Part 18

aper and ourselves, [see p. 18--Editor.] {018}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 now {084}exist 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. Extract from a speech delivered before the Proprietary Association of America. By Frank J. Cheney. "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, FRANK J. CHENEY. [IMAGE ==>] {083} [IMAGE ==>] {084} Valuable Newspaper Aid. {085} 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 frank {087}naïveté of his son, which he did not "wish to have published broadcast over the country, for very good reasons." [IMAGE ==>] {086} EXAMPLE OF WHAT MR. CHENEY CALLS "SHIFTING THE RESPONSIBILITY." 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." The Trust's Club for Legislators. 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