, one year in New Jersey, and so on." (Read that frank confession twice—note the bland matter-of-factness of it.) "There has been a constant fear that something would come up, so I had this clause in my contract added. This is what I have in every contract I make: 'It is hereby agreed that should your state, or the United States Government, pass any law that would interfere with or restrict the sale of proprietary medicines, this contract shall become void.'... In the state of Illinois a few years ago they wanted to assess me three hundred dollars. I thought I had a better plan than this, so I wrote to about forty papers and merely said: 'Please look at your contract with me and take note that if this law passes you and I must stop doing business, and my contracts cease.'" The next week every one of them had an article, and Mr. Man had to go....
I read this to Dr. Pierce some days ago and he was very much taken up with it. I have carried this through and know it is a success. I know the papers will accept it. Here is a thing that costs us nothing. We are guaranteed against the $75,000 loss for nothing. It throws the responsibility on the newspapers.... I have my contracts printed and I have this printed in red type, right square across the contract, so there can be absolutely no mistake, and the newspaper man can not say to me, 'I did not see it.' He did see it and knows what he is doing. It seems to me it is a point worth every man's attention.... I think this is pretty near a sure thing.
THIS IS THE FORM OF CONTRACT—SEE (A) (B) (C)—THAT MUZZLES THE PRESS OF THE UNITED STATES.
The gist of the contract lies in the clause which is marked with brackets, to the effect that the agreement is voidable, In case any matter detrimental to the advertiser's interests "Is permitted to appear in the reading columns, or elsewhere, in this paper." This clause, in the same words, appears in all three of these patent-medicine advertising contracts. The documents reproduced here were gathered from three different newspapers in widely separated parts of the United States. The name of the paper in each case has been suppressed in order to shield the publisher from the displeasure of the patent-medicine combination. How much publishers are compelled to fear this displeasure is exemplified by the experience of the ClevelandPress,from whose columns $18,000 worth of advertising was withdrawn within forty-eight hours.
I should like to ask the newspaper owners and editors of America what they think of that scheme. I believe that the newspapers, when they signed each individual contract, were not aware that they were being dragooned into an elaborately thought-out scheme to make every newspaper in the United States, from the greatest metropolitan daily to the remotest country weekly, an active, energetic, self-interested lobbyist for the patent-medicine association. If the newspapers knew how they were being used as cat's-paws, I believe they would resent it. Certainly the patent-medicine association itself feared this, and has kept this plan of Mr. Cheney's a careful secret. In this same meeting of the Proprietary Association of America, just after Mr. Cheney had made the speech quoted above, and while it was being resolved that every other patent-medicine man should put the same clause in his contract, the venerable Dr. Humphreys, oldest and wisest of the guild, arose and said: "Will itnot be now just as well to act on this, each and every one for himself, instead of putting this on record?... I think the idea is a good one, But really don't think it had better go in our proceedings." And another fellow nostrum-maker, seeing instantly the necessity of secrecy said: "I am heartily in accord with Dr. Humphreys. The suggestion is a good one, but when we come to put in our public proceedings, and state that we have adopted such a resolution, I want to say that the legislators are just as sharp as the newspaper men.... As a consequence, this will decrease the weight of the press comments. Some of the papers, also, who would not come in, would publish something about it in the way of getting square....."
This contract is the backbone of the scheme. The further details, the organization of the bureau to carry it into effect—that, too, has been kept carefully concealed from the generally unthinking newspapers, who are all unconsciously mere individual cogs in the patent-medicine lobbying machine. At one of the meetings of the association, Dr. R. V. Pierce of Buffalo arose and said (I quote him verbatim):... "I would move you that the report of the Committee on Legislation be made a special order to be taken up immediately... that it be considered in executive session, and that every person not a member of the organization be asked to retire, so that it may be read and considered in executive session. There are matters and suggestions in reference to our future action, and measures to be taken which are advised therein, that we would not wish to have published broadcast over the country for very good reasons."
Now what were the "matters and suggestions" which Dr. Pierce "would not wish to have published broadcast over the country for very good reasons?"
Can Mr. Cheney Reconcile These Statements?
Letter addressed to Mr. William Allen White, Editor of the Gazette, Emporia, Kan.
By Frank J. Cheney.
Dear Sir—
I have read with a great deal of interest, to-day, an article in Colliers illustrating therein the contract between your paper and ourselves, [see p. 18—Editor.]Mr. S. Hopkins Adams endeavored very hard (as I understand) to find me, but I am sorry to say that I was not at home. I really believe that I could have explained that clause of the contract to his entire satisfaction, and thereby saved him the humiliation of making an erratic statement.
