The Roanoke times. [volume] (Roanoke, Va.) 1890-1895, 1891-11-11
SUBSTITUTE sWINDLE.
Dishonest Druggists Who Palm OF
Homemade Goods.
low nm Unsuspccting Public Is I'm
posed Upon by Unprinclpled
Dealers I'm Household
Ecmcdics,

Mr. A. Frank Richardson, of New
York, has done the public good service
by calling attention in his recent adj
dress before the National Editorial as
ISOLATION Mt st. Paul to the petty but
extensive frauds practiccd upon custom
crs through what is known rs the sub
stitutc swindle. The modus opcrandi
of these dishonest deals, says the Chi
cago Tribune, may be briefly explained.
There arc many standard articles which
have attained to Il large sale and wide
spread reputation by their legitimate
merits and the liberal advertising of
their proprietors. Certain unprincipled
druggists and small dealers have taken
advantage of these circumstances to
counterfeit these goods by initiating
them just closely enough to keep them
selves out of the clutches of the law. At
Detroit and in other cities there arc
houses whose entire business consists
in manufacturing limitations of these
articles, or Substitutes" which arc
made so as to closely resemble the orig
inals in materials used, in the name,
and in the general appearance of the
boxes, bottles or wrappers. AS IN in
ducement to these small dealers and
the better to enable them to carry out
the swindlc, their names frequently are
printed on the packages by the manu-
facturers, and the false caption 'our
own make" is often added 1t is easy
to sec how the swindlc is worked. A
customer goes into n store and asks for
popular remedy. The dealer says that
he has it, which is probably II lie, but
recommends the customer to buy
preparation put up by himself, which
he claims to be equally good, and
which, he says, he can recommend, be-
cause, he prctends, he has compound
cd it himself and it is his Gown make"
and, besides, while the desired article
may be fifty cents n bottle he can sell
his own preparation ut twenty-five
cents. Nine times out of ten the GUS
toner, relying upon the statement of
the druggist, will DC induced by
motives of economy to take the sub
stitutc, which, of course, is worthless
and which may be dangerous. The
dealer is enabled to do this because he
buys very cheaply from the manu-
facturcr, and thus the two get the ben
eft of the advertising Of the genuine
material and divide large profits Thus
1t is needless to say that the druggist
or dealer who will descend to this con-
temptiblc business merely because he
can make n larger profit upon the sub
stitutc than he can upon the genuine
article is a common swindlcr. and none
the less Il swindlcr because the trick is
devised so cunningly rs to save him
from prosecution and deserved punish
mcnt 1t is II fraud upon manufacturers
who are making q legitimate article
and who have spent thousands of dol
lars to bring it before the public, and
fraud upon customers who arc tricllcd
into buying bogus article which is
worthless, if not something worse 1t
is time that this contemplate business
was stopped, and it can be if the press
of the country will vcntilatc and OK
pose it and if the public will refuse to
patronizc druggists who palm off these
nostrums upon it. Customers should
demand the article they have every
reason to believe is the best, and if Il
dealer begins the old story recommend
ing preparation he has made himself,
which he knows to be pure because he
made it, which has his name on the
wrapper, etc, it should be sufficient
cause to refuse it promptly and go else
where for their goods 1t is the lowest
and meancst form Of common thicvcry,
and if the public will join hands with
the press it can be broken up. 1t is
certainly for the interests of the former
to do SO, US it is the principal sufferer.