New theory why American Beauty cards are narrower than other T206's

[canjond]

Originally Posted by FrankWakefield

Ted, I've seen sufficient reason here to doubt the "smaller package" theory as for why AB cards aren't as wide. But I've not seen anything anywhere about any federal law about cigarette inserts. Where did you get that? I'd have thought the factory and district numbers were in there because American Tobacco wanted it, not because of some federal law. What would have been the harm in Piedmont putting a Piedmont back on the cards they distributed without any factory or district designation? Red Man tobacco cards don't have such a designation, do they? I don't think Worch tobacco cards have that. Where did you get this federal law thing? Just because they did or didn't do something doesn't mean it was because of a federal law....

Frank - I'm away on vacation but yes, there is a federal law. I'm sure Jamie Hull will post the citation before I get home to look it up, but regulations were such that inserts had to state the factory and district numbers for the packages in which they were contained.

[jimonym]

Jon,
I'll post the statute later this afternoon.

Frank,
Factory and district info were required for two reasons: concern about illegal lottery schemes and concern about the distribution of indecent material. Factory and district info would allow the authorities to trace any improper inserts to their source.

[jimonym]

The relevant bit of federal law is Section 3394 of the Revised Statutes of the United States.

Effective July 24, 1897, as part of the so-called Dingley Tariff Bill, federal law prohibited any inserts of any kind to be packaged with any type of tobacco product. The statutory language was as follows:

"None of the packages of smoking tobacco and fine-cut chewing tobacco and cigarettes prescribed by law shall be permitted to have packed in, or attached to, or connected with them, any article or thing whatsoever, other than the manufacturer’s wrappers and labels, the internal-revenue stamp, and the tobacco and cigarettes, respectively, put up therein, on which the tax is required to be paid under the internal-revenue laws; nor shall there be affixed to, or branded, stamped, marked, written, or printed upon, said packages, or their contents, any promise or offer of, or any order or certificate for, any gift, prize, premium, payment, or reward."

Below is some good context and background on the law. This comes from testimony to Congress by John Yerkes, former Commissioner of Internal Revenue, in 1908:


The Dingley provision was challenged in the courts, all the way to the Supreme Court (Felsenheld v. U.S., 186 U.S. 126 (1902)), and upheld.

But shortly after the Felsenheld case, the law was repealed, effective July 1, 1902, and the language of Section 3394 was amended to read:

"No packages of manufactured tobacco, snuff, cigars, or cigarettes, prescribed by law, shall be permitted to have packed in, or attached to, or connected with, them, nor affixed to, branded, stamped, marked, written, or printed upon them, any paper, certificate, or instrument purporting to be or represent a ticket, chance, share, or interest in, or dependent upon, the event of a lottery, nor any indecent or immoral picture, representation, print, or words; and any violation of the provisions of this paragraph shall subject the offender to the penalties and punishments provided by section thirty-four hundred and fifty-six of the Revised Statutes."

The actual requirement to include the registered factory number and internal revenue district information on inserts is found in Internal Revenue Regulations. The earliest I've been able to pin down that requirement is from Regulations No. 8, revised August 1, 1907:

"In view of the report of the committee submitting the above amendment (act approved July 1, 1902), it is decided that a manufacturer may place within his statutory package containing tobacco, snuff, cigars, or cigarettes small advertising cards, coupons, certificates, paper bands, circulars, trade-mark tin tags, and trade-mark strips, and which do not materially increase the size of the package, and which are intended as an advertisement of his business, and concern the manufacture and sale of his products and no other business; and such advertising matter will not be prohibited, although intended to be returned to the manufacturer, or to some person designated by him on the coupon, and exchanged for other articles, provided the distribution of the prize articles does not depend upon the event of a lottery.
It is required that the manufacturer’s registered factory number, district, and State shall appear upon each card, coupon, or certificate placed within the statutory package."

[FrankWakefield]

Thank you, JH. On occasion I'm educable. I see the factory and district info on the 1913 Fatima cards. I don't recall it on Red Man Tobacco cards, but it may well be there. Is it still required? If not, when did the law change? I get the impression that folks still wanted 'something' with their tobacco, even if the government didn't want them to have it.

[toppcat]

So from 1887 until 1908 or so, you could not insert a card into a cigarette pack? Interesting indeed.

[canjond]

Except if you make ramlys!

[tedzan]

Jamie H

Thanks for posting your info regarding that Federal Law that I alluded to in Post #39.
I vaguely recall reading it years ago; but, I could not cite the details of it.

Best regards,

TED Z

[tedzan]

I love my AMERICAN BEAUTY pack, too.

Tell me ole buddy, should I light-up one of those cigarettes ?



TED Z

[ethicsprof]

i've got a full pack,too, ole buddy and i say we'd better not touch them!!!
on the other hand, i have an unopened polar bear pouch on the way from
Jon C. and i'm tempted to chew a bit!!
but jon and my wife both say----No Way!!!

best,
barry

[tedzan]

You better listen to Margaret and leave that scrap tobacco in its pouch


TED Z

[canjond]

Barry - that scrap tobacco was to roll your own... you better not be chewing it!

[canjond]

Jamie - thanks for posting that info... I knew you would have it around.

[ethicsprof]

as you may have already guessed, i've never chewed tobacco in my life so there's no worry that I will get that crazy.
just incredibly grateful that the polar bear is coming my way.

all the best,friends

barry