This is the first intimation that I ever have had that that clause was put into the contract to control the Press in any way, or the editorial columns of the Press. I believe that if Mr. Adams was making contracts now, and making three-year contracts, the same as we are, taking into consideration the conditions of the different legislatures, he would be desirous of this same paragraph as a safety guard to protect himself, in case any State did pass a law prohibiting the sale of our goods.
His argument surely falls flat when he takes into consideration the conduct of the North Dakota Legislature, because every newspaper in that State that we advertise in hid contracts containing that clause. Why we should be compelled to pay for from one to two years' advertising or more, in a State where we could not sell our goods, is more than I can understand. As before stated, it is merely a precautionary paragraph to meet conditions such as nowexist in North Dakota. We were compelled to withdraw from that State because we would not publish our formula, and, therefore, under this contract, we are not compelled to continue our advertising.
America.
"We have had a good deal of difficulty in the last few years with the different legislatures of the different states.... I believe I have a plan whereby we will have no difficulty whatever with these people. I have used it in my business for two years, and I know it is a practical thing.... I, inside of the last two years, have made contracts with between fifteen and sixteen thousand newspapers, and never had but one man refuse to sign the contract, and by saying to him that I could not sign a contract without this clause in it he readily signed it. My point is merely to shift the responsibility. We to-day have the responsibility of the whole matter upon our shoulders....
"There? has been constant fear that something would come up, so I had this clause in my contract added. This is what I have in every contract I make: 'It is hereby agreed that should your State, or the United States government, pass any law that would interfere with or restrict the sale of proprietary medicines, his contract shall become void.'... In the State of Illinois a few years ago they wanted to assess me three hundred dollars. I thought I had a better plan than this, so I wrote to about forty papers, and merely said: 'Please look at your contract with me and take note that if this law passes you and I must stop doing business, and my contracts cease.' The next week every one of them had an article.... I have carried this through and know it is a success. I know the papers will accept it. Here is a thing that costs us nothing. We are guaranteed against the $75,000 loss for nothing. It throws the responsibility on the newspapers.... I have my contracts printed and I have this printed in red type, right square across the contract, so there can be absolutely no mistake, and the newspaper man can not say to me, 'I did not see it.' He did see it and knows what he is doing. It seems to me it is a point worth every man's attention.... I think this is pretty near a sure thing."
To illustrate: There are 739 publications in your State—619 of these are dailies and weeklies. Out of this number we are advertising in over 500, at an annual expenditure of $8,000 per year (estimated). We make a three-year contract with all of them, and, therefore, our liabilities in your State are $24,000, providing, of course, all these contracts were made at the same date. Should these contracts all be made this fall and your State should pass a law this winter (three months later) prohibiting the sale of our goods, there would be virtually a loss to us of $24,000. Therefore, for a business precaution to guard against just such conditions, we add the red paragraph referred to in Collier's.
I make this statement to you, as I am credited with being the originator of the paragraph, and I believe that I am justified in adding this paragraph to our contract, not for the purpose of controlling the Press, but, as before stated, as a business precaution which any man should take who expects to pay his bills.
Will you kindly give me your version of the situation? Awaiting an early reply, I am,
Sincerely yours,
Dr. Pierce's son, Dr. V. Mott Pierce, was chairman of the Committee on Legislation. He was the author of the "matters and suggestions" which must be considered in the dark. "Never before," said he, "in the history of the Proprietary Association were there so many bills in different state legislatures that were vital to our interests. This was due, we think, to an effort on the part of different state boards of health, who have of late years held national meetings, to make an organized effort to establish what are known as 'pure food laws.'" Then the younger Pierce stated explicitly the agency responsible for the defeat of this public health legislation: "We must not forget to place the honor where due for our uniform success in defeating class legislation directed against our legitimate pursuits. The American Newspaper Publishers' Association has rendered us valued aid through their secretary's office in New York and we can hardly overestimate the power brought to bear at Washington by individual newspapers."... (On another occasion, Dr. Pierce, speaking of two bills in the Illinois Legislature, said: "Two things operated to bring these bills to the danger line. In the first place, the Chicago papers were almost wholly without influence in the Legislature.... Had it not been for the active co-operation of the state outside of Chicago there is absolute certainty that the bill would have passed.... I think that a great many members do not appreciate the power that we can bring to bear on legislation through the press.") But this power, in young Dr. Pierce's opinion, must be organized and systematized. "If it is not presumptuous on the part of your chairman," he said modestly, "to outline a policy which experience seems to dictate for the future, it would be briefly as follows"—here the younger Pierce explains the "matters and suggestions" which must not be "published broadcast over the country." The first was "the organization of a Legislative Bureau, with its offices in New York or Chicago. Second, a secretary, to be appointed by the chairman of the Committee on Legislation, who will receive a stated salary, sufficiently large to be in keeping with such person's ability, and to compensate him for the giving of all his time to this work."
