Mr. KENNEY. I would like to know what your claims on it are;

Mr. KENNEY. Before you do that, though, there is a provision in this bill that leaves certain powers to the Federal Trade Commission. Now, do they have jurisdiction with you, or do you propose to take away from them any advertising jurisdiction that they now have? Mr. CAMPBELL. We are not going to interfere with their functions. Mr. KENNEY. In other words, have we two departments of the Government overlapping?

Mr. CAMPBELL. Not at all. If you will permit me to explain that, I will try to do it.

Mr. KENNEY. If you will.

Mr. CAMPBELL. The jurisdiction of the Federal Trade Commission is through section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act which, as I have said, empowers that body to regulate unfair trade competition.

Now, unfair trade competition is not restricted to advertising activities alone. Considering the work of the Food and Drug Administration in the enforcement of the Food and Drugs Act, adulteration-adulteration would be removing the cream from milk and the sale of the resultant product as whole milk-would be not only an imposition on the consumer but an unfair trade practice. It would be unfair to the competing dairyman.

Misbranding involves unfair trade competition. The sale of a mixture of cane syrup and maple syrup as maple syrup is not only imposing on the consumer, but it is likewise unfair competition with the producer of genuine maple syrup.

When this committee was considering the Sherley amendment to the drug section of the present law, which I hope to discuss in a few minutes, and dealing with the misbranding provisions only, one member of the committee at that time, in 1912, made the statement that the effort was of no value, so far as the public was concerned, unless the provision gave control over advertising.

The Food and Drugs Act does not extend to advertising. The Food and Drugs Act extends to the labeling on the package alone. We have addressed ourselves assiduously, to the extent that our facilities would permit, to making labels on food and drugs products truthful, but we have found that that has not operated to the effective protection of the public. The public has been sold, using the commercial term, on products by the statements made over the radio, found in magazines, newspapers, and on the billboards.

Several years ago, before the Federal Trade Commission undertook to any considerable extent the regulation of advertising, the Food and Drug Administration went to that body and pointed out the limitations of our law, stressed its weakness, proposed a cooperative plan by which we could give to them the technical information that they needed to reach conclusions about the extent to which unfair trade competition was involved in advertising of a type which we would not permit to occur on the label, because it was untruthful and false.

You will find from the record of the Federal Trade Commission, perhaps, on the matter of advertising, that by far the most frequent

complainant is the Food and Drug Administration, in the interest of the public; but the Federal Trade Commission cannot take action purely in the interest of the public. The Supreme Court decided that definitely in the Raladam case. They can act only where there is involved unfair trade competition.

Now, there will be no duplication of work in an undertaking by the Food and Drug Administration to enforce the advertising provisions of this bill in the interests of the consumer. Jurisdiction over advertising that is an unfair trade practice will remain with the Federal Trade Commission.

I know that the Federal Trade Commission has appeared through its chairman, Judge Davis, for whom I have much respect and whom I know, and has opposed the passage of the Copeland bill providing for the regulation of advertising by the Department of Agriculture. Mr. KENNEY. He has not been before this committee.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Before Congress, I meant, Mr. Kenney, before the Commerce Committee of the Senate. I do not know whether he will appear here or not. I anticipate he will.

Mr. KENNEY. Let me ask you: Does your department have any experienced staff to investigate false and misleading advertisements? Mr. CAMPBELL. A very small portion of the staff that we have is engaged in investigating false advertising and advertising of a misleading character in connection with statements on the labels. That applies to all food and drug products. That is purely a technical activity, that is one requiring technical knowledge. I think that the Federal Trade Commission will bear me out when I make the assertion that that organization is dependent upon the Food and Drug Administration for the technical advice, the factual evidence upon which their procedure on food and drug questions is predicated.

Mr. KENNEY. That may be so, but the Federal Trade Commission now has a special staff of investigators doing this very thing, looking up and running down these false advertisements; is that so? Mr. CAMPBELL. Possibly so.

