3i6 
Editorial. 
Am.  Tour.  Pharm. 
May,  1918. 
has  not  been  a  privilege  heretofore  enjoyed  by  patentees  and  that 
the  foreign  manufacturers  should  never  have  been  permitted  to  thus 
mulct  the  American  public. 
A  study  of  the  language  of  the  complaint  filed  by  the  Federal 
Trade  Commission  in  the  case  cited,  shows  that  the  action  has  been 
taken  under  the  Congressional  enactments  of  September  26,  1914, 
and  October  15,  1914,  and  that  the  complaint  is  based  upon  the 
methods  adopted  by  the  respondents  in  advertising,  not  a  patent  or 
trade-marked  commodity,  but  an  article  of  general  distribution,  a 
prime  necessity — sugar.  We  do  not  understand  that  the  use  of  sugar 
as  a  "leader"  even  was  objected  to  but  the  advertisements  of  the 
sugar  were  such  as  to  be  considered  by  the  Commission  as  false  and 
misleading  and  that  the  purpose  and  intent  and  effect  of  the  re- 
spondent company  was  to  harrass  and  embarrass  competitors  and  to 
suppress  and  stifle  competition.  Further,  that  in  certain  advertise- 
ments it  had  been  represented  that  the  quality  of  similar  wares  sold 
by  competitors  was  inferior  and  that  the  competitors  did  not  deal 
justly  with  their  customers  and  that  the  respondent  buys  its  goods  in 
markets  not  accessible  to  its  competitors  and  it  complained  "  that  such 
advertisements  and  statements  are  false  and  misleading  and  calcu- 
lated and  designed  to  deceive  the  trade  and  general  public."  It  is 
further  alleged  that  their  method  of  offering  sugar  was  discrim- 
inating in  price  between  different  purchasers  of  sugar,  and  that 
the  effect  of  discrimination  was  to  lessen  competition  and  tended  to 
create  a  monopoly. 
It  will  be  thus  seen  that  the  action  is  against  unfair  and  mis- 
leading statements  and  because  these  tended  to  create  a  price  monop- 
oly and  that  in  this  respect  the  present  laws  have  the  very  opposite 
purpose  to  the  aims  of  the  Stephens'  Bill.  It  is  our  opinion  that  the 
present  laws  against  improper  advertising  and  false  or  misleading 
statements  contained  in  such  with  the  intent  of  deceiving,  can  effec- 
tively control  such  unfair  trade  methods  and  that  by  their  enforce- 
ment these  evils  of  commerce  can  be  eliminated. 
It  must  not  be  understood  that  we  are  at  all  adverse  to  price 
maintenance,  but  we  submit  that  this  should  be  accomplished  by 
laws,  if  such  are  necessary,  that  will  cover  all  forms  of  merchandise 
and  not  by  special  legislation  to  give  price  monopolies  to  products 
already  guaranteed  the  monopoly  of  manufacture  by  patent  right  or 
trade-mark.  If  the  advocates  of  fair  trade  by  price  maintenance  will 
appreciate  the  necessity  for  a  bill  that  carries  the  real  principle  to  all 