"The benefits of such a working bureau to the Proprietary Association," said Dr. Pierce, "can be foreseen: First, a systematic plan to acquire early knowledge of pending or threatened legislation could be taken up. In the past we have relied too much on newspaper managers to acquaint us of such bills coming up.... Another plan would be to have the regulation formula bill, for instance, introduced by some friendly legislator, and have it referred to his own committee, where he could hold it until all danger of such another bill being introduced were over, and the Legislature had adjourned."
Little wonder Dr. Pierce wanted a secret session to cover up the franknaïveté of his son, which he did not "wish to have published broadcast over the country, for very good reasons."
This letter was sent by the publishers of one of the leading newspapers of Wisconsin to Senator Noble of that state. It illustrates the method adopted by the patent-medicine makers to compel the newspapers In each state to do their lobbying for them. Senator Noble introduced a bill requiring patent-medicine manufacturers to state on their labels the percentage of various poisons which every bottle might contain. Senator Noble and a few others fought valiantly for their bill throughout the whole of the last session of the Wisconsin Legislature, but were defeated by the united action of the newspaper publishers, who, as this letter shows, exerted pressure of every kind, Including threats, to compel members of the Legislature to vote against the bill.
In discussing this plan for a legislative bureau, another member told what in his estimation was needed. "The trouble," said he—I quote from the minutes—"the trouble we will have in attempting to buy legislation—supposing we should attempt it—is that we will never know what we are buying until we get through. We may have paid the wrong man, and the bill is passed and we are out. It is not a safe proposition, if we consider it legitimate, which we do not."
True, it is not legitimate, but the main point is, it's not safe; that's the thing to be considered.
The patent-medicine man continued to elaborate on the plans proposed by Dr. Pierce: "It would not be a safe proposition at all. What this association should have... is a regularly established bureau.... We should have all possible information on tap, and we should have a list of the members of the legislature of every state. We should have a list of the most influential men that control them, or that can influence them.... For instance, if in the state of Ohio a bill comes up that is adverse to us, turn to the books, find out who are members of the legislature there, who are the publishers of the papers in the state, where they are located, which are the Republican and which the Democratic papers.... It will take money, but if the money is rightly spent, it will be the best investment ever made."
That is about as comprehensive, as frankly impudent a scheme of controlling legislation as it is possible to imagine. The plan was put in the form of a resolution, and the resolution was passed. And so the Proprietary Association of America maintains a lawyer in Chicago, and a permanent secretary, office and staff. In every state it maintains an agent whose business it is to watch during the session of the Legislature each day's batch of new bills, and whenever a bill affecting patent medicines shows its head to telegraph the bill, verbatim, to headquarters. There some scores of printed copies of the bill are made, and a copy is sent to every member of the association—to the Peruna people, to Dr. Pierce at Buffalo, to Kilmer at Birmingham, to Cheney at Toledo, to the Pinkham people at Lynn, and to all the others. Thereon each manufacturer looks up the list of papers in the threatened state with which he has the contracts described above. And to each newspaper he sends a peremptory telegram calling the publisher's attention to the obligations of his contract, and commanding him to go to work to defeat the anti-patent-medicine bill. In practice, this organization works with smooth perfection and well-oiled accuracy to defeat the public health legislation which is introduced by boards of health in over a score of states every year. To illustrate, let me describe as typical the history of the public health bills which were introduced and defeated in Massachusetts last year. I have already mentioned them as showing how the newspapers, obeying that part of their contract which requires them to print nothing harmful to patent medicines, refused to print any account of the exposures which were made by several members of the Legislature during the debate of the bill. I wish here to describe their obedience to that other clause of thecontract, in living up to which they printed scores of bitterly partisan editorials against the public health bill, and against its authors personally; threatened with political death those members of the Legislature who were disposed to vote in favor of it, and even, in the persons of editors and owners, went up to the State House and lobbied personally against the bill. And since I have already told of Mr. Cheney's author-ship of the scheme, I will here reproduce, as typical of all the others (all the other large patent-medicine concerns sent similar letters and telegrams), the letter which Mr. Cheney himself on the 14th day of February sent to all the newspapers in Massachusetts with which he has lobbying contracts—practically every newspaper in the state:
"Toledo, Ohio, Feb. 14, 1905.
