Arizona republican., 1891-10-07
SUBSTITUTE SWINDLE.
Dishonest Druggists Who Palm Ofi
 Home-Made Goods.
How an Unsuspectlng Public Is Inn posed Upon by unprinclpled Dealers In Household
 Remedies.

Mir. A. Frank Richardson, of New York, has done the public good service by calling attention in his recent ad- dress before the National Editorial as sociation at St. Paul to the petty but extensive frauds practiced upon custom CTS through what is known as the sub stitute swindlc. The modus opcrandi of these dishonest deals, says the Chi cago Tribune, may be briefly explained, There are many standard articles which have attained to a 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 are houses whose entire business consists in manufacturing limitations of these articles, or substitutes" which are 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 an in ducement to these small dealers and the better to enable them to carry out the swindle, their names frequently are printed on the packages by the manu- facturers, and the false caption "our own make" is often added. lt is easy to see how the swindle is worked. customer goes into store and asks for a popular remedy. The dealer say t..at he has it, which is probably n lie, but recommends the customer to buy a preparation put up by himself, which he claims to be equally good, and which, he says, he can recommend, be- cause, he pretends, he has ''comp 1und- ed it himself and it IS his own make" and, besides, while the desired article may be fifty cents bottle, he can sell his own preparation at twenty-five cents. Nine times out of ten the GUS toner, relying upon the st3tement of the druggist, will be- induced by motives of economy to take the sub stitute, which, of course is worthless and which may be dan -Irous. The dealer is enabled to do this because he buys very cheaply from the manu- facturer, and thus the two get the ben eft of the advertising of the genuine material and divide large profits. Thus an unsuspecting public is swindled,
 It is needless to say that the druggist or dealer who will descend to this con temptible business merely because he can make larger profit upon the sub stitutc than he can upon the genuine articl, is a common swipGlcr, and none the less a swiHd!er because the trick is devised so cunningly as to save him from prosecution and deserved punish meut. It is fraud upon manufacturers who are making a legitimate article and who have spent thousands of dol lars to bring it before the public, and a fraud upon customers who are tricked into buying a bogus article which is worthless if not something worse. It is time that this contemptible business was stopped. and it can be if the press of the country will ventilate and ex- pose it and if the public will refuse to patrOnize druggists who palm off these nostrums upon it. Customers should demand the article they have every reason to believe is the best, and if a dealer begins the old story recommend ing a 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 sause to refuse it promptly and go else where for their goods. It is the lowest md meanest form of common thicvery, md if the public will join hands with he press it can be broken up. It is certainly for the interests of the former ,o do so, as it is the principal sufferer.