* * *

which, when left to the compromise of opposed forces, may or may not be settled satisfactorily The only genuine alternative to conflict is, in this field, control, a policy, to be sure, which displeases most Americans, who are so jealous of the individual rights that they prefer society to suffer rather than invade any person's traditional prerogatives. If these prerogatives, however, tend in the direction of undermining social institutions we may, in time, be forced to make many concessions.

"One thing seems fairly clear; low prices are good policy, not only for consumers, but for industry as well. Here, of course, we run again on to the distinction between business and industry, or, if it is preferred, between good individual and good social policy. * It is apparent that what may be good business may also be bad economics. Public policy will ultimately be founded on good economics, and business will have to conform. The sooner this happens, the better for all involved. When it does happen, it might perhaps be safe to guess that the social direction of capital allocation and price control will be two features of the program."

IV. But, granting the importance and desirability of controlling prices, there are many practical difficulties in the way: The Constitution, the fixedness of relationships between the Government and business, and the difficulty of making any changes whatever in the direction of greater social control.

(See pp. 192):

"Our form of government is fixed in a series of formal relationships so difficult to change that alteration almost never occurs. Matters of deep emotional stress, such as prohibition was, can override all difficulties. And so we get an occasional, though infrequent, amendment. But the workaday world is a prosaic affair. The price of bread or the profits of a shoe manufacturer are not charged with emotional content. And so there is no amendment which relates to industry. If there is a social will in the matter, it is spasmodic, unpersistent, and results in few new institutions. The whole field of industrial regulation is left to the definition of the courts-and they are, to speak very mildly indeed, conservative."

V. Nevertheless, a national plan is necessary-one that will substitute control for the "utter failure of laissez faire" and the "miserable chaos of economic affairs." But because of the difficulty of amending the Constitution to make such a plan legal, it may be easier to examine the extent to which existing weapons can be "stretched" for the purpose of accomplishing the same purpose. We must use the instruments that are at hand, even though they may be antiquated and not entirely suited to the purpose. We shall have sometimes to use what seem like rather devious approaches. Some subterfuge may need to be employed.

"(These considerations) cause many social theorists to feel that it is a legitimate function of the Federal Government to make and execute such a national plan. * * * It is undoubtedly within the Federal power to prepare such a plan; the difficulties would arise when it came to be put into effect.

"If industries were to be controlled, incorporation of business enterprises would need, in effect, to be transferred from the States to the Nation, though some subterfuge might need to be employed; * * * prices would have to be controlled; and some vital interests, now partly or wholly neglected, would need to be protected. These last would include the weaker businesses, consumers, workers, farmers, and technicians.

* * *

"Those who denounce in certain terms the utter failure of laissez faire and the miserable chaos of affairs-especially economic ones- -which, they say, has followed insidiously upon its decline, are willing to work for such a change in opinion as will lead the public to accept the logic of its own attitudes, to substitute the specific and the practical for the general and the futile.

"That victory is still to be won; but there seems sufficient probability of final acceptance, at least, to warrant further exploration of possibilities. There are those who will say that what the public actively desires, it will find ways to achieve; but it is worth noting that such achievements are easier if some scouting is carried on ahead of the event, if possibilities are explored and experimented with in the imagination. One possibility is constitutional amendment. But that seems far

off indeed.

"Are there ways in which existing institutions can be used to attain the same results? On the whole, it is better to make use, so far as that can be done, of familiar instruments; it is easier to persuade people to acceptance if what is to be done can be shown to involve, not something new and untried, but merely the extension of present half recognized and feebly used means" (pp. 201-302).

"The instrument with which we have to work is *

* poorly suited to its purpose. * * * The State cannot control; the Nation is not permitted

to do so. Such a situation is ideally suited to the defensive purposes of those who want nothing done. And the problem is made doubly difficult for those who do. For not only does the desirability of doing it have to be demonstrated, but also the ways in which it can be done, without Constitutional limitations. Our reformers are faced with the necessity of using an antiquated instrument to accomplish their ends. This is the reason why for what sometimes seems rather devious approaches to simple problems" (pp. 217-218).

VI. One of these "subterfuges"-one of the "devious approaches" to which it is necessary to resort-is the extension of the idea of "the Federal police power." We cannot constitutionally control, directly, the prices of food products—nor the profits of food manufacturers. Yet, in the interest of our basic philosophy, such control (according to Mr. Tugwell) is highly desirable. Advertising is wasteful-and adds to the price paid by the consumer-and detracts from the price received by the farmer. Branding, elaborate packaging, inflated claims to special quality, with exaggerated ballyhoo, are all, more or less, attempts to escape the necessity of honest market expansion through decreased prices. It is doubtful whether nine tenths of our sales effort and expense serves any good social purpose." Therefore, in the interest of price control, advertising should be controlled, probably sharply curtailed, perhaps abolished. And this can be done deviously, by subterfuge, without letting the public know that something new and untried is being experimented with, under the guise of "protecting the health of the public.'