"Publishers
"——- Mass.
"Gentlemen:
"Should House bills Nos. 829, 30, 607, 724, or Senate bill No. 185 become laws, it will force us to discontinue advertising in your state. Your prompt attention regarding this bill we believe would be of mutual benefit.
"We would respectfully refer you to the contract which we have with you.
"Respectfully,
"Cheney Medicine Company."
Now here is the fruit which that letter bore: a strong editorial against the anti-patent-medicine bill, denouncing it and its author in the most vituperative language, a marked copy of which was sent to every member of the Massachusetts Legislature. But this was not all that this one zealous publisher did; he sent telegrams to a number of members, and a personal letter to the representative of his district calling on that member not only to vote, but to use his influence against the bill, on the pain of forfeiting the paper's favor.
Now this seems to me a shameful thing—that a Massachusetts newspaper, of apparent dignity and outward high standing, should jump to the cracking of the whip of a nostrum-maker in Ohio; that honest and well-meaning members of the Massachusetts Legislature, whom all the money of Rockefeller could not buy, who obey only the one thing which they look on as the expression of the public opinion of their constituents, the united voice of the press of their district—that these men should unknowingly cast their votes at the dictate of a nostrum-maker in Ohio, who, if he should deliver his command personally and directly, instead of through a newspaper supine enough to let him control it for a hundred dollars a year, would be scorned and flouted.
Any self-respecting newspaper must be humiliated by the attitude of the patent-medicine association. They don't ASK the newspapers to do it—they ORDER it done. Read again Mr. Cheney's account of his plan, note the half-contemptuous attitude toward the newspapers. And read again Mr. Cheney's curt letter to the Massachusetts papers; Observe the threat, just sufficiently veiled to make it more of a threat; and the formal order from a superior to a clerk: "We would respectfully refer you to the contract which we have with you."
And the threat is not an empty one. The newspaper which refuses to aid the patent-medicine people is marked. Some time ago Dr. V. MottPierce of Buffalo was chairman of what is called the "Committee on Legislation" of the Proprietary Association of America. He was giving his annual report to the association. "We are happy to say," said he, "that though over a dozen bills were before the different State Legislatures last winter and spring, yet we have succeeded in defeating all the bills which were prejudicial to proprietary interests without the use of money, and through the vigorous co-operation and aid of the publishers. January 23 your committee sent out letters to the principal publications in New York asking their aid against this measure. It is hardly necessary to state that the publishers of New York responded generously against these harmful measures. The only small exception was theEvening Starof Poughkeepsie, N. Y., the publisher of which, in a very discourteous letter, refused to assist us in any way."
Is it to be doubted that Dr. Pierce reported this exception to his fellow patent-medicine men, that they might make note of the offending paper, and bear it in mind when they made their contracts the following year? There are other cases which show what happens to the newspaper which offends the patent-medicine men. I am fortunate enough to be able to describe the following incident in the language of the man who wielded the club, as he told the story with much pride to his fellow patent-medicine men at their annual meeting:
"Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Proprietary Association," said Mr. Cooper, "I desire to present to you a situation which I think it is incumbent on manufacturers generally to pay some attention to—namely, the publication of sensational drug news which appears from time to time in the leading papers of the country.... There are, no doubt, many of you in the room, at least a dozen, who are familiar with the sensational articles that appeared in the ClevelandPress. Gentlemen, this is a question that appeals to you as a matter of business.... The Cleveland Press indulged in a tirade against the so-called 'drug trust.'... (the 'drug trust' is the same organization of patent-medicine men—including Pierce, Pinkham, Peruna, Kilmer and all the well-known ones—which I have referred to as the patent-medicine association. Its official name is the Proprietary Association of America.) "I sent out the following letter to fifteen manufacturers" (of patent medicines):
"'Gentlemen—Inclosed we hand you a copy of matter which is appearing in the Cleveland papers. It is detrimental to the drug business to have this matter agitated in a sensational way.
