Born in Vermont eighty-two years ago, Mr. Dunham was graduated from the
Boston Medical College and practiced medicine until about thirty years
ago, when he moved west. There he became a preacher. He occupied the
pulpit of the South Cheyenne, Wyoming, Congregational Church for ten
years. Two years ago he retired from the pulpit and established a
marriage bureau for the accommodation of couples who come over from
Colorado to be married. No money was paid by the Duffy's Malt Whiskey
people for Dunham's testimonial; but he received about $10 "to have his
picture taken."
"REV." M. N. HOUGHTON.
This Is the actual likeness of the "distinguished divine" with the side
whiskers in the Duffy whiskey advertisement. Mr. Houghton was for a
number of years pastor of the Church of Eternal Hope, of Bradford, Pa.
He retired six years ago to enter politics, and is now a deputy Internal
Revenue collector. Although a member of the Universalist Church, Mr.
Houghton is a spiritualist and delivered orations last summer at the
Lily Dale assembly, the spiritualistic "City of Light" located near
Dunkirk, N. Y. Mr. Houghton owned racehorses and was a patron of the
turf.
Its status has been definitely settled in New York State, where Excise
Commissioner Cullinane recently obtained a decision in the supreme court
declaring it a liquor. The trial was in Rochester, where the nostrum is
made. Eleven supposedly reputable physicians, four of them members of
the Health Department, swore to their belief that the whisky contained
drugs which constituted it a genuine medicine. The state was able to
show conclusively that if remedial drugs were present they were in
such small {021}quantities as to be indistinguishable, and, of course,
utterly without value; in short, that the product was nothing more or
less than sweetened whisky. Yet the United States government has long
lent its sanction to the "medicine" status by exempting Duffy's Pure
Malt Whiskey from the federal liquor tax. In fact, the government is
primarily responsible for the formal establishment of the product as a
medicine, having forced it into the patent medicine ranks at the time
when the Spanish war expenses were partly raised by a special tax on
nostrums. Up to that time the Duffy product, while asserting its virtues
in various ills, made no direct pretence to be anything but a whisky.
Transfer to the patent medicine list cost it, in war taxes, more
than $40,000. By way of setting a _quid pro quo_, the company began
ingeniously and with some justification to exploit its liquor as "the
only whisky recognised by the government as medicine," and continues
so to advertise, although the recent decision of the Internal Revenue
Department, providing that all patent medicines which have no medicinal
properties other than the alcohol in them must pay a rectifier's tax,
relegates it to its proper place. While this decision is not a severe
financial blow to the Duffys and their congeners (it means only a few
hundred dollars apiece), it is important as officially establishing
the "bracer" class on the same footing with whisky and gin, where they
belong. Other "drugs" there are which sell largely, perhaps chiefly,
over the oar, Hostetter's Bitters and Damiana Bitters being prominent in
this class.
When this series of articles was first projected, _Collier's_ received
a warning from "Warner's Safe Cure," advising that a thorough
investigation would be wise before "making any attack" on that
preparation. I have no intention of "attacking" this company or any one
else, and they would have escaped notice altogether, because of their
present unimportance, but for their letter. The suggested investigation
was not so thorough as to go deeply into the nature of the remedy, which
is an alcoholic liquid, but it developed this interesting fact; Warner's
Safe Cure, together with all the Warner remedies, is leased, managed
and controlled by the New York and Kentucky Distilling Company,
manufacturers of standard whiskies which do not pretend to remedy
anything but thirst. Duffy's Malt Whiskey is an another subsidiary
company of the New York and Kentucky concern. This statement is
respectfully submitted to temperance users of the Malt Whiskey and the
Warner remedies.
Some Alcohol Percentages.
Hostetter's Bitters contain, according to an official state analysis,
44 per cent, of alcohol; Lydia Pinkham appeals to suffering womanhood with
20 per cent, of alcohol; Hood's Sarsaparilla cures "that tired feeling"
with 18 per cent.; Burdock's Blood Bitters, with 25 per cent.; Ayer's
Sarsaparilla, with 26 per cent., and Paine's Celery Compound, with
21 per cent. The fact is that any of these remedies could be interchanged
with Peruna or with each other, so far as general effect goes, though
the iodid of potassium in the sarsaparilla class might have some effect
(as likely to be harmful as helpful ) which would be lacking in the
simpler mixtures.
