TABLE 1.-Terminations of over the-counter and unauthorized refill cases as of Apr. 1, 1951-Continued

M. & M. Drugs, Toledo, Ohio, M. Sherman.
Jones Drug Co., Tucson, Ariz., W. W. Hafley..

Matthias Prescription Pharmacy, Inc., Tucson,
Ariz., W. C. Matthias.

Taylor's Drug Store, Peoria, Ill., J. P. Taylor,
R. L. Taylor.

B. T. Smith Co., Inc., Baltimore, Md., B. T.
Smith, L. Hergenrather III, C. E. Spigelmire.
S. E. Piotrowski, trading as Stephen E. Piot-
rowski Pharmacy, Milwaukee, Wis.
E. E. Wiegand, Milwaukee, Wis.

Oct. 24, 1950. Plea: Guilty on 1 count; 3 counts nolle prossed
upon motion of United States attorney; fined $50.
Nov. 10, 1950. Nolo contendere. Fine of $50 on each of 6
counts against corporation ($300) and $25 on each of 6 counts
against individual ($150); total fine, $450.

Nov. 10, 1950. Corporation pleaded guilty on all counts. J.
Cowan pleaded guilty on 5 counts, 4 counts dismissed. F. B.
Heinzle pleaded guilty on 4 counts, 5 counts dismissed. Cor-
poration fined $100 on each of 9 counts ($900). Cowan fined
$50 on each of 5 counts ($250). Heinzle fined $50 on each of
4 counts ($200). Total fine for all defendants, $1,350.
Nov. 9, 1950. Plea: Nolo contendere. Fine of $25 on each of
7 counts, plus costs of $37; total fine, $212.

Oct. 23, 1950. Plea: Nolo contendere as to counts 1, 2, 3, and 4.
Counts 5, 6, and 7 dismissed. Fine of $50 on each of 4 counts;
total fine, $200.

Oct. 23, 1950. Plea: Nolo contendere: A. G. Wilson on counts
1 and 2. Counts 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 dismissed; by F. J. Kolb,
Jr., as to counts 3 and 4; by T. Turnbow as to count 5. Fine:
A. G. Wilson, $50 on each of 2 counts; F. J. Kolb, Jr., $50 on
each of 2 counts; T. Turnbow, $50 on 1 count. Total fine,
$250.

Oct. 23, 1950. Plea: Nolo contendere as to counts 1, 2, and 3.
Count 4 dismissed. Fine of $50 on each of 3 counts. Total
fine, $150.
Oct. 23, 1950. Plea: Nolo contendere on counts 1 and 2. Count
3 dismissed. Fined $50 on each of 2 counts. Total fine, $100.
Oct. 23, 1950. Plea: Nolo contendere. Evans Drug Co., Inc.,
fined $50 on each of 2 counts; 3 counts dismissed by court.
R. H. Wyatt fined $50 on each of 2 counts, 3 counts dismissed;
W. M. Boyatt fined $50 on each of 2 counts; R. H. Duncan
fined $50 on 1 count. Total fine, $350.

Oct. 23, 1950. Plea: Nolo contendere as to 3 counts by each
defendant. Court dismissed 3 counts as to each defendant.
Each defendant fined $50 on each of 3 counts. Total fine,
$300.

Dec. 5, 1950. Plea: Nolo contendere. Fine of $25 on each of 8
counts against each defendant. Total fine, $400.

Nov. 15, 1950. Plea: Guilty. Firm and individual each fined
$5 on each of 4 counts. Total fine, $40.

Nov. 15, 1950. Plea: Guilty. Corporation and individual
fined $5 on each of 4 counts. Total fine, $40.

Dec. 18, 1950. Plea: Nolo contendere. Charges against partner-
ship dismissed. Each individual fined $100 on each of 4 counts,
plus costs of $35, total fine, $835.

Dec. 12, 1950. Plea: Guilty. Each defendant fined $25 plus
costs of $35; total fine, $135.

Nov. 27, 1950. Plea: Guilty. Fined $300 on all 3 counts.

Dec. 11, 1950. Plea: Nolo contendere. Fined $1,000 on count
1; sentence was suspended on counts 2, 3, and 4 and defendant
placed on probation for 1 year.

TABLE 1.-Terminations of over-the-counter and unauthorized refill cases as of Apr. 1, 1951-Continued

Dec. 12, 1950. Plea: Guilty. Fined $50 on each of 4 counts,
plus 8 months in jail on each count, sentence to run con-
currently; jail sentence to be suspended upon payment of
fine and defendant to be placed on probation for 3 years.
Total fine, $200.

