Am.  Jour.  Pharm. 
May,  1886. 
Editorial. 
267 
EDITORIAL  DEPARTMENT. 
Nostrums  on  the  War  Path. — We  copy  the  following  from  the  Philadelphia 
Record  of  April  8th  : 
"  A  case  of  unusual  interest  to  physicians  and  druggists  was  tried  yesterday 
in  Common  Pleas  Court  No.  4,  before  Judge  Arnold.  The  point  at  issue — and 
of  vital  importance  to  the  medical  fraternity  throughout  the  country — was  as 
to  how  far  a  lecturer  before  a  medical  class  could  adversely  criticise  a  patented 
preparation,  and  whether  he  could  be  held  responsible  for  such  criticism. 
"  Frank  E.  Engelman,  the  proprietor  of  a  nostrum  isnuffene)  for  the  cure  of 
hay  fever,  brought  suit  against  Dr.  Carl  Sieler,  of  the  University  of  Pennsyl- 
vania, for  damages  alleged  to  have  been  sustained  on  account  of  a  lecture 
delivered  by  the  defendant  on  October  14, 1884,  before  the  alumni  of  the  Phila- 
delphia College  of  Pharmacy,  in  which  he  advised  his  hearers  not  to  use  the 
article  manufactured  by  Mr.  Engelman.  The  plaintiff  alleged  that  in  conse- 
quence of  the^e  remarks  the  druggists  ceased  recommending  his  powders  to 
customer-,  and  in  some  instances  had  removed  the  article  from  their  showr- 
cases.  He  was  unable  to  tell  just  how  much  his  trade  had  fallen  off,  but 
believed  that  he  had  lost  $1000,  though  he  did  not  produce  any  books  to  show 
this.  It  was  offered  in  evidence  that  Dr.  Seiler  had  advised  the  druggists  not 
to  use  the  i  ostrum,  and  the  following  language  used  by  the  physician  in  his 
description  of  the  article  was  also  produced :  '  I  don't  know  what  it  is.  I  sup- 
pose it  is  nothing  but  a  little  silicate  of  soda,  or  a  little  borax,  or  quinine  and 
borax ;  but  don't  use  it  or  any  of  these  nostrums.  They  are  bad,  for  the  simple 
reason  that  they  themselves  irritate  the  mucous  membrane.  They  all  have, 
to  a  certain  extent,  an  effect  good  or  bad,  but  that  effect  will  not  last.  "Very 
soon  the  secretion  will  cover  the  mucous  membrane  again,  and  the  trouble  will 
still  be  there.  Also,  very  soon  the  system  becomes  accustome  1  to  the  nostrum 
and  prevents  the  thorough  impregnation  of  the  mucous  membrane,  having  its 
peculiar  effect  upon  the  circulation  of  the  nose  itself.' 
"The  plaintiff  called  several  druggists,  with  a  view  of  showing  that  their 
sales  had  fallen  off  in  consequence  of  Dr.  Seller's  lecture;  but  these  witnesses 
could  not  say  that  their  sales  had  been  curtailed  in  consequenc  e  of  any  remarks 
of  Dr.  Seiler."  One  druggist  testified  that  he  had  recommend  the  article  because 
it  was  put  up  in  convenient  boxes,  and  was  handy  to  carry  in  the  pocket. 
"The  defense  did  not  consider  it  necessary  to  offer  any  evidence. 
"  Judge  Arnold  charged  the  jury  briefly  and  ordered  them  to  render  a  ver- 
dict in  favor  of  the  defendant.  He  said  that  Dr.  Seiler's  statements  before  the 
alumni  of  ihe  College  of  Pharmacy  was  a  mere  expression  of  opinion,  and  that 
it  was  devoid  of  any  element  of  malice.  It  was  the  lecturer's  privilege,  under 
the  circumstances  to  give  his  views  to  his  class,  and  it  was  the  occasion  of  the 
highest  privilege  for  the  defendant  to  give  such  expression  of  his  views.  It 
wa<5  not  shown  that  Dr.  Seiler  had  any  malicious  motive,  and  some  people 
might  think  the  defendant  did  the  public  a  great  benefit;  but  it  was  not  for 
the  Court  to  say  whether  he  had  or  not.  It  was  enough  for  the  Court  to  say 
that  i»-  was  the  defendant's  right  to  lecture  upon  the  medicine.  As  there  was 
no  evidence  to  support  the  plaintiffs  case,  and  as  it  was  not  shown  that  the 
defendant  had  acted  in  a  spirit  of  spite,  or  had  tried  to  damage  the  plaintiff, 
the  Court  was  compelled  to  direct  the  jury  to  return  a  verdict  for  the  defend- 
ant." 
While  in  the  above  case  honest  criticism  has  been  upheld,  a  good  deal  of 
honesty  seems  also  to  be  at  stake  in  another  case,  which,  if  ever  pressed  to 
prosecution,  bids  fair  to  achieve  considerable  notoriety.  We  have  before  us  a 
printed  circular,  dated  Baltimore,  March  25th,  in  which  the  manufacturers  of 
a  nostrum  inform  the  drug  trade,  and  all  other  dealers  in  proprietary  medi- 
cines in  the  United  States,  that  suits  for  damages  have  been  instituted  against 
firms  in  Detroit,  St.  Louis,  and  Baltimore,  and  that  "other  suits  will  follow 