In behalf of the trade we would ask you to use your influence with the papers in Cleveland to discontinue this unnecessary publicity, and if you feel you can do so, we would like to have you wire the business managers of the Cleveland papers to discontinue their sensational drug articles, as it is proving very injurious to your business. Respectfully, E. R. Cooper.'
"Because of that letter which we sent out, the Cleveland Press received inside of forty-eight hours telegrams from six manufacturers canceling thousands of dollars' worth of advertising and causing a consequent dearth of sensational matter along drug lines. It resulted in a loss to one paper alone of over eighteen thousand dollars in advertising. Gentlemen, when you touch a man's pocket, you touch him where he lives; that principleis true of the newspaper editor or the retail druggist, and goes through all business."
That is the account of how the patent-medicine man used his club on the newspaper head, told in the patent-medicine man's own words, as he described it to his fellows. Is it pleasant reading for self-respecting newspaper men—the exultant air of those last sentences, and the worldly wisdom: "When you touch a man's pocket you touch him where he lives; that principle is true of the newspaper editor..."?
But the worst of this incident has not yet been told. There remains the account of how the offending newspaper, in the language of the bully, "ate dirt". The ClevelandPressis one of a syndicate of newspapers, all under Mr. McRae's ownership—but I will use Mr. Cooper's own words: "We not only reached the ClevelandPressby the movement taken up in that way, but went further, for the ClevelandPressis one of a syndicate of newspapers known as the Scripps-McRae League, from whom this explanation is self-explanatory:
"'Office Schipps-McRae Press Association.
"'Mr. E. R. Cooper, Cleveland, Ohio:
"'Mr. McRae arrived in New York the latter part of last week after a three months' trip to Egypt. I took up the matter of the recent cut-rate articles which appeared in the ClevelandPresswith him, and to-day received the following telegram from him from Cincinnati: 'Scripps-McRae papers will contain no more such as ClevelandPresspublished concerning the medicine trust—M. A. McRae.'
"'I am sure that in the future nothing will appear in the Cleveland Press detrimental to your interests.
"'Yours truly,
"'F. J. Carlisle.'"
This incident was told, in the exact words above quoted, at the nineteenth annual meeting of the Proprietary Association of America.
I could, if space permitted, quote many other telegrams and letters from the Kilmer's Swamp Root makers, from the Piso's Cure people, from all the large patent-medicine manufacturers. The same thing that happened in Massachusetts happened last year in New Hampshire, in Wisconsin, in Utah, in more than fifteen states. In Wisconsin the response by the newspapers to the command of the patent-medicine people was even more humiliating than in Massachusetts. Not only did individual newspapers work against the formula bill; there is a "Wisconsin Press Association," which includes the owners and editors of most of the newspapers of the state. That association held a meeting and passed resolutions, "that we are opposed to said bill... providing that hereafter all patent medicine sold in this state shall have the formula thereof printed on their labels," and "Resolved, That the association appoint a committee of five publishers to oppose the passage of the measure." And in this same state the larger dailies in the cities took it on themselves to drum up the smaller country papers and get them to write editorials opposed to the formula bill. Nor was even this the measure of their activity in response to the command of the patent medicine association. I am able to give the letter which is here reproduced [see page 86].It was sent by the publisher of one of the largest daily papers in Wisconsin to the state senator whointroduced the bill. In one western state, a board of health officer made a number of analyses of patent medicines, and tried to have the analyses made public, that the people of his state might be warned. "Only one newspaper in the state," he says in a personal letter, "was willing to print results of these analyses, and this paper refused them after two publications in which a list of about ten was published.
In New Hampshire—but space forbids. Happily there Is a little silver in the situation. The legislature of North Dakota last year passed, and the governor signed a bill requiring that patent-medicine bottles shall have printed on their labels the percentage of alcohol or of morphin or various other poisons which the medicine contains. That was the first success in a fight which the public health authorities have waged in twenty states each year for twenty years. In North Dakota the patent-medicine people conducted the fight with their usual weapons, the ones described above. But the newspapers, be it said to their everlasting credit, refused to fall in line to the threats of the patent-medicine association. And I account for that fact in this way: North Dakota is wholly a "country" community.
It has no city of over 20,000, and but one over 5,000. The press of the state, therefore, consists of very small papers, weeklies, in which the ownership and active management all lie with one man. The editorial conscience and the business manager's enterprise lie under one hat. With them the patent-medicine scheme was not so successful as with the more elaborately organized newspapers of older and more populous states.
