"We have had a good deal of difficulty in the last few years with the different legislatures of the different states.... I believe I have a plan whereby we will have no difficulty whatever with these people. I have used it in my business for two years and know it is a practical thing.... I, inside of the last two years, have made contracts with between fifteen and sixteen thousand newspapers, and never had but one man refuse to sign the contract, and my saying to him that I could not sign a contract without this clause in it he readily signed it. My point is merely to shift the responsibility. We to-day have the responsibility on our shoulders. As you all know, there is hardly a year but we have had a lobbyist in the different state legislatures—one year in New York, one year in New Jersey, and so on." (Read that frank confession twice—note the bland matter-of-factness of it.) "There has been a constant fear that something would come up, so I had this clause in my contract added. This is what I have in every contract I make: 'It is hereby agreed that should your state, or the United States Government, pass any law that would interfere with or restrict the sale of proprietary medicines, this contract shall become void.'... In the state of Illinois a few years ago they wanted to assess me three hundred dollars. I thought I had a better plan than this, so I wrote to about forty papers and merely said: 'Please look at your contract with me and take note that if this law passes you and I must stop doing business, and my contracts cease.'" The next week every one of them had an article, and Mr. Man had to go....

I read this to Dr. Pierce some days ago and he was very much taken up with it. I have carried this through and know it is a success. I know the papers will accept it. Here is a thing that costs us nothing. We are guaranteed against the $75,000 loss for nothing. It throws the responsibility on the newspapers.... I have my contracts printed and I have this printed in red type, right square across the contract, so there can be absolutely no mistake, and the newspaper man can not say to me, 'I did not see it.' He did see it and knows what he is doing. It seems to me it is a point worth every man's attention.... I think this is pretty near a sure thing.

IMAGE ==>

THIS IS THE FORM OF CONTRACT—SEE (A) (B) (C)—THAT MUZZLES THE PRESS OF THE UNITED STATES.

The gist of the contract lies in the clause which is marked with brackets, to the effect that the agreement is voidable, In case any matter detrimental to the advertiser's interests "Is permitted to appear in the reading columns, or elsewhere, in this paper." This clause, in the same words, appears in all three of these patent-medicine advertising contracts. The documents reproduced here were gathered from three different newspapers in widely separated parts of the United States. The name of the paper in each case has been suppressed in order to shield the publisher from the displeasure of the patent-medicine combination. How much publishers are compelled to fear this displeasure is exemplified by the experience of the Cleveland Press, from whose columns $18,000 worth of advertising was withdrawn within forty-eight hours.

I should like to ask the newspaper owners and editors of America what they think of that scheme. I believe that the newspapers, when they signed each individual contract, were not aware that they were being dragooned into an elaborately thought-out scheme to make every newspaper in the United States, from the greatest metropolitan daily to the remotest country weekly, an active, energetic, self-interested lobbyist for the patent-medicine association. If the newspapers knew how they were being used as cat's-paws, I believe they would resent it. Certainly the patent-medicine association itself feared this, and has kept this plan of Mr. Cheney's a careful secret. In this same meeting of the Proprietary Association of America, just after Mr. Cheney had made the speech quoted above, and while it was being resolved that every other patent-medicine man should put the same clause in his contract, the venerable Dr. Humphreys, oldest and wisest of the guild, arose and said: "Will it not be now just as well to act on this, each and every one for himself, instead of putting this on record?... I think the idea is a good one, But really don't think it had better go in our proceedings." And another fellow nostrum-maker, seeing instantly the necessity of secrecy said: "I am heartily in accord with Dr. Humphreys. The suggestion is a good one, but when we come to put in our public proceedings, and state that we have adopted such a resolution, I want to say that the legislators are just as sharp as the newspaper men.... As a consequence, this will decrease the weight of the press comments. Some of the papers, also, who would not come in, would publish something about it in the way of getting square....."

IMAGE ==>

This contract is the backbone of the scheme. The further details, the organization of the bureau to carry it into effect—that, too, has been kept carefully concealed from the generally unthinking newspapers, who are all unconsciously mere individual cogs in the patent-medicine lobbying machine. At one of the meetings of the association, Dr. R. V. Pierce of Buffalo arose and said (I quote him verbatim):... "I would move you that the report of the Committee on Legislation be made a special order to be taken up immediately... that it be considered in executive session, and that every person not a member of the organization be asked to retire, so that it may be read and considered in executive session. There are matters and suggestions in reference to our future action, and measures to be taken which are advised therein, that we would not wish to have published broadcast over the country for very good reasons."

Now what were the "matters and suggestions" which Dr. Pierce "would not wish to have published broadcast over the country for very good reasons?"

Can Mr. Cheney Reconcile These Statements?

Letter addressed to Mr. William Allen White, Editor of the Gazette, Emporia, Kan.

By Frank J. Cheney.

Dear Sir—

I have read with a great deal of interest, to-day, an article in Colliers illustrating therein the contract between your paper and ourselves, [see p. 18—Editor.] Mr. S. Hopkins Adams endeavored very hard (as I understand) to find me, but I am sorry to say that I was not at home. I really believe that I could have explained that clause of the contract to his entire satisfaction, and thereby saved him the humiliation of making an erratic statement.

This is the first intimation that I ever have had that that clause was put into the contract to control the Press in any way, or the editorial columns of the Press. I believe that if Mr. Adams was making contracts now, and making three-year contracts, the same as we are, taking into consideration the conditions of the different legislatures, he would be desirous of this same paragraph as a safety guard to protect himself, in case any State did pass a law prohibiting the sale of our goods.

His argument surely falls flat when he takes into consideration the conduct of the North Dakota Legislature, because every newspaper in that State that we advertise in hid contracts containing that clause. Why we should be compelled to pay for from one to two years' advertising or more, in a State where we could not sell our goods, is more than I can understand. As before stated, it is merely a precautionary paragraph to meet conditions such as now exist in North Dakota. We were compelled to withdraw from that State because we would not publish our formula, and, therefore, under this contract, we are not compelled to continue our advertising.