It was excavated in 1923 near Mobridge at a site which was the princ.i.p.al village of the Arikara Indians from about 1800 to 1833, a town visited by Lewis and Clark as they ascended the Missouri River in 1804. This bottle, made of English lead gla.s.s and therefore an imported article, was unearthed from a grave in the Indian burying ground.
Throughout history the claims made in behalf of patent medicines have been extreme. This Turlington bottle, however, affords one of the few cases on record wherein such a medicine has been felt to possess a postmortem utility.[103]
[103] Wedel and Griffenhagen, _op. cit._ (footnote 54).
Fur traders were still using old English patent medicines at mid-century. Four dozen bottles of Turlington"s Balsam were included in an "Inventory of Stock the property of Pierre Chouteau, Jr. and Co.
U[pper], M[issouri]. On hand at Fort Benton 4th May 1851...."[104] In the very same year, out in the new State of California, one of the early San Francisco papers listed Stoughton"s Bitters as among the merchandise for sale at a general store.[105]
[104] A. McDonnell, _Contributions to the Historical Society of Montana_, 1941, vol. 10, pp. 202, 217.
[105] _California Daily Courier_, San Francisco, April 25, 1851.
Newspaper advertising of the English proprietaries--even the mere listing so common during the late colonial years--became very rare after the Philadelphia College of Pharmacy pamphlet was issued.
Apothecary George J. Fischer of Frederick, Maryland, might mention seven of the old familiar names in 1837,[106] and another druggist in the same city might present a shorter list in 1844,[107] but such advertising was largely gratuitous. Since the English patent medicines had become every druggist"s property, people who felt the need of such dosage would expect every druggist to have them in stock. There was no more need to advertise them than there was to advertise laudanum or leeches or castor oil. Even the Supreme Court of Ma.s.sachusetts in 1837 took judicial cognizance of the fact that the old English patent medicine names had acquired a generic meaning descriptive of a general cla.s.s of medicines, names which everyone was free to use and no one could monopolize.[108]
[106] _Political Examiner_, Frederick, Maryland, April 19, 1837.
[107] _Frederick Examiner_, Frederick, Maryland, January 31, 1844.
[108] _Ma.s.sachusetts Supreme Court_, Thomson vs. Winchester, 19 Pick (Ma.s.s.), p. 214, March 1837.
As the years went by, and as advertising did not keep the names of the old English medicines before the eyes of customers, it is a safe a.s.sumption that their use declined. Losing their original proprietary status, they were playing a different role. New American proprietaries had stolen the appeal and usurped the function which Bateman"s Drops and Turlington"s Balsam had possessed in 18th-century London and Boston and Williamsburg. As part of the cultural nationalism that had accompanied the Revolution, American brands of nostrums had come upon the scene, promoted with all the vigor and cleverness once bestowed in English but not in colonial American advertising upon Dalby"s Carminative and others of its kind. While these English names retreated from American advertising during the 19th century, vast blocks of s.p.a.ce in the ever-larger newspapers were devoted to extolling the merits of Dyott"s Patent Itch Ointment, Swaim"s Panacea, and Brandreth"s Pills.
More and more Americans were learning how to read, as free public education spread. Persuaded by the frightening symptoms and the glorious promises, citizens with a bent toward self-dosage flocked to buy the American brands. Druggists and general stores stocked them and made fine profits.[109] While bottles of British Oil sold two for a quarter in 1885 Wisconsin, one bottle of Jayne"s Expectorant retailed for a dollar.[110] It is no wonder that, although the old English names continue to appear in the mid-19th-century and later druggists"
catalogs and price currents,[111] they are muscled aside by the mult.i.tude of brash American nostrums. Many of the late 19th century listings continued to follow the procedure set early in the century of specifying two grades of the various patent medicines, _i.e._, "English" and "American," "genuine" and "imitation," "U.S." and "stamped." American manufactories specializing in pharmaceutical gla.s.sware continued to offer the various English patent medicine bottles until the close of the century.[112]
[109] James Harvey Young, "Patent medicines: the early post-frontier phase," _Journal of the Illinois State Historical Society_, Autumn 1953, vol. 46, pp. 254-264.
