there, and, of course, our markets were restricted; and there was some danger of that working northward, and to some extent it did, and I was one of the millers who agitated for legislation to prevent the adulteration of wheat flour. I have always been in favor of the present measure, not that it was ideal so much as that it accomplished the result we strove for.

Before the passage of this act we were compelled to safeguard ourselves, and we organized or established what was known as the antiadulteration league. Membership in that was obtained by a guaranty of manufacturing none but pure wheat flour, and we were compelled to execute a bond to protect the league in case we should not do as we agreed, and the privilege we received, or the insignia they gave us as a member of the league, was the right to use the name member of the Anti-Adulteration League," with a seal "AAL," which we published in our advertisements and put on our bags. That in itself had a good effect. Those flour buyers who wanted pure flour knew that they could buy from any member of the Anti-Adulteration League and be guaranteed as to the purity of the flour. It had a particularly good effect in the European markets. And in the meantime this amendment to the revenue law, or this part of the revenue law regulating the mixing or adulterating of flour, whichever you please to call it, went into effect, and since that time our league has died. Mr. HILL. May I ask you a question right there?

Mr. Roos. Certainly.

Mr. HILL. From your experience as a flour merchant you know there was no pure-food law at the time you made these agreements? Mr. Roos. There was not.

Mr. HILL. This law which it is desired to partly repeal and partly change was practically a substitute for your agreements among yourselves?

Mr. Roos. Entirely so.

Mr. HILL. In other words, it stops the adulteration.

Now, supposing this law had not been passed, would not the purefood law as it came later have done the trick for you, so far as exports are concerned, and so far as interstate trade is concerned?

Mr. Roos. It might have done so, but I think we would have busted before that came into effect.

Mr. HILL. Very likely

Mr. Roos. It was an entirely business matter

Mr. HILL. But would not the pure-food law have done the business? Mr. Roos. It would, perhaps; I presume it would have done the business, but

Mr. HILL. Let me supplement that by one other question. Can not the pure-food law now, if all other legislation were repealed, answer your purpose to-day?

Mr. Roos. I should say no.

Mr. HILL. Well, why not?

Mr. Roos. For the simple reason that the pure-food law as such would apply only to interstate commerce.

Mr. HILL. I am talking about foreign trade and interstate trade. Mr. Roos. Well, it would apply to interstate trade; but we also have to contend with the question in reference to intrastate trade. Mr. HILL. Why should not your own State take care of that?

Mr. Roos. As far as that question is concerned, I think the State of Kansas does take care of intrastate trade.

Mr. HILL. They are taking care of all of the rest of the United States; why do they not take care of themselves?

Mr. FORDNEY. Oh, I beg your pardon; they are not taking care of all of the rest of the United States.

Mr. HILL. They are trying to.

Mr. FORDNEY. There is a big difference in what they are trying to do and what they are doing; they are two different things.

Mr. HILL. Why does not Kansas attend to that intrastate trade in her own way?

Mr. Roos. We will assume that Kansas does, that all States do. But all States have not pure-food laws, and a law working under the internal-revenue system is much more effective than a State law can possibly be.

Mr. HILL. Does the law of the State of Kansas provide that there shall not be adulteration of her main crop unless it is branded on the package?

Mr. Roos. I can not answer that definitely; I am not familiar with the details of the State law.

Mr. HILL. You live in Kansas, do you not?

Mr. Roos. Yes.

Mr. HILL. And you are coming here to Washington to try to get legislation to protect you within your own borders, within the borders of the State of Kansas, in which you live. Why do you not go to Topeka for such legislation?

Mr. Roos. I am not asking this for Kansas alone.

Mr. HILL. I thought that you conceded that the pure-food law would take care of interstate and foreign trade?

Mr. Roos. No; not in all cases, I will give you an illustration. Mr. HILL. Certainly.

Mr. Roos. I sell probably 5,000 barrels of flour a month in Oklahoma. The Oklahoma miller can do anything he pleases with that, but I can not; because I am governed by the United States law in my shipments into Oklahoma or any other States or Pennsylvania or the District of Columbia here.

