As to the wholesomeness of mixed flour, it has been demonstrated again and again by the United States Agriculture Department and agricultural departments of several States that the products of corn are just as nutritious, wholesome, and palatable as those from wheat, if not more so, and it is evident therefore that a mixture of the two can not be harmful, and if properly branded can deceive no one.

I submit two typical analyses of flour reported by the United States Bureau of Chemistry. One a high grade patent wheat flour, reported in Bulletin No. 13, page 1264, the other a corn flour, reported on page 8, Bulletin No. 215, of the Bureau of Chemistry, as follows:

The above analysis of corn flour is clearly of break flour; the fat content proves that. We would, when grinding corn flour for blending, produce it by reduction of grits. Therefore I take an analysis of grits from Bulletin No. 215, page 8, which is as follows:

This, you will observe, is higher in protein than the analysis of corn flour above reported, and would more perfectly represent the corn flour produced when grinding flour for blending. You understand that proteins from different sources differ in the completeness of their utilization in the alimentary tract. The same is true of the fat, nitrogen free extract, and fiber. Some wheat flour has more protein than either break flour from corn or corn flour prduced by the reduction of grits, but if we consider the percentages digested and utilized the difference diminishes.

Bulletin No. 13, Bureau of Chemistry, gives, on page 1291, digestion coefficients of the constituents of corn and wheat, as obtained by the Minnesota experiment station and reported in their bulletin No. 36. Taking their coefficients and figuring the digestible nutrients of the above three analyses, we obtain the following results:

The total digestible nutrients in corn is shown to be far superior to wheat flour.

Quoting further from Bulletin No. 13, page 1292, as follows:

Carefully weighing all the reliable evidence at hand, the conclusion is inevitable that from the point of view of chemical composition, of digestibility, and of nutritive value, Indian corn, with its products, pound for pound, is fully equivalent to wheat.

Mr. MOORE. That analysis deals only with the mixture of corn products and wheat products?

Mr. MINER. Corn flour and wheat flour.

Mr. MOORE. Of course there is no question of deleterious substances involved there at all.

Mr. MINER. Absolutely not.

Mr. MOORE. I ask you that because we have here in 1898, at the time this revenue act was passed, analyses which indicate the presence of certain substances which, of course, ought not to be in flour. I am very glad to have you say that those analyses to which you refer are analyses in which these substances are not contained.

Mr. MINER. Not at all.

Mr. MOORE. I do not for a moment suppose that any reputable miller would do that sort of thing.

Mr. MINER. I have listened to all this talk about barytes, and I have been in the milling business for 30 years, and my ancestors, back to 1795, were in the milling business, and I have never seen nor heard of any miller putting any substance in his flour, whether it was a corn miller or wheat miller or what not, such as that. There may have been such millers, as that letter indicates, but I have never heard of any miller doing it.

Mr. MOORE. There are a number of letters and analyses here which indicate the presence of sulphuric acid and other deleterious sub

stances.

Mr. RAINEY. Millers are about as honest as other people in the manufacture of foodstuffs. We will get them all stopped after awhile.

Mr. LONGWORTH. I wish you would explain just what you mean by the annoyance attached to this tax measure