[110] Cody and Johnson Drug Co., _op. cit._ (footnote 97).
[111] Van Schaack, Stevenson & Reid, _Annual prices current_, Chicago, 1875; Morrison, Plummer & Co., _Price current of drugs, chemicals, oils, gla.s.sware, patent medicines, druggists sundries ..._, Chicago, 1880.
[112] Hagerty Bros. & Co., _Catalogue of Druggists" gla.s.sware, sundries, fancy goods, etc._, New York, 1879; Whitall, Tatum & Co., _Annual price list_, Millville, New Jersey, 1898.
[Ill.u.s.tration: Figure 13.--OPODELDOC BOTTLE from the collection of Mrs.
Leo F. Redden, Kenmore, New York. (_Smithsonian photo 44201-E._)]
In a thesaurus published in 1899, G.o.dfrey"s, Bateman"s, Turlington"s, and other of the old English patent remedies were termed "extinct patents."[113] The adjective referred to the status of the patent, not the condition of the medicines. If less prominent than in the olden days, the medicines were still alive. The first edition of the _National Formulary_, published in 1888, had cited the old English names as synonyms for official preparations in four cases, Dalby"s, Bateman"s, G.o.dfrey"s and Turlington"s.
[113] Emil Hiss, _Thesaurus of proprietary preparations and pharmaceutical specialties_, Chicago, 1899, p. 12.
[Ill.u.s.tration: Figure 14.--OPODELDOC BOTTLE as ill.u.s.trated in the 1879 Catalog of Hagerty Bros., New York City, New York.]
Thus as the present century opened, the old English patent medicines were still being sold. City druggists were dispensing them over their counters, and the peddler"s wagon carried them to remote rural regions.[114] But the medical scene was changing rapidly. Improvements in medical science, stemming in part from the establishment of the germ theory of disease, were providing a better yardstick against which to measure the therapeutic efficiency of proprietary remedies. Medical ethics were likewise advancing, and the occasional critic among the ranks of physicians was being joined by scores of his fellow pract.i.tioners in lambasting the brazen effrontery of the hundreds of American cure-alls which advertised from newspaper and roadside sign.
Journalists joined doctors in condemning nostrums. Samuel Hopkins Adams in particular, writing "The Great American Fraud" series for _Collier"s Weekly_, frightened and aroused the American public with his exposure of cheap whiskey posing as consumption cures and soothing syrups filled with opium. Then came a revolution in public policy. After a long and frustrating legislative prelude, Congress in June of 1906 pa.s.sed, and President Theodore Roosevelt signed, the first Pure Food and Drugs Act.
The law contained clauses aimed at curtailing the worst features of the patent medicine evil.
[114] Robert B. Nixon, Jr., _Corner druggist_, New York, 1941, p. 68.
The Patent Medicines In The 20th Century
Although the old English patent medicines had not been the target at which disturbed physicians and "muck-raking" journalists had taken aim, these ancient remedies were governed by provisions of the new law. In November 1906 the Bureau of Chemistry of the Department of Agriculture, in charge of administering the new federal statute, received a letter from a wholesale druggist in Evansville, Indiana. One of his stocks in trade, the druggist wrote, was a remedy called G.o.dfrey"s Cordial. He realized that the Pure Food and Drugs Act had something to do with the labeling of medicines containing opium, as G.o.dfrey"s did, and he wanted to know from the Bureau just what was required of him.[115] Many manufacturing druggists and producers of medicine were equally anxious to learn how the law would affect them. The editors of a trade paper, the _American Druggist and Pharmaceutical Record_, issued warnings and gave advice. It was still the custom, they noted, to wrap bottles of ancient patent medicines, like G.o.dfrey"s Cordial and Turlington"s Balsam, in facsimiles of the original circulars, on which were printed extravagant claims and fabulous certificates of cures that dated back some two hundred years. The new law was not going to permit the continuation of such 18th-century practices. Statements on the label "false or misleading in any particular" were banned.[116]
[115] Letter from Charles Leich & Co. to Harvey Washington Wiley, Bureau of Chemistry, Department of Agriculture, November 2, 1906.