Mr. KENNEY. And it seems to be working pretty well in conjunction with those that do the advertising. I mean the medium of advertising.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Well, I know nothing whatever about that; but they depend, as I said, on the Food and Drug Administration, because the facts are of a technical sort.

Mr. KENNEY. My point is that it is running along pretty well now with the Federal Trade Commission, and why upset the decisions of the courts and set up a new branch to administer this, not knowing whether or not it is going to have the same results that we are getting

now.

Mr. CAMPBELL. For just this reason: Two bodies can cooperate when there is not a division of responsibility and when they are functioning under the terms of laws that are very definitely limited, when there is no overlapping of jurisdiction.

It is proposed by this legislation here to approach the question of advertising not from the competitors' standpoint, but from the consumers' standpoint, and they are fundamentally different. There are fundamentally different philosophies involved.

Mr. KENNEY. Why should that go to your Administration rather than to the Federal Trade Commission?

Mr. CAMPBELL. Because the Food and Drug Administration is a body that is dealing in the interest of the consumer, and the Federal Trade Commission, on the other hand, is dealing only in the interest of the producers and dealing with

Mr. KENNEY (interposing). You have been cooperating with the Federal Trade Commission as to this all of the time?

Mr. CAMPBELL. We have been and we are cooperating with the Federal Trade Commission.

Mr. KENNEY. Was not that in behalf of the consumer, to some extent?

Mr. CAMPBELL. Our interest in these cases is dictated entirely by the interest of the consumers, surely.

Mr. KENNEY. Yes.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Now, you asked me what would be the objection to the continuation of that present program, and I am trying to tell you why I think a continuation of that program under the terms of legislation of this sort will not work. I said that at the present time a good cooperative relationship existed because there was no overlapping of authority. No one was stepping on someone else's official toes.

Personally, I am more concerned about the character of this legislation and what can be done by it for the protection of the public than I am in the agency that enforces it.

I have this to say, though, that out of an abundance of administrative experience lasting for nearly 30 years in connection with this very law and embodying the enforcement of all of the regulatory laws of the Department of Agriculture for a considerable period, when I was director of the regulatory work of the Department, I unhesitatingly say that you cannot effect a division of responsibility and expect effective law enforcement to result. Confusion will prevail. It is just expecting too much of human nature. Jealousy will develop, with the result that the intended beneficiaries of the legislation will be the ones that will suffer.

Now, I say this in conclusion, for I do not want to engage in an incidental argument, if you will permit me to say so

Mr. KENNEY. I will, but I do want to. I like to hear you. You are here as I understand it, Mr. Campbell-you are here to enlighten this committee.

Mr. CAMPBELL. That is quite right. Do not misunderstand me, Mr. Kenney, if you will let me make this statement.

Mr. KENNEY. You can talk from now until doomsday and if you do not enlighten us you are just wasting your time.

Mr. CAMPBELL. That is quite right.

Mr. KENNEY. There are certain points that I would like to have brought out for my own information.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Very good.

Mr. KENNEY. I have a duty here as a member of this committee. Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes, sir.

Mr. KENNEY. Now, let me ask you this question

Mr. CAMPBELL. May I finish my statement before you ask me? Mr. KENNEY. All right,

Mr. CAMPBELL. I do not want you to misunderstand the statement I made, and I am afraid that you do.

I am speaking purely from the standpoint of my own concern, that I deplore any controversy between us and the Federal Trade Commission about the enforcement agencies of this law. I think the purpose here, first, is what shall be the terms and character of this law. I only have this to say, do not divide the responsibility. If the Federal Trade Commission is better equipped to enforce this law in all its features, give that body the total responsibility and transfer all of the work to it. I will made no complaint about that, perhaps, but you will not get, in my judgment-and I think that Í am justified in making that prophecy-satisfactory results if you have divided responsibility, divided authority.

Mr. KENNEY. Did the request for this jurisdiction come from your department?

Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes.

Mr. KENNEY. Was the request made by any other source in addition to your own request?

Mr. CAMPBELL. I do not know whether I understood that question, Mr. Kenney.