Mr. GREEN. Do you know that Oklahoma has no pure-food law? Mr. Roos. They have not as far as flour is concerned. They have a law applying to hog feed and cow feed, but when it comes to human feed, that is not protected.

Mr. GREEN. Your statement with reference to Oklahoma would also apply to Kansas, would it not?

Mr. HELVERING. The witness says he is not informed as to the law applying to Kansas. I would say, as a matter of information, that Kansas has a very good pure-food law.

Mr. HILL. I thought it was strange if Kansas did not have such a law.

Mr. Roos. I am not posted as to the various State laws. I have operated my mills under the national law and shipped out a pure flour, and have not bothered with State laws.

Mr. FORDNEY. Is there a pure-food law in any State in the Union, or is there any provision in the pure food and drugs act that permits the mixture of foods that are not injurious to health?

Mr. Roos. I do not know.

Mr. FORDNEY. Well, if there is I would like to know of it. I have never heard of any such thing in any pure-food law. Therefore there would be no law in any State that would prevent the mixture of those articles, and their being sold, provided you marked them properly; but there are a dozen ways to get around marking them or labeling them properly; I mean to say particularly as to quantities. Mr. HILL. Excuse my interruptions: I wanted information on that particular point.

Mr. Roos. Well, I wish I could give it to you.

Mr. RAINEY. What you want, then, is to prevent any mixing of the corn products with flour?

Mr. Roos. Or any other products with wheat flour, as far as that is concerned.

Mr. RAINEY. You want a law that prevents it entirely.

Mr. Roos. Certainly; that is what I would be in favor of.

Mr. RAINEY. Do you know what patent flour is?

Mr. Roos. I know what is called patent flour.

Mr. RAINEY. Do your mills make it?

Mr. Roos. Yes, sir.

Mr. RAINEY. What is patent flour?

Mr. Roos. It is the purified middlings of wheat.

Mr. RAINEY. You say the purified middlings of wheat?

Mr. Roos. That is the technical term.

Mr. FORDNEY. I did not hear what you said.

Mr. Roos. I say it is the purified middlings of wheat.

Mr. RAINEY. What are the middlings of wheat?

Mr. Roos. That part of the wheat that contains the starch, and

the gluten, and the proteins.

Mr. RAINEY. What goes with the rest of it?

Mr. Roos. With the patent flour?

Mr. RAINEY. No; with the rest of the wheat besides the middlings? Mr. Roos. The feed, the brans, the shorts, the lower grades of flour, such as red dog, or low grade.

Mr. RAINEY. How is patent flour different from any other kind of flour?

Mr. Roos. I do not know that it has been defined; of course, I know how it got the name of patent flour-how it was applied. Mr. RAINEY. What part of the wheat grain do you take for the patent flour? You told me, but I have forgotten.

Mr. Roos. The purified middlings.

Mr. RAINEY. Now, in the other flours that are not patent flour, what do you take?

Mr. Roos. They take what we call the break flour; flour that is less granular-that contains the lower qualities of the wheat. In other words, the patent flour is supposed to be the cream of the wheat-the best there is in it.

Mr. RAINEY. What part of the wheat is rejected when you make patent flour?

Mr. Roos. I don't know that I understand that.

Mr. RAINEY. What part of the wheat grain is rejected when you make what you call patent flour?

25718-16- -15

Mr. Roos. In making the separation, we separate the clear grades, the second clear, the shorts, and the brans.

Mr. RAINEY. In making the other flour what do you take out?

Mr. Roos. In making the other flour we take out the bran and the shorts, and some of the low grades, a few per cent, whatever is considered not good to go in there. The balance would contain the patent and the clear; that is practically what it would contain.

Mr. RAINEY. Then practically there is no difference between patent flour and any other kind?

a

Mr. Roos. Certainly there is; there is a difference in quality; part of the wheat berry contains the better glutens, those more elastic, those more responsive.

Mr. RAINEY. Which contains the most starch?

Mr. Roos. I suppose as far as starch is concerned the percentage would be practically the same; there would not be very much difference. In all probability the patent flour would have a larger percentage of starch than the clears because it has less percentage of gluten.

