The Republican journal., 1908-04-16
NUTRIOLA IN LONDON.

In 1905, after thorough investigation
and hearing, in which the company pre-
sented its case, the U. S. Post Office De-
partment issued fraud order against the
Nutriola Company of Chicago, for the pro-
lection of the public. The grounds for is
suing this order, with summary OF the
case by the Assistant Attorney General of
the United States was published in The
| Journal a few weeks ago. The Canadian
government followed with similar order.
About the same time the manager OF the
company was held for the grand jury on a
| charge of using the mails to circulate OBJ
scene literature. This put the company out
of business. Later it was reported that the
Nutriola Company had sold out to an Eng
| lish company with headquarters in London,
| but no particulars were given as to the or
| ficials of this company or as to what ar
| rangemeut was made with the American
| stockholders.
We have recently seen printed report OF
| what purported to be special meeting OF
the Stockholders of the Nutriola Company,
| held in Belfast Oct. 20, 1906, at which pre-
amble and resolutions were adopted de-
nouncing post Office officials and authorizing
| the transfer of all assets and property TO a
British company, of which it was SAID
The company will handle its American
| business through an American branch and
| "will be purely English. its Board OF Di-
rectors will be Englishmen and the British
flag protects its subjects business, if legltl-
mate"
| American stock holders were to exchange
their stock for an equal amount Of stock in
the English company, but how many did so,
| and the names OF the officers OF the latter
company, have never been made public.
| 1t was further announced that "Mr. Ham
sons services will be retained under con-
| tract for term Of years by the British Com
| pany and this business throughout the world
| will have the benefit of his experience and
ability" etc.
! Subscriptions to stock were invited to be
| mailed to addresses in Chicago and Belfast
"by check or express order"-no postal or
ders-athough the fraud order against the
company was then, and is now, in force.
| There was naturally some interest to learn
| what this English company was doing in
London and letter of enquiry addressed to
a reliable gentleman in that city brought the
following response:
| "With reference to the Nutriola Company,
Limited, l started my investigation by look
| ing up patent medicine dealers in the post
office directory, where every dealer OF this
| description is given, and also every other
firm of Importance, but could not find the
name OF address under this heading. l next
went to 9-1l-13 and Is Oxford street, West,
large number of offices, of which this COM
pany only occupied two or three, which is a
| very small part considering there are several
| floors. Far from being successful business
man it is evident he is just the opposite, so
far as this side is concerned, as his firm has
been cleared out from these premises for not
paying their rent. l also discovered that
they had had this building photographed
| and sent across to your side, no doubt rep
resenting they occupied the whole of it.
| This Information was given me by the lift
| (elevator) attendant, which no doubt can be
| relied upon. | next went to their present
address, which is Al Charing Cross Road
| w., quite close to their last one, where they
occupy the second floor in a small building.
The housekeeper here informed me that she
| is not allowed access to their premises, al
| though she has master key for every office,
another lock put on the door. A gentleman
called on Mr.. Noel (this is the name of the
| manager, but is believed to be an assumed
one) just lately for debt of nineteen shil-
lings. This was paid by check, which was
returned, their account being overdrawn.
| He again called but received no satisfaction,
and on meeting the manager in the street
| knock ed his hat off There was d scene, the
police interfering, but he is still watching
for him, which keeps the manager very
much in his quarters This is v0uched for
| by the housekeeper. Her opinion of the
with that of the lift attendant at Oxford
street and | can see no reason for any
| doubt"
q travelling man when in Belfast last
Saturday made enquiries concerning the
Nutriola Company. He said he had some
| shares of the stock and received circular
from the company after the fraud order was
issued notifying him of the salet an English
company and advising him to send his stock
to a certain address to be exchanged for
| stock in the latter company. He did so, and
not hearing anything for some time wrote
again. He was then advised that his stock
had been received and the matter would
have attention. Later he wrote to E. F.
Hanson, in Belfast, but received no answer
to that letter. He was advised to 60 to the
city building, where he would find an agent
OF the company. He called, but was unable
to get any information beyond the address
of the London representative, which was
the same as given in the letter quoted above
He was told, however, that a bill was pend
ing in Congress that if passed would enable
the company to resume business. This is
, bill to repeal the law which enables thu
pest office department to protect the publ,
against fraudulent concerns by excluding
them from the mails. Such bill was il
trOduced in the first session of the 59th
Congress and passed the House, but was
killed in the Senate. The passage of such
a measure would be public misfortune
| The Ladies' Home Journal recently said O
this measure:
"If we were not doing business on tn,
level" writes Western firm to those wht
answer its specious advertisements, ''tht
post Office department would stop u.s."
plausible statement is this, but fallaciou!
conclusion. Had the government ten time.
the optical equipment of Argus it could no
prevent all the petty swindling schemes
which spring into evanescent but fruitful
a.