If this class of nostrum is so harmful, asks the attentive reader of
newspaper advertising columns, how explain the indorsements of so many
people of prominence and reputation? "Men of prominence and reputation"
in this connection means Peruna, for Peruna has made a specialty of high
government officials and people in the public eye. In a self-gratulatory
dissertation the Peruna Company observes in substance that, while the
leading minds of the nation have hitherto shrunk from the publicity
attendant on commending any patent medicine, the transcendent virtues of
Peruna have overcome this amiable modesty, and, one and all, they stand
forth its avowed champions. This is followed by an ingenious document
headed {022}"Fifty Members of Congress Send Letters of Indorsement
to the Inventor of the Great Catarrh Remedy, Pe-ru-na," and quoting
thirty-six of the letters. Analysis of these letters brings out the
singular circumstance that in twenty-one of the thirty-six there is no
indication that the writer has ever tasted the remedy which he so
warmly praises. As a sample, and for the benefit of lovers of ingenious
literature, I reprint the following from a humorous member of Congress:
"My secretary has as bad a case of catarrh as I ever saw, and since he
has taken one bottle of Peruna he seems like a different man.
"Taylorsville, N. C. Romulus Z. Linney."
The famous letter of Admiral Schley is a case in point. He wrote to the
Peruna Company:
"I can cheerfully say that Mrs. Schley has used Peruna, and, I believe,
with good effect. [Signed] W. S. Schley."
This indorsement went the rounds of the country in half-page blazonry,
to the consternation of the family's friends. Admiral Schley seems
to have appreciated that this use of his name was detrimental to his
standing. He wrote to a Columbus religious journal the following letter:
"1820 I Street, Washington, D. C., Nov. 10,1904. "_Editor Catholic
Columbian_:--The advertisement of the Peruna Company, inclosed, is made
without any authority or approval from me. When it was brought to
my attention first I wrote the company a letter, stating that
the advertisement was offensive and must be discontinued. Their
representative here called on me and stated he had been directed to
assure me no further publication would be allowed, as it was without my
sanction.
"I would say that the advertisement has been made without my knowledge
or consent and is an infringement of my rights as a citizen.
"If you will kindly inform me what the name and date of the paper was in
which the inclosed advertisement appeared I shall feel obliged.
"Very truly yours, W. S. Schley."
Careful study of this document will show that this is no explicit denial
of the testimonial. But who gives careful study to such a letter? On the
face of it, it puts the Peruna people in the position of having forged
their advertisement. Ninety-nine people out of a hundred would get
that impression. Yet I have seen the testimonial, signed with Admiral
Schley's name and interlined in the same handwriting as the signature,
and I have seen another letter, similarly signed, stating that Admiral
Schley had not understood that the letter was to be used for such
advertising as the recipient based on it. If these letters are forgeries
the victim has his recourse in the law. They are on file at Columbus,
Ohio, and the Peruna Company would doubtless produce them in defense of
a suit.
What the Government Can Do.
One thing that the public has a right to demand in its attitude toward
the proprietary medicines containing alcohol: that the government carry
out rigidly its promised policy no longer to permit liquors to disguise
themselves as patent medicines, and thereby escape the tax which is put
on other (and probably better) brands of intoxicants. One other demand
it should make on the purveyors of the concoctions: that they label
every bottle with the percentage of alcohol it contains; that they label
every man who writes testimonials to Duffy, and the W. C. T. U. member
who indorses Peruna, Lydia Pinkham, Warner and their compeers, will
know when they imbibe their "tonics," "invigorators," "swamp roots,"
"bitters," "nerve-builders" or "spring medicines" that they are sipping
by the tablespoon or wineglassful what the town tippler takes across the
license-paying bar.