Thus:

"As to the making of shoddy, misrepresented, or adulterated goods, it has been easier to enlist Federal interference. The Pure Food and Drugs Act stands as a monument. It shows, moreover, what can be done with an extension of the idea of a Federal police power. Why this cannot be stretched [sic] to include the protection of other vital interests, admitted to be injured, must be left for explanation to the more subtle minds among constitutional lawyers. Perhaps it is a greater or a different injury when one is forced to buy misrepresented bread or shoddy clothes than it is when one is forced to pay an exorbitant price for them; but to the lay mind, the difference is too narrow to fathom. Ideally, competition is supposed to prevent both; actually, it prevents neither. But one injury we outlaw, and the other we do not" (p. 195).

STATEMENT BY MRS. HARVEY W. WILEY, PRESIDENT DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FEDERATION OF WOMEN'S CLUBS

At a regular meeting of the District of Columbia Federation of Women's Clubs, the following motion was passed:

The District of Columbia Federation of Women's Clubs endorse the principles of bill S. 1944 and recommend its passage without substantial modification.

The District of Columbia Federation of Women's Clubs consists of 29 clubs composed of about 5,000 members, here in the Nation's Capital. The members of my federation have given careful study to the provisions of the bill amending the present food and drugs law. The great majority of them believe that bill S. 1944 embodies all the provisions and spirit of the old law but that it stops the gaps and eliminates the compromises which Dr. Wiley was obliged to accept in 1906, in order to get any law at all. This bill leaves open the way for control of new foods, drugs, and cosmetics which may be invented or compounded in the future. Some of the most important of the new provisions I know were recommended by Dr. Wiley himself. Among these were the authority to establish legal food standards, the control of cosmetics, and the requirement for more informative labeling. Everyone seems to be unanimous in the demand for an amendment of the old law to meet the changed conditions of the last 27 years. We feel that no other bill can be as

disinterested as this bill, drawn as it has been by the officials of the Food and Drugs Administration, after 27 years of enforcement experience. Believing that its various provisions have been drawn to protect the consumer we hope that it may be passed without substantial modification.

I submit for the record a copy of a speech delivered by me on this bill before the District of Columbia Federation of Women's Clubs. (The speech follows:)

During the 3 weeks since our last meeting so much has been said and written about the proposed bill amending the present food law that it now seems the wise and courageous thing for clubwomen to do is to sift the wheat from the chaff and to support the administration bill, S. 1944, framed in the United States Department of Agriculture by responsible and experienced food officials. To make any progress we must stand by a definite measure. Someone has got to draft a specific bill to embody the principles which everybody is clammoring for. Who is better fitted to do this than the enforcing officials, who from actual experience know the loopholes of the present law? Mrs. Ellis Logan's motion wisely says to endorse the principles of bill S. 1944 and recommends its passage without substantial modification. This motion admits of changing words here and there but preserves the actual motivating principles of the bill.

The new bill embodies all the provisions and spirit of the old law, but it stops the gaps and eliminates the compromises which Dr. Wiley was obliged to accept, in order to get any law at all in 1906. This bill also leaves open the way for control of new foods, drugs, and cosmetics which may be invented or compounded in the future. To amend the old law by grafting on the new provisions would have been to create a hodge-podge. Some of the most important of the new provisions were in fact recommended by Dr. Wiley. Among these were the authority to establish legal food standards, the control of cosmetics and the requirement for more informative labeling.

I want to answer some of the objections made to the bill recently at the New York State Federation meeting on November 15. The New York State Federation did not endorse the Tugwell bill but went on record as favoring the objectives of the bill and appointed a special committee to make a further study of the measure. This action was brought about by the statement of a Mr. C. Houston Goudiss. At the top of the paper on which Mr. Goudiss' speech is typed are the words: "Information Committee, The Proprietary Association, 80 Varick Street, New York City." The Proprietary Association is an association of patent medicine manufacturers.

Mr. Goudiss said: "Early in my career I came under the benign influence of the late Dr. Harvey W. Wiley. I was privileged to support him in his work; to fight with him against unscrupulous opposition. * * * Were Dr. Wiley alive today, I am sure that he would be standing here, instead of me. And if I presume to wear his mantle, it is because I feel that the great urgency of the situation calls upon me to do so.