Ma.n.u.script original in Record Group 97, National Archives, Washington, D.C.
[116] _American Druggist and Pharmaceutical Record_, 1906, vol.
49, pp. 343-344.
A few manufacturers, as the years went by, fell afoul of this and other provisions of the law. In 1918 a Reading, Pennsylvania, firm entered a plea of guilty and received a fifty dollar fine for putting on the market an adulterated and misbranded version of Dr. Bateman"s Pectoral Drops.[117] The law required that all medicines sold under a name recognized in the _United States pharmacopoeia_ or the _National formulary_, and Bateman"s was included in the latter, must not differ from the standard of strength, quality, or purity as established by these volumes. Yet the Bateman Drops produced in Reading, the government charged, fell short. They contained only 27.8 percent of the alcohol and less than a tenth of the morphine that they should have had. While short on active ingredients, the Drops were long on claims.
The wrapper boasted that the medicine was "effective as a remedy for all fluxes, spitting of blood, agues, measles, colds, coughs, and to put off the most violent fever; as a treatment, remedy, and cure for stone and gravel in the kidneys, bladder, and urethra, shortness of breath, straightness of the breast; and to rekindle the most natural heat in the bodies by which they restore the languishing to perfect health." Okell and Dicey had scarcely promised more. By 20th-century standards, the government a.s.serted, these claims were false and fraudulent.
[117] Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Chemistry, Notices of Judgment under the Food and Drugs Act, Notice of Judgment 6222, United States vs. Pabst Pure Extract Co., 1919.
Other manufacturers sold Bateman"s Drops without running afoul of the law. In 1925, ninety-nine years after the Philadelphia College of Pharmacy pamphlet was printed, one North Carolina firm was persuaded that it still was relevant to tell potential customers, in a handbill, that its Drops were being made in strict conformity with the College formula.[118] For Compound Tincture of Opium and Gambir Compound, however, most manufacturers chose to follow the _National formulary_ specifications, which remained official until 1936.
[118] Original handbill, distributed by Standard Drug Co., Elizabeth City, North Carolina, 1925, preserved in the files of the Bureau of Investigation, American Medical a.s.sociation, Chicago, Ill.
Another old English patent medicine against which the Department of Agriculture was forced to take action was Hooper"s Female Pills.
Between 1919 and 1923, government agents seized a great many shipments of this ancient remedy in versions put out by three Philadelphia concerns.[119] Some of the packages bore red seals, others green seals, and still others black, but the labeling of all claimed them to be "a safe and sovereign remedy in female complaints." This theme was expanded in considerable detail and there was an 18th-century ring to the promise that the pills would work a sure cure "in all hypochondriac, hysterick or vapourish disorders." No pill made essentially of aloes and ferrous sulphate, said the government experts, could do these things. Nor did the manufacturers, in court, seek to say otherwise. Whether the seals were green or red, whether the packages were seized in Washington or Worcester, the result was the same. No party appeared in court to claim the pills, and they were condemned and destroyed.
[119] Multiple seizures were made of products shipped by the Horace B. Taylor Co., Fore & Co., and the American Synthetic Co.
The quotations are from Notice of Judgment 8868; see also 8881, 8914, 8936, 8956, 8974, 9134, 9147, 9203, 9510, 9586, 9785, 10203, 10204, 10629, 11519, 11669.
In one of the last actions under the 1906 law, a case concluded in 1940, after the first federal statute had been superseded by a more rigorous one enacted in 1938, two of the old English patent medicines encountered trouble.[120] They were British Oil and Dalby"s Carminative, as prepared by the South Carolina branch of a large pharmaceutical manufacturing concern.
[120] Federal Security Agency, Food and Drug Administration, Notice of Judgment 31134, United States vs. McKesson and Robbins, Inc., Murray Division, 1942.
According to the label, the British Oil was made in conformity with the Philadelphia College of Pharmacy formula given in an outdated edition of the _United States dispensatory_. But instead of containing a proper amount of linseed oil, if indeed it contained any, the medicine was made with cottonseed oil, an ingredient not mentioned in the Dispensatory. Therefore, the government charged, the Oil was adulterated, under that provision of the law requiring a medicine to maintain the strength and purity of any standard it professed to follow. More than that, the labeling contravened the law since it represented the remedy as an effective treatment for various swellings, inflammations, fresh wounds, earaches, shortnesses of breath, and ulcers.
Dalby"s Carminative was merely misbranded, but that was bad enough. Its label suggested that it be used especially "For Infants Afflicted With Wind, Watery Gripes, Fluxes and Other Disorders of the Stomach and Bowels," although it would aid adults as well. The impression that this remedy was capable of curing such afflictions, the government charged, was false and fraudulent. Moreover, since the Carminative contained opium, it was not a safe medicine when given according to the dosage directions in a circular accompanying the bottle. For these and several other violations of the law, the defending company, which did not contest the case, was fined a hundred dollars.
Throughout the 19th century, occasional criticism of the old English patent medicines had been made in the lay press. One novel[121]
describes a physician who comments on the use of Dalby"s Carminative for babies: "Don"t, for pity"s sake, vitiate and torment your poor little angel"s stomach, so new to the atrocities of this world, with drugs. These mixers of baby medicines ought to be fed nothing but their own nostrums. That would put a stop to their inventions of the adversary."
[121] John William De Forest, _Miss Ravenel"s conversion from secession to loyalty_, New York, 1867.
Opium had been lauded in the 17th and 18th centuries, when the old English proprietaries began, as a superior cordial which could moderate most illnesses and even cure some. "Medicine would be a one-armed man if it did not possess this remedy." So had stated the noted English physician, Thomas Sydenham.[122] But the 20th century had grown to fear this powerful narcotic, especially in remedies for children. This point of view, ill.u.s.trated in the governmental action concerning Dalby"s Carminative, was also reflected in medical comment about G.o.dfrey"s Cordial. During 1912, a Missouri physician described the death of a baby who had been given this medicine for a week.[123] The symptoms were those of opium poisoning. Deploring the naming of this "dangerous mixture" a "cordial," since the average person thought of a cordial as beneficial, the doctor hoped that the formula might be omitted from the next edition of the _National formulary_. This did not happen, for the recipe hung on until 1926. The Harrison Narcotic Act, enacted in 1914 as a Federal measure to restrict the distribution of narcotics,[124]
failed to restrict the sale of many opium-bearing compounds like G.o.dfrey"s Cordial. In 1931, a Tennessee resident complained to the medical journal _Hygeia_ that this medication was "sold in general stores and drug stores here without prescription and is given to babies." To this, the journal replied that the situation was "little short of criminal."[125] The charge leveled against his compet.i.tors by one of the first producers of G.o.dfrey"s Cordial two centuries earlier (see page 158) may well have proved a prophecy broad enough to cover the whole history of this potent nostrum. "... Many Men, Women, and especially Infants," he said, "may fall as Victims, whose Slain may exceed Herod"s Cruelty...."
[122] Charles H. LaWall, _The curious lore of drugs and medicines (Four thousand years of pharmacy)_, Garden City, New York, 1927, p. 281.
[123] W. B. Sissons, "Poisoning from G.o.dfrey"s Cordial," _Journal of the American Medical a.s.sociation_, March 2, 1912, vol. 58, p.
650.
[124] Edward Kremers and George Urdang, _History of pharmacy_, Philadelphia, 1951, pp. 170, 278.
[125] "G.o.dfrey"s Cordial," _Hygeia_, October 1931, vol. 9, p.
1050.