^""mS;  fm""' }     IVholesale  Druggists'  Association.  123 
benzine.  The  State  of  Ohio  recently  passed  a  Pure  Turpentine 
and  Linseed  Oil  Act  which  has  caused  much  annoyance  to  the 
dealers  in  adulterated  products  in  that  state.  The  Committee  rec- 
ommends the  enactment  by  each  state  of  a  similar  law.  I  made  a 
study  of  this  law,  which  at  first  seemed  very  drastic,  but  on  further 
consideration,  every  detail  can  be  lived  up  to  by  an  honest  man  doing 
an  honest  business  and  will  work  no  hardship  on  any  one  who  comes 
under  this  heading.  The  law  states  that  no  one  shall  sell  under 
the  name  of  turpentine,  or  spirits  of  turpentine,  or  any  compounding 
of  the  word  "  turpentine,''  or  under  any  name  or  device  illustrating 
or  suggesting  turpentine  or  spirits  of  turpentine,  any  article  which 
is  not  wholly  distilled  from  rosin,  turpentine,  gum,  etc.,  and  unmixed 
and  unadulterated  with  oil,  benzine,  or  any  other  foreign  substances 
of  any  kind  whatsoever,  unless  the  package  be  marked  with  letters 
not  less  than  2  inches  high,  Adulterated  Spirits  of  Turpentine." 
It  can  be  readily  seen  that  this  law  covers  the  situation  nicely,  and 
Pennsylvania  would  do  well  to  adopt  such  a  law,  and  I  recommend 
that  you,  whenever  the  opportunity  presents  itself,  speak  a  word  in 
favor  of  such  legislation.  I  would  be  glad  to  supply  any  number 
of  copies  of  the  Ohio  law  to  those  who  would  like  to  study  it. 
The  Chairman  of  the  above-mentioned  committee,  Mr.  Levi  Wilcox, 
of  Waterbury,  Conn.,  deserves  high  commendation  for  his  very 
excellent  report. 
The  report  of  the  Proprietary  Committee,  of  which  Dr.  Schief- 
felin  was  Chairman,  contained  considerable  of  interest  to  the  trade. 
The  general  tendency,  the  Committee  reported,  of  decisions  rendered 
by  various  courts  throughout  the  land,  was  to  take  a  less  drastic 
position  with  reference  to  the  violation  of  the  Sherman  Anti-Trust 
Law.  Two  cases  were  referred  to  in  this  country  and  one  in  Canada 
where  the  court  took  the  position  that  the  manufacturer  had  the  right 
to  insist  upon  the  maintenance  of  his  retail  price  where  it  could  be 
shown  that  such  an  action  is  only  incidentally  and  indirectly  to  resist 
competition,  while  its  chief  result  is  to  foster  the  trade  and  increase 
the  business  of  those  who  make  and  operate  it.  These  decisions, 
so  different  from  the  one  rendered  at  Indianapolis  in  the  case  of  the 
United  States  against  the  drug  trade,  tend  to  increase  confidence 
in  the  stability  of  business  and  encourage  manufacturers  to  spend 
larger  amounts  in  advertising  their  goods,  because  they  feel  that 
they  can  protect  their  interests  by  being  allowed  to  maintain  their 
price  to  the  consumer.    An  important  decision  was  cited  which 
