In addition to the plain technical conflicts with the Council’s rules there is a feature of the case which has not hitherto been raised and which should be fully considered: It may be remarked that the advertisements contain no therapeutic recommendation, and do not, on their face, urge the public to employ aspirin but apparently merely tell the public how it may protect itself against sophistication. In substance, they say: “If you are a user of aspirin, this is how you may obtain the genuine.” It might be said that this is not an attempt to increase the use or sale of aspirin--the ordinary object of advertising--but that the means of protection against adulteration is a “subject on which the public should be instructed.” The principle of such exceptions is stated in the comments to Rule 3 (New and Nonofficial Remedies, 1916, p. 15); and although the present case does not come under the exceptions specified under these comments, it may be urged that the exceptions need to be increased as occasion arises. The notorious adulteration of aspirin may well be urged as establishing a need for a similar exception in its use. The general principle of protecting the public against fraud, adulteration and substitution is directly in line with the objects of the Council, and deserves commendation and support. It is obvious, however, that the means adopted for this end must be efficient, that they must not open the door to other, perhaps greater evils and that they must be used in good faith. The policy of advertising “Aspirin-Bayer” must be examined in these respects. In the first place, the acceptance of a product by the Council implies an agreement by the manufacturers or agents that they will adhere strictly to the Council’s rules and will not depart from the letter or spirit of these rules without notice to the Council. This principle has been grossly infringed in the present case. There can be no doubt that the agents were aware that their advertisements conflicted, at least with the letter of Rule 3. Nevertheless, they did not, in any way, inform the Council of the change in policy. In this respect, at least, they have not acted in good faith. Secondly, the wording of the advertisement implies that only the tablets stamped with “The Bayer Cross” are genuine. This is misleading, since every druggist has the right to make unstamped tablets of aspirin, fully as genuine as those stamped with the cross. Thirdly, the cross itself cannot be considered an efficient protection; for people who imitate aspirin will not hesitate to imitate the stamp. The remedy, in either case, and as with any other drug, is the examination of trade samples, and the vigorous prosecution of those guilty of violating the law. Fourthly, the permanent affixing of the name “Aspirin” to the vest-pocket boxes is also inefficient as a protection, and serves mainly as an advertisement.