The evening herald. [volume] (Shenandoah, Pa.) 1891-1966, 1891-09-11
SUBSTITUTE SWINDLE.
Dishonest Druggists Who Palm OF
Home-dade Goods.
How an Unsuspecting Public Is Inn
posed Upon by Unprincipled
Dealers Ia Household
Ecmedies.

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
sociation at St. Paul TO the petty but
extensive frauds practiced upon custom
ers through what is known as the sub
stitute swindle. The modus operandi
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 10y their legitimate
merits and the liberal advertising Of
their proprietors. Certain unprinciplcd
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
ducemcnt 20 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 see how the swindle is worked. A
customer goes into a store and asks for
popular remedy. The dealer says that
he has it, which is probably a lie, but
l.. l,rr- 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 compound
ed it himself and it IS his Gown make, 4"
and, besides, while the desired article
may be fifty cents a bottle, he can sell
his own preparation at twenty-five
cents. Nine times out of ten the GUS
toner, relying upon the statement of
the druggist, viii be induced by
motives of economy to take the sub
stitute, 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-
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.
1t is needless to say that the druggist
or dealer who will descend to this con-
temptible business merely because he
can make a larger profit upon the sub
stitute than he can upon the genuine
article is a common swindler. and none
the less a swindler because the trick is
devised so cunningly as to save him
from prosecution and deserved punish
ment. 1t 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
fraud upon customers who are tricked
into buying a 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 ventilate and ex-
pose it and if the public viii 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 g
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 thl
wrapper, etc, it should be sufficient
cause to refuse it promptly and go else
where for their goods. 1t is the Lowest
and meanest form of common thievery
and if the public win join hands witt
the press IL can be broken up. 1t is
certainly for the interests of the formel
to do SO, as it is the principal sufferer.