Mr. RAINEY. The patent flour has less glutens?

Mr. Roos. A less percentage.

Mr. RAINEY. Then it does not contain a large percentage of gluten; a larger percentage of glutens is not required to make the most expensive flour?

Mr. Roos. No; it depends on the quality.

Mr. RAINEY. That is interesting, because that has not been brought out before. Then, in order to make the best flour, you deprive the wheat of some of its gluten?

Mr. Roos. I do not know that I would say that. We do not deprive it of any gluten. The percentage of gluten in various parts of the berry naturally varies, and we take only one

Mr. RAINEY. In making this high grade, the completed grade, you would say it does not contain as much gluten as the lower grades? Mr. Roos. Not as much in quantity.

Mr. RAINEY. Do your mills make more than one grade of flour? Mr. Roos. Yes; we put out three grades.

Mr. RAINEY. Describe the highest grade. What does that contain?

Mr. Roos. That is what you named patent flour. It goes under that trade name.

Mr. RAINEY. That is the whitest flour?

Mr. Roos. Not necessarily.

Mr. RAINEY. You have two more grades?

Mr. Roos. Yes, sir.

Mr. RAINEY. Now, the grade that is below your patent flour contains a little more gluten than the patent flour?

Mr. Roos. Contains a larger percentage, usually.

Mr. RAINEY. And the third grade contains still more

Mr. Roos. No; that is not the way; we separate the flour in the wheat berry into a patent grade and clear grade, and the patent is the larger portion of this. Then we blend those two grades and put out what we call our straight grade, meaning it contains everything there is in the wheat excepting the low grades. There is a combination of the two. That is the average bread flour and the flour we call our bakers' patent or bread flour.

Mr. RAINEY. You have your patent flour, and then you have the third grade, and then you blend your patent and third grade and make what you call a straight clear?

Mr. Roos. Or we make our straight flour and separate it into patent and clear

Mr. RAINEY. But the highest price is for the patent flour, the next highest price is for the blend, and the next highest for the lower grade?

Mr. Roos. Yes.

Mr. RAINEY. And the lower down you get the more gluten you get?

Mr. Roos. The larger quantity.

Mr. HILL. What is graham flour?

Mr. Roos. Under Dr. Graham's formula, it would be the whole wheat berry crushed and powdered.

Mr. HILL. Hull and all?

Mr. Roos. That is Graham's definition. I think the State of Kansas requires-in our State-that if we make graham flour it has to be the whole wheat berry crushed.

Mr. HILL. Including the hull?

Mr. Roos. Yes; the outer coating.

Mr. HILL. It is healthy, of course, is it?

Mr. Roos. Of course it is. Why should it not be?

Mr. HILL. It is supposed to be more so than the ordinary straight flour?

Mr. Roos. That I do not know. Of course that is subject to a difference of opinion.

Mr. FORDNEY. That is a notion on the part of some people.

Mr. ALLEN. What is known as the middlings is not the heart of the wheat, but it is next to the bran?

Mr. Roos. No; it is the heart of the wheat.

Mr. ALLEN. Is the middlings the heart of the wheat?

Mr. Roos. Certainly; and next to the bran particles you would get some middlings. I could not give you the technical milling definition, that is not a part of my work, I am not a practical miller. Mr. LIND. I will say for the benefit of the committee that we have an expert miller who can explain to you in detail, so far as you want to go, the processes of milling, so that you will virtually see it before

you.

Mr. FORDNEY. I wish to ask the gentleman a question. You usually make three grades of flour out of the same berry?

Mr. Roos. That is what we make.

Mr. FORDNEY. And patent flour is commonly called pastry flour, is it not?

Mr. Roos. Not with us; it is used for that sometimes; it is used as a bread flour and in the family trade.

Mr. FORDNEY. I understand, but is it not commonly called pastry flour?

Mr. Roos. You understand we mill only hard winter wheat. We do not mill any soft wheat, and our flour is used as a bread flour, principally. In fact, I suppose there is very little of it used for anything else except in the home. They make pie crusts out of it, or do some pastry baking, but it is a bread flour, the bread flour of the family; that is the flour that is sold for domestic use.