The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1911-06-06
SUPREME COURT BUSINESS.

The Supreme Court, at It's session just
adjourned did some of the most
weigbty and significant work ever done
by that ilustrious body. It's disposal
of the great trust cases, the Standard
Oil combination and the Tobacco trust,
has been for the most part satisfactory
to the sentiment of the country. and
helpful to the business interests which
were so much involved and at stake,
1t decided besides large number Of
cases, most Of them Of but little public
Importance. There was one case, how
ever, that has not been much discussed
publicly, but which is criticized IN
some quarters We refer to a much.
involved construction Of the pure food
and drug law, where the court, while
maintaining the law in its fullness as
10 the requirement Of sanitary ingre
dents and truthfulnes5 Of labelling,
found that the law was defective I'm
an important particular. Under the
law the manufacturer Of any food or
drug product is obliged to state truly
"udI - t''l diHcu w Iu' Pi'hdG' o
made up, whether it is genuine, whether
it is AN imitation, and in general that
it contains nothing deleterious to life
and health. Under this law a case
was brought where extraordinary claims
were made for a medicine as TO its
ability to cure certain diseases II was
shown that, although a label on a pro
prietary medicine package is obliged
TO state what that package contains in
the way of liquor or compounds of
various description, 1t may yet be
claimed for that medicine that it is an
absolute cure for specific diseases, as
consumption, cancer, or Brigbt'9 dis
ease, when III fact it is not a cure for
those diseases at all, and may merely
he an accclcrant in the activity OF
those diseases. The court held that
claims Of this kind are not violativc
of the pure food and drug law. \
as an absolute cure for cancer, for
which IN fact no cure as known, and
if those who put up that preparation
truly and honestly state what is IN
it. as the law requires them TO do,
their further claim that il is a specific
cure for cancer IS not violation Of
the law, although it is violation Of
the truth and an insult to medical
science. II would appear. though, that
those who criticize the court for this
decision are on the wrong ground. They
should criticize the law, and not the
court The court merely finds that
there is nothing in the law forbidding
snch extraordinary and impossible
claims with respect to medicines as
put up. The court holds that the law
requires those who put up such medi-
cines to state precisely and truthfully
what they contain. but they may false
ly claim that the medicine Is cure
beyond all reason in medical science,
and in fact in opposition to everything
that is known as to the facts of thera
pcutics. The remedy, therefore, is not
in criticizlng the court, but in moving
for an amendment TO the law.
The court at its recent session de-
cidcd $50 cases, but during the same
term 100 cases were docketed. The
court is thus progressing at only about
one third of the rate that business be-
fore it is accommodating. 1T will pres
emily become evident, unless some relief
is had. that it is useless 10 appeal cases
to the Supreme Court, because that
body will not be able to reach them
The only practical relief is to have the
more important cases advanced and
the less important ones held back; and
these less important ones may be held
back year after year by reason of the
with a proba bility that the less i'm
portant ones may never be reached at
all Relief has been suggested in the
wsv Of adding TO the number of the
Judges of tho court; but this in fact
would not be relief The only prac.
tical relief that is in sight would ap.
pear to he the investing in the cir.
cuit courts of the United States of
wider jurisdiction than heretofore, and
the restriction Of appeals from those
courts to the Supreme Court of the
United States. Some restrictions have
already been made. but these restric-
tons will evidently have to be wild
ened and the jurisdiction OF the next
lower court of appeals below the Su
premc Court broadened accordingly, so
that the burden may be lifted from the
higher tribunal.
The ouesfion is asked in the East WHY