opinion as to their respective merits from the attitude of scientists employed by the Bureau of Standards. Mr. CHAPMAN. Do you avail yourself of the facilities of the Food and Drug Administration a good deal for facts concerning matters of food? Mr. HORTON. We do. Mr. CHAPMAN. Mr. Horton, I asked Judge Davis for his opinion as a lawyer this morning. I will ask just what you think about the provisions in line 18, on page 44, which reads as follows: And provided further, That nothing in this act shall impair or be construed to impair or diminish the powers of the Federal Trade Commission under existing law. Do you think that, notwithstanding that declaration, your powers would be impaired and diminished? Mr. HORTON. Mr. Chairman, I will answer your question this way: I agree with what Judge Davis said this morning, but I go further than that, and I think you gentlemen, as practical-minded gentlemen, will realize that from a practical standpoint the jurisdiction will reside primarily in the Food and Drug Administration, and the Commission will be more or less powerless, hampered, if not powerless, to proceed in cases of that kind. It is a practical result that is accomplished by that. Mr. CHAPMAN. In view of that opinion expressed by Judge Davis, I asked him to use his ability and experience and learning as a lawyer in seeking to devise some means or to suggest some language that would make it certain that the powers now residing in the Federal Trade Commission and the functions now performed by it in regard to this matter would not be diminished or impaired and I will appreciate it if you will give your thought as a lawyer to the same subject and the committee would like very much to have your suggestion of language that would give assurance that that was intended to be the effect of the language of this act. Mr. HORTON. I shall be very glad to work on that, Mr. Chairman. I understand that the Commission will do likewise. Mr. KENNEY. Mr. Horton, the Food and Drug Administration has had no field men such as you have to run down and investigate false advertising? Mr. HORTON. They do not have field men dealing in questions of false advertising. They, however, I believe, have field men performing duties in connection with the Food and Drugs Act, and taking evidence with respect to making seizures, and things of that sort. Mr. KENNEY. And it is their duty to find out whether a product is a proper product primarily; is that all their duty is? Mr. HORTON. They carry on investigations in that respect. Mr. KENNEY. And they have no department having to do with advertising? Your experts handle all of that? Mr. HORTON. The Commission has handled that entirely, and the Food and Drug Administration has no jurisdiction whatever over false and misleading advertising. Mr. KENNEY. Now, under this act it is stated that your powers are not to be impaired. Nevertheless, the Food and Drug Administration is given practically the same powers that you have. Mr. HORTON. That is true. Mr. KENNEY. If not more power. Now, the Administration will probably exercise that power and, if you were to exercise it, then you would have these two dual agencies operating along the same courses. Is that not so? Mr. HORTON. That is quite true, sir. Mr. KENNEY. That is all. Mr. CHAPMAN. Mr. Horton, is it not a fact also though that the way it is done at the present time is that there is at least a dual agency, and in some cases more than two, for the reasons which you have just stated, that you receive your technical information on the subject from the Food and Drug Administration or the Bureau of Standards, as the case may be, and then, as to regulation of trade practices, you issue orders to cease and desist and enter into stipulations to that effect. That is done by the Federal Trade Commission? Mr. HORTON. That is correct, sir, as to the issuance of cease and desist orders. Mr. CHAPMAN. We thank you so much, Mr. Horton. Is Congressman Holmes, of Massachusetts, present? (There was no response.) Mrs. Jenckes, a Representative from the State of Indiana, who introduced a bill on this subject, does not wish to appear in person but desires to file a brief to be included in the Record, which will be done. STATEMENT OF WILLIAM P. JACOBS, REPRESENTING THE INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE MANUFACTURERS, NEW YORK, N. Y.; REPRESENTING ALSO THE JACOBS RELIGIOUS LIST OF CLINTON, S. C. Mr. CHAPMAN. We will hear Mr. Jacobs. Mr. Jacobs, you