I have never heard Dr. Wiley mention Mr. C. Houston Goudiss, and inquiry at the Department of Agriculture discloses the fact that no correspondence between Dr. Wiley and Mr. Goudiss between 1905 and 1911, when Dr. Wiley resigned, is on file.

Mr. Goudiss opposes bill S. 1944.

(1) He begins by opposing the term "general agreement of medical opinion in regard to the misbranding of drugs (sec. 8 (a) (2)). At the hearings it was conceded by the authorities that they were willing to insert the word “ contemporary" before "medical opinion.

Enforcing officials point out that the only reasonable source of information about the effectiveness of a medicine is in the medical profession. They cannot secure such information from lawyers, clergymen, or engineers. They further point out that the terms of this bill require first that they establish that there is an agreement of medical opinion and second that the medicine under consideration makes curative claims contrary to this agreement. If there is no agreement of medical opinion regarding the efficacy of a medicine the Government will have no case against it.

(2) Mr. Goudiss says this bill puts too much power in the hands of the Secretary of Agriculture. Every law has to indicate some enforcing official. The enforcing official, no matter who he is, has to delegate the job to some person in his bureau to do the work. In the past Secretary James Wilson abated 6,202 of

the 9,866 cases reported by the Bureau of Chemistry between 1907 and 1911 as alleged violations of the law. At that time the Bureau of Chemistry initiated the proceedings in regard to adulterations and misbrandings but Secretary James Wilson prevented the prosecution of two thirds of all cases recommended for trial. (See the speech of Hon. Ralph W. Moss in the House of Representatives, Feb. 27, 1912. Government Printing Office 31771-10629, 1912, p. 11.) So an appointive official can circumvent the law for the protection of the public if he wants to, no matter how the law reads, but I believe that the great majority of our public officials are fine men. To those who claim that to make standards, place factories under a permit system, to enter factories for purposes of inspection, to enjoin a manufacturer from further violations of the law places too much power in the hands of the Secretary, it is well to remember that it is a rule of the Supreme Court that any regulation or standard made as a result of congressional authority to do so, must not be unreasonable, capricious, or arbitrary, and besides, all conferred authority is subject to review of the courts.

(3) Mr. Goudiss says that the bill will prevent self-medication. There is no basis for this statement. Self-medication, on the contrary, is to be made safe by this bill. Nine people out of ten will not take time to read this bill for themselves. They will hear a statement like this and then go and telegraph their Congressmen against the bill. And if enough such telegrams are sent they will kill the bill.

One lady told me yesterday that it would be impossible to buy a bottle of listerine without a doctor's prescription, under this bill. This will not happen. Listerine has gained its recent vogue on a campaign of fear. It does not cure halitosis. It merely changes a chemical odor for another odor. Under this bill druggists will be able to make a quicker turn-over on their shelves. They will not have to carry such a great number of seldom-used proprietary medicines. This bill will prevent advertisement or labeling of medicines for cancer, tuberculosis, diabetes, arthritis, and other diseases, which are incurable. It requires medicines which are not cures to be labeled to show that they are not cures but palliatives.

(4) Mr. Goudiss says that formulae disclosures will result in "confiscation of highly valuable trade assets." Today many proprietary medicines have their ingredients stated. All medical preparations exported into South America are compelled to have their ingredients stated. Anyway, any good chemist can find out by chemical analysis what is in a secret preparation. Some people are sensitive to aspirin, or acetanilide. They should know what they are taking. The bill requires informative labeling which information a customer has a right to know. It prohibits fraud and prohibits the sale of poisonous cosmetics and drugs.

(5) Mr. Goudiss told of a man who spent $20,000 perfecting a spaghetti sauce. This man it is suggested might be ruined by label disclosures. The bill merely asks that the principal ingredients be stated, flour, dried milk, eggs, fats, flavoring, etc. The trick of making the sauce is not disclosed. Any housewife wants to know the character of the food she is buying. Women are becoming more and more persistent for information on labels. Diabetic persons must avoid sugar. Others have an idiosyncracy for eggs. They want to know what is in the preparations they are buying.

(6) Mr. Goudiss predicts that the Tugwell bill if enacted would jeopardize the jobs of 2,000,000 workers. I cannot believe that that many people are engaged in occupations calculated to deceive the public; but if they are, then they should be stopped. I believe the great majority of our business men are high-minded, conscientious, and striving to serve the public interest.