Mr. KENNEY. Well, is the request for jurisdiction over advertising your sole request; does it come alone from your department, or has there been any other branch of the Government, or has there been any other source which has asked for the jurisdiction to be given. to the Food and Drug Administration?

Mr. CAMPBELL. I know of no one else joining in. In the first place, we formulated the original draft of this bill extending jurisdiction to advertising, because that is deemed to be a natural and a normal extension of present control.

We made that request in connection with the original measure. We asked for its enforcement through the Department of Agricul

ture.

I do not know any other agency; in fact, I do not know of any other group or private agency that supports that position.

Mr. KENNEY. I did not have in mind private agencies. I had in mind the administration. Has the national administration indicated how it feels about it, as to whether you should have the jurisdiction or not?

Mr. CAMPBELL. I think it is a question that the national administration may have given consideration to, by, Mr. Kenney, I could hardly undertake to express authoritatively an administration point or reaction.

Mr. KENNEY. That is all.

Mr. CAMPBELL. There are other amendments, Mr. Chairman. On page 40-let us get through with those. There are two minor amendments. The first is on page 40, line 21, change (g) to (f), because in the final amendments that were passed in the Senate, paragraph (g) became (f).

On page 38, line 23, after the word "drug", insert the word "device.'

And page 36, line 14

Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question about this amendment on page 34?

Mr. CAMPBELL. Page 34?

Mr. COLE. Yes. Striking out the words "distribute or sell" and inserting "introduce into or receive." As I interpret the language

of the amendment, no retail dealer shall be prosecuted for distribution in good faith of any advertisement of any article which he does not receive in interstate commerce.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Or distribute in interstate commerce.

Mr. COLE. What do you mean by that? That would take in a little country merchant who makes a sale of a product which is delivered through a wholesale house in the State where he operates. I am wondering whether you are going to carry this thing into almost every article he has in his store, accompanied by advertisements, and claim that he received it in interstate commerce, because it comes from another State. Is that not pretty broad language?

Mr. CAMPBELL. It is pretty broad language. The purpose-of course, this is an exemption, as you recognize the purpose was not to have the measure interfere with those actual transactions of the kind I have just described, where some dealer would develop a drug product or a confectionery product or an article of food

Mr. COLE. I know what you are trying to get at, but I am wondering as to the application of it. What is your idea?

Mr. CAMPBELL. As it is amended?

Mr. COLE. In interpreting it and enforcing such language. Is it your idea that would apply to something that comes in from Michigan to be distributed to Columbus, Ohio, for instance?

Mr. CAMPBELL. The exemption would not apply.

Mr. COLE. If you broke that up and that is received by the merchant here in interstate commerce

Mr. CAMPBELL. That is right; and the exemption would not apply. Mr. COLE. You see, if it does

Mr. CAMPBELL (interposing). It would not apply.

Mr. COLE. It would not cover, then, things which are purely local? Mr. CAMPBELL. That is quite right.

The things that are produced purely locally-and that is my understanding of what it is intended to do-would not be affected.

Mr. COLE. After the original package gets into the State, it is subject to State law then.

Mr. CAMPBELL. It is subject to State law, but it is likewise subject to Federal law. In other words, there is Federal jurisdiction coextensive with State jurisdiction in such matters. The Supreme Court decided in the Hippolite case that the terms of the Federal law followed the product to the shelf of the retail dealer.

Mr. KENNEY. Will you furnish the citation?

Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes; I will be glad to; 220 U. S. 45.
So the purpose of that was to limit the exemption.

Mr. COLE. I understand your statement. I am wondering if a country merchant has some advertising matter, if you are going to hold him liable?

Mr. CAMPBELL. That does very materially restrict the scope of the exemption; but on the other hand, if that is not done, you see the width of the loophole that is there through which really advertising provisions of the bill can be very effectively circumvented.

Was there anything more that you wanted to refer to?

Mr. KENNEY. No.

Mr. CAMPBELL. The final amendment is on page 36, in line 14, after the word "health ", insert "or grossly deceptive "; and on the same