have appeared here before, but will you state your name and address and business address or addresses, and the business and nature of the business in which you are engaged, and the organization or organizations for which you speak, for the record, please? Mr. JACOBS. William P. Jacobs; the Institute of Medicine Manufacturers, New York City, 40 Worth Street; representing also the Jacobs Religious List of Clinton, S. C. My home address is Clinton, S. C. Mr. Chairman, I promised to file with you a list of the members of the Institute of Medicine Manufacturers, and I have done so, with the clerk of your committee, and I stand here ready to give you any further information that you desire in regard to the activities of either of the organizations with which I am connected. We have nothing that we wish to withhold. Mr. CHAPMAN. As to your organizations, I notice by your statement the first time you were here that you said that you appeared in your capacity not just as an officer of these two, but as executive vice president of the Institute of Medical Manufacturers; as president of the Jacobs Religious List, and as vice president and director of the Clark-Jacobs, Inc., Advertising, New York, N. Y. Mr. JACOBS. That is correct. Mr. CHAPMAN. Also as proprietor of a drug product under the name of Carolina Pharmaceutical Co. Mr. JACOBS. That is right. Mr. CHAPMAN. Do you appear here in all of those capacities today? Mr. JACOBS. That is right, sir. Mr. CHAPMAN. That Carolina Pharmaceutical Co. is not the same as the Carolina Chemical Co., is it? Mr. JACOBS. No, sir. Mr. CHAPMAN. Have you or have you ever had any connection with the Carolina Chemical Co.? Mr. JACOBS. No, sir; I never heard of it. Mr. CHAPMAN. It is also in North Carolina. Mr. JACOBS. My address is Clinton, S. C. Mr. CHAPMAN. Well, it is in South Carolina, too. Mr. JACOBS. I never heard of it. Mr. CHAPMAN. I have your list here. It is a list of 40 companies. Now, are they companies that belong to what is known as the Institute of Medicine Manufacturers? Mr. JACOBS. Yes, sir. Mr. CHAPMAN. Of which you are the vice president, the executive vice president? Mr. JACOBS. That is right. Mr. CHAPMAN. Medicine manufacturers. Mr. JACOBS. Yes, sir. Mr. CHAPMAN. Now, how many other companies belong to that? Mr. JACOBS. That is all, sir. Mr. CHAPMAN. Well, do you recall stating here in your testimony about 2 weeks ago that there were more than 80 companies associated with the organization; did you say that? Mr. JACOBS. I recall that statement; but I was trying to convey the thought that the petition which I offered met with the sanction of more than 80 manufacturers. The list which I have filed with you, Mr. Chairman, is a complete list of all who financially support the Institute of Medicine Manufacturers. Mr. CHAPMAN. Then, when you stated that there were more than 80 members of it, you did not mean that? Mr. JACOBS. I did not, sir. Mr. CHAPMAN. Now, can you furnish me a list of the remaining forty-odd that have sanctioned your statement on this and given you authority to speak for them? Mr. JACOBS. I am sorry I cannot, sir, because they are not members of our organization and I have no authority to speak for them. Mr. CHAPMAN. But you had authority to speak for them the last time you appeared because you said you were speaking for them. Mr. JACOBS. If I gave that impression, Mr. Chairman, I am sorry. Mr. CHAPMAN. Your statement was that "They are members of our organization." Mr. JACOBS. I am sorry; I was mistaken. Mr. CHAPMAN. This list of 40 then is the complete list? Mr. JACOBS. That is right. Mr. CHAPMAN. Of all of the medical and pharmaceutical manufacturers that belong to the Institute of Medicine Manufacturers? Mr. JACOBS. That is correct, sir. Mr. CHAPMAN. Do you control all of the advertising of all of these companies? Mr. JACOBS. I do not control the advertising of any of them, sir, except the one that I own. Mr. CHAPMAN. What is the nature of this Institute of Medicine Manufacturers, of which you are executive vice president? Mr. JACOBS. Public relations is our primary duty. Mr. CHAPMAN. Well, in what form do the public relations exist? Mr. JACOBS. I have here [indicating]. Mr. CHAPMAN. Does that include advertising? Mr. JACOBS. No, sir. Our principal purpose is that of the development of possibly friendly attitude of the public towards reputable prepared medicine. Mr. CHAPMAN. Now, what is the method you adopt in seeking to induce the public to have a