I have been told that this bill would put an end to the chewing-gum business, where it is stated that a food is an adulteration "if it is confectionery and contains nonnutritive substances" (sec. 3 (c)). The Food and Drug Administration is willing to add to the list of exceptions to this article, "except coloring and flavoring and masticatory substances used in chewing gum."

Mr. Robert M. Allen, former food official of the State of Kentucky, in a public letter to Mr. Goudiss printed in Insurance, November 14, 1933, page 155, says in reply: "I refer to your claim to have inherited Dr. Wiley's mantle. Your address, as reported, would make any and all connected with Dr. Wiley during his fight feel that you are even as far away from the hem of his mantle as the North Pole is from the South Pole. I have read the bill with care and when it is summed up it can be stated that its provisions include nothing more than the truth and the whole truth about what people take into their stomachs, or what is relied upon in the matter of disease, together with appropriate, fair, and practical machinery for putting this into effect."

There is much that could be said about the provisions of the bill with regard to advertising. Here, as with foods and drugs, the honest high minded advertiser need not fear this bill. Advertising can be truthful and efficient at the same time. It was carefully censored advertising, under Dr. Wiley's pruning knife, which made Goodhousekeeping Magazine so successful. He discarded millions of dollars' worth of advertising during his 18 years of censorship but that very high standard brought other millions to the pages of the magazine. How we all long for truth in advertising!

From every standpoint this bill is the desirable bill to stand back of. It is written from a disinterested standpoint. Its proponents have nothing to gain from its enforcement except a desire to protect the public. It has the administration behind it. What an extraordinary fact that is! Never before in my lifetime has any administration been actively back of a reform of the food law. From my intimate knowledge of Dr. Wiley's life and writings I am sure he would endorse the bill.

Mr. Goudiss presumed to wear Dr. Wiley's mantle when he made his speech before the New York State Federation of Women's Clubs and he said he felt sure Dr. Wiley would be where he was, namely against the Tugwell bill. Now I do not presume to wear his mantle. He was a doctor of medicine and began his study in a day when the whole countryside was his laboratory. He read medicine with old Dr. Hampton of Madison, Ind., and drove from house to house with Dr. Hampton in an old-fashioned buggy, later taking his M.D. from Indiana Medical College. He was a chemist of great ability. He took his degree of Bachelor of Science at Harvard in that subject and taught the science for many years at Indiana Medical College, Butler University and Purdue University. But most of all he was a man of courage. It was not his knowledge of medicine or of chemistry which made him the "father of the pure food law." It was because he had the courage to stand against the pressure of his time and insist upon the principles for which he fought. I do not presume to wear his mantle but I do bear his name and in the close association of 19 years of sharing his home I know that he would stand for this bill. His book "The History of a Crime Against the Food Law" was written in 1929 because he thought the officials of the Food and Drug Administration were too lenient. He believed that the measure was a punitive measure and not an educational one. He did not believe in a "tap on the wrist" and an admonition "to be good" when a manufacturer or any other person broke the law. He had many enemies because of the stand he took. But his friends and adherents loved him for the enemies he had made. Many of us here today are Daughters of the American Revolution. I am one. We are proud of our ancestry and blood. But did those whose names we honor back in 1776 know the outcome of the stand they took? Was every issue clear cut and finished in all its details? I think not. They took their stand and pledged their lives and their sacred honor in behalf of a great general principle, that the people in this country should have the right to govern themselves. Only one third of the people then were patriots and two thirds were so-called "Tories," good enough people, who believed in the English Crown and did not want to lose their property. But if we are good members of the Daughters of the American Revolution we must be worthy of the courage of our ancestors and also stand for a great moral principle, the principle of truth in advertising, in the preparation of food, of drugs, and of cosmetics. Who fears the truth?

I don't say it is going to be easy to stand for bill S. 1944. But the time comes to each of us at some time to take a stand on some great question, whether it is popular or not. Do you remember what Saint John the Divine wrote under the influence of the Holy Spirit to the Angel of the Church of the Laodiceans, in the third chapter of The Revelation? "I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot; I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth." Not pleasant words. I quote them to show that the time has come, in my opinion, to take a stand definitely for this bill, not just to join the general clamor for a good bill to amend the present abuses. If we wait until Congress meets there will be a whole flock of bills introduced by people interested in this or that. Can any other bill be as good as this one, as disinterested I mean? And if we wait until Congress meets we shall have lost our opportunity to raise our voice at the board meeting of the General Federation in January in favor of this measure born of 27 years of experience. Dr. Wiley's law was born of 23 years of experience in the Bureau of Chemistry. The proposed bill has 4 years more of enforcement experience in the Food and Drug Administration behind it than his.