Just now is the North Dakota editor's time of trial. The law went into effect July 1. The patent-medicine association, at their annual meeting in May, voted to withdraw all their advertising from all the papers in that state. This loss of revenue, they argued self-righteously, would be a warning to the newspapers of other states. Likewise it would be a lesson to the newspapers of North Dakota. At the next session of the legislature they will seek to have the label bill repealed, and they count on the newspapers, chastened by a lean year, to help them. For the independence they have shown in the past, and for the courage they will be called on to show in the future, therefore, let the newspapers of North Dakota know that they have the respect and admiration of all decent people.
"What is to be done about it?" is the question that follows exposure of organized rascality. In few cases is the remedy so plain as here. For the past, the newspapers, in spite of these plain contracts of silence, must be acquitted of any very grave complicity. The very existence of the machine that uses and directs them has been a carefully guarded secret. For the future, be it understood that any newspaper which carries a patent-medicine advertisement knows what it is doing. The obligations of the contract are now public property. And one thing more, when next a member of a state legislature arises and states, as I have so often heard: "Gentlemen, this label bill seems right to me, but I can not support it; the united press of my district is opposed to it"—when that happens, let every one understand the wires that have moved "the united press of my district."
The Following are Extracts and Abstracts from Various Articles in the Ladies Home Journal?
A great show of frankness was recently made by a certain "patent medicine." The makers advertised that they had concluded to take the public into their confidence, and that thereafter they would print a formula of the medicine on each bottle manufactured.
"There is nothing secretive about our medicine," was the cry. "We have nothing to hide. Here is the formula. Show it to your physician."
Then comes the formula: This herb and that herb, this ingredient and that ingredient, and the formula winds up, "etc." All good, old-fashioned, well recognized drugs were those which were mentioned—all except the "etc."
A certain Board of Pharmacy had never heard of a drug called "etc.," and so made up Its mind to find out.
And the "etc." was found to be 3.76 per cent of cocain!—just the simple, death-dealing cocain!—FromThe Ladies' Home Journal, February, 1906.
One of the most disgusting and disgraceful features of the patent medicine business is the marketing of letters sent by patients to patent medicine firms. Correspondence is solicited by these firms under the seal of sacred confidence. When the concern is unable to do further business with a patient it disposes of the patient's correspondence to a letter-broker, who, in turn, disposes of it to other patent medicine concerns at the rate of half a cent, for each letter.
This Information was made public by Mark Sullivan in theLadies' Home Journalfor January, 1906.
An advertisement showing how the names to orders sent to "Patent Medicine" concerns are offered for sale or rent to be used by others.
Yet we are told how "Sacredly Confidential" these letters are regarded and held. (The advertisement is from theMail Order Journal, April, 1905.)
Says Mr. Sullivan: "One of these brokers assured me he could give me 'choice lots' of 'medical female letters'... Let me now give you, from the printed lists of these 'letter brokers' some idea of the way in which these'sacredly confidential' letters are hawked about the country. Here are a few samples, all that are really printable:
"'55,000 Female Complaint Letters' Is the sum total of one Item, and the list gives the names of the "medicine company" or the "medical institute" to whom they were addressed. Here is a barter, then, in 55,000 letters of a private nature, each one of which, the writer was told, and had a right to expect, would be regarded as sacredly confidential by the "doctor" or concern to whom she had been deluded into telling her private ailments. Yet here they are for half a cent each!
"Another batch of some 47,000 letters addressed to five 'doctors' and 'institutes' is emphasized because they were all written by women! A third batch is:
"'44,000 Bust Developer Letters'—letters which one man in a "patent medicine" concern told me were "the richest sort of reading you could get hold of."
"A still further lot offers: '40,000 Women's Regulator Letters'—letters which in their context any woman can naturally imagine would be of the most delicate nature. Still, the fact remains, here thy are for sale."
Is not this contemptible?
In the same article Mr. Sullivan exposes the inhuman greed of patent medicine concerns that turn into cold cash the letters of patients afflicted with the most vital diseases.
To quote Mr. Sullivan again: "All these are made the subject of public barter. Here are offered for sale, for example: 7,000 Paralysis Letters; 9,000 Narcotic Letters; 52,000 Consumption Letters; 3,000 Cancer Letters, and even 65,000 Deaf Letters. Of diseases of the most private nature one is offered here nearly one hundred thousand letters—letters the very classification of which makes a sensitive person shudder."