friendly attitude towards patent medicines? You do not use advertisement to do it, do you? Mr. JACOBS. No, sir. Mr. CHAPMAN. What do you do; do you give out some samples to the public? Mr. JACOBS. No, sir. Mr. CHAPMAN. I wish you would explain it. Mr. JACOBS. If you will allow, Mr. Chairman, I will explain it. Mr. CHAPMAN. I wish you would explain to us the method you use in seeking to gain friendly public opinion for the use of patent medicines. Mr. JACOBS. I will. These three exhibits I present represent an example of the type of effort which we have undertaken. A large illustration entitled "Fifty Years of Faith" is a reproduction of the cover design of one of the trade magazines. Mr. CHAPMAN. What magazine is that? Mr. JACOBS. It is the American Druggist, which was prepared at our suggestion and which we had enlarged and distributed. Mr. CHAPMAN. That is a very pretty picture. Is the American Druggist an organ of patent-medicine manufacturers? Mr. JACOBS. I doubt if they would call it that, sir. Mr. CHAPMAN. Is it? No matter what they call it. We have had a lot of mislabeled things around here. What we are talking about is what it actually is. Mr. JACOBS. I think that they represent the retail druggists more than any other interest in the drug field, a magazine representing retail druggists. Mr. CHAPMAN. Do they carry advertisements of these patent medicines? Mr. JACOBS. I think they do, sir; various medicines, but not all. Mr. CHAPMAN. What else have you done besides having this printed to create friendly relations with the public and educate the public to appreciate the benefits of these patent medicines that belong to your organization? Mr. JACOBS. We reproduced that in smaller form and in matrix form and sent it out to the newspapers and asked complimentary insertion of the picture with the title; a good many cooperated. Mr. CHAPMAN. You did not pay the newspapers for it? Mr. JACOBS. No, sir. Mr. CHAPMAN. Did newspapers just do that out of love or affection for you, or did you give them some advertisements in addition to that pretty picture, for which advertisements you paid them? Mr. JACOBS. The Institute has no advertising to place at all. Mr. CHAPMAN. Not as an institute, maybe, but these individual members do have. Mr. JACOBS. Some of them are customers of the publications; some of them were not. Mr. CHAPMAN. Do you look after that advertising to any extent? Mr. JACOBS. No, sir; I do not. Mr. CHAPMAN. What is your advertising agency operated for? Mr. JACOBS. My advertising agency is organized to handle medical and textile accounts. I have a connection also with the textile industry. Mr. CHAPMAN. You do not have any connection then with any publications? Mr. JACOBS. My advertising agency is organized to handle and place advertising in these individual publications. Mr. CHAPMAN. But you do not advertise patent medicines, do you? Mr. JACOBS. As I understand your use of the term, I presume we do, Mr. Chairman; but it so happens that the Clark-Jacobs Advertising Agency does not handle the advertising of any of the members of the Institute of Medical Manufacturers except my own product. Mr. CHAPMAN. What kind of advertisements does Clark-Jacobs handle? Mr. JACOBS. Drug and textile products. Mr. CHAPMAN. But no proprietary drugs? Mr. JACOBS. Yes; the one that I have mentioned; my own. Mr. JACOBS. Yes, sir. Mr. CHAPMAN. Then, they do not handle any of it at all? Mr. JACOBS. No, sir. Mr. CHAPMAN. Do you have anything at all to do with any advertising for the Arner Co., American Ferment Co., Adlerika Co., Bleecker-Foster Co., Blackburn Products Co., or Creomulsion Co., or any of those companies? Mr. JACOBS. No, sir. Mr. CHAPMAN. You never handle any advertisements for them? Mr. JACOBS. Not in the capacity of Clark-Jacobs. Mr. CHAPMAN. I did not ask you about any particular capacity or corporation. Mr. JACOBS. Mr. Chairman, I am trying Mr. CHAPMAN. I appreciate that. Clark-Jacobs Co., of course, is a corporation, is it not? Mr. JACOBS. That is correct. Mr. CHAPMAN. A corporation is an invisible, intangible object, existing only in contemplation of law; but when you state that ClarkJacobs Co. does not handle it, that is not a reply to my question. I did not ask you anything about Clark-Jacobs. I asked you if you had anything to do with handling it directly or indirectly. Mr. JACOBS. I have had indirectly something to do with the advertising of a few of the manufacturers listed in this capacity, Mr. Chairman, as |