The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1935-04-11
Liberal Viewpoint
by DIR. HARRY ELMER BARNES

X.
CENAToR COPELAND is denouncing the
- selfish and vicious interests which he al
leges are delaying or blocking the passage Of
his new pure food and drugs bill.
simultaneously, Howard w. Ambruster Of
Westfeld, N. j. issues a pamphlet packed full
Of information and accusations, entitled Why
Not Enforce the Laws We Already Have?" This
purports to explain how and why industrys
outlaws are crucifying Harvey Wileys pure food
and drug law"
1t is Mr. Ambrusters thesis, buttressed by an
impressive array of excerpts from the record,
that DR.. Wiey's original pure food and drugs
act is fully adequate TO protect the public If 1t
were efficiently and honestly enforced.
Moreover, he asserts that the new laws which
are now being proposed are not brought forth
in good faith but really contain jokers which
would give dishonest and fraudulent advertisers
more and larger loopholes than they now enjoy
under the Wiley act.
Mr.. Ambruster is well known for his vigorous
efforts to expose and suppress the manufacture
and sale Of adulterated drugs, notably impure
ergot digitalis, Jamaica ginger, aspirin, and the
like.
So aggressive has he been that many view
him as a sort Of Zealot. Further, he has been
so exasperated at the alleged lack Of co-opera-
ton of government officials and the double
crossing of prominent medical experts and edi-
TORS that he has developed something close to
persecution complex.
But no honest man can we'll question his
unselfish devotion to the protection Of the
American public from dangerous and fraudulent
drugs And it would be quite evident to any
thoughtful commentator that the charges he
presents here must be dealt with on the basis
of their relation to fact. They can not be
laughed off simply by rdiculing Mr.. Anbruster.
MIR. ANfBRUSTER clearly states the purpose
IVA of his elaborate pamphlet
"Its object is to place before the public and
the Congress few of the many available but
generally unknown facts relating to the present
and past lax enforcement of the Federal Food
and Drugs Act commonly known as the late
DR.. Harvey w. Wileys pure food and drug law;
and to uncover now the officials supposedly en-
forcing this statute have secretly nullifled it for
the benefit of powerful offenders, whose huge
subsidies in national advertising Of bad food
stuffs and worse medicines are meanwhile uti-
lized to Seduce the press, thus to prevent the
latter from revealing such deplorable conditions
to the public
cit is intended also to reveal the specific in
tent of Dr. WileyS law requiring criminal pros
ecution of every offender when evidence is
available, as compared with the equally inten-
tional omission of such mandatory prosecution
requirements in any of the proposed new food
and drug bills which have been presented in
this and the last Congress, from the original
Tugwell bill to the most recent Copeland bill"
1t is MIR. Ambruster's contention that the Of
f1cialS responsible for the enforcement Of the
punitive provisions of the Wiley act have been
either grossly negligent in executing their duties
or have willfuly cOnnived in permitting the eva
sion of the law by powerful manufacturers of
filthy foods and dangerous drugs.
He charges, moreover, that the criminal pros
ecutions alleged by the chief of the Food and
Drugs Administration do not square with the
actual facts as revealed in the court records.
Mr.. Ambruster asserts that from 1929 to 1884
the reported court actions show only 100 GRIM
inal prosecutions out of 5375 cases. namely, some
146 per cent But Mr.. Campbell, chief of the
Food and Drug Administration claims in his
reports 3007 criminal prosecutions for these
years-1307 for the year 1882 alone.
According to Mr.. Ambruster, "It is thus ap-
parent that Mr.. Campbell claimed for these
three years more than 1900 more criminal pro-
solutions, and for the one year, 1882, more than
500 more criminal prosecutions, than have &C
tualy been instituted under the Food and Drugs
law for the entire four-and-a-half-year period
from September, 1929, to April 1894"
MIR. ANIBRUSTER maintains further that
1V1 such criminal prosecutions as have been
instituted and carried through have been highly
seective. Small concerns lacking economic re-
sources and political influence have been con-
victed while large producers charged with identi-
cal offenSes have been unreStrained
1t is a major contention of those supporting
the new Food and Drugs Act that we are help
less at present against fraudulent advertisers.
Mr.. Anbruster maintains that the Federal Trade
Commission has all the power necessary, but he
alleges from the record that, for example, it
waited four years after it possessed the cogent
information before it acted against one of the
most powerful drug manufacturers in the
country
Mr.. Ambruster advances particularly grave
charges against the man who is perhaps the
best known medical editor in the country and
against the most active Senator supporting the
proposed food and drug legislation.
This column is not the place to pass any
verdict upon the charges preferred by Mr.. AM
bruster, but it is evident that they can not be
overlooked, either he should be prosecuted for
criminal libel, or those whom he denounces
should be reentlessly exposed and properly
punished.