Jan. 2, 1951. Plea: Nolo contendere. Fined $100 on each of
2 counts; sentence on remaining 2 counts suspended. Total
fine $200.

Jan. 2, 1951. Plea: Nolo contendere. Each individual finedl
$100 on 1 count; sentence suspended on remaining 3 counts.
Case dismissed as to firm. Total fine, $200.

Jan. 2, 1951. Plea: Nolo contendere. Individuals fined $100
on each of 2 counts, 1 count suspended. Case against firm
dismissed. Total fine, $200.
Jan. 11, 1951.

Plea: Nolo contendere. Fined $200.

..Jan. 11, 1951. Plea: Nolo contendere. S. P. Rottenberg fined
$200. Case against H. Rottenberg dismissed.

Jan. 15, 1951. Plea: Guilty. Fined $40 on each of 5 counts;
total fine, $200.

February 1951. Plea: Nolo contendere. Imposition of sen-
tence suspended and defendants placed on probation for 1
year without supervision.
February 1951. Plea: Nolo contendere. Imposition of sen-
tence suspended and defendant placed on probation for 1 year
without supervision.

February 1951. Plea: Nolo contendere. Imposition of sen-
tence suspended and each defendant placed on probation for
1 year without supervision.
February 1951. Plea: Nolo contendere as to firm and J. E.
Bell. Information dismissed against G. Edge. Imposition
of sentence suspended and each of the other defendants
placed on probation for 1 year without supervision.
Feb. 3, 1951. Plea: guilty as to firm. Case against individuals
dismissed. Firm fined $500.
Feb. 13, 1951. Plea: Nolo contendere. Fined $50 on each of
3 counts; 1 count dismissed; total fine, $150.
Mar. 12, 1951.
total fine, $300.

Plea: Guilty. Fined $100 on each of 3 counts;

Mr. WOLVERTON. Mr. Chairman.

I do not draw the distinctions here, maybe, as readily as I should, but for instance, in this bottle which is marked "5-A," that is illustrative of many others that are here, it says, "Adult dose, 1 or 2 tablets as directed by a physician.' Does that require a prescription?

Mr. LARRICK. No.

Mr. WOLVERTON. The other one that you called to our attention

Mr. LARRICK. What is the number on the back of that one, Mr. Wolverton?

Mr. WOLVERTON. 5-A.

Now, 5-B says, "Caution: To be dispensed only by or on the prescription of a physician." 5-A says "One or two tablets as directed by a physician," and what is the difference in that respect?

Mr. LARRICK. Oh, the one that says "Caution: To be dispensed only by or upon the prescription of a physician," there are no directions for use. They put that legend on and take advantage of the exemption under the statute. They put that on in lieu of directions for use.

Now, so long as that drug stays in prescription channels and it is dispensed to the ultimate consumer only on prescription, the exemption is in force and it is a legal transaction; but if the pharmacist sells it to you or to me without a prescription, then the drug becomes misbranded, because it fails to bear adequate directions for use.

Now, the other item that you referred to there bears some directions for use, but in the opinion of the Food and Drug Administration it likewise is not legally labeled in its entirety, because it doesn't tell you what it is for, and tell the whole story that the consumer would need to know. But that phase of the problem, Congressman, is not involved in this particular bill, and that is a matter, perhaps, for litigation as we have time with the many, many cases ahead of us. Mr. WOLVERTON. Is your answer in any way based upon the fact that one gives the dose, and the other does not?

Mr. LARRICK. Yes, sir; that is right. One gives partial directions. Mr. WOLVERTON. Now, on this one, 3-A, it states "Adult dose, one tablet, as directed by a physician," and 3-B says, "To be dispensed only by or on the prescription of a physician." Now, in that instance, 3-A does state the dose.

Mr. LARRICK. What would you take it for, and how would you know what to take it for?

Mr. WOLVERTON. I probably would not, unless

Mr. LARRICK. And I wouldn't, either.

Mr. WOLVERTON. Unless I had been told about it.

Mr. LARRICK. We don't think that those directions are adequate, because they don't tell the whole story, what to take it for, and how to take it, and how often, and how much. But again, that is not involved in this particular bill before you. But the second one that has the prescription legend, could not legally be sold by the pharmacist without a prescription. And the principal use of that drug is for a very serious heart disease.

Mr. WOLVERTON. Well, for what purpose did you give us all of these exhibits?

Mr. LARRICK. To show that under the present law and the regulations, there are so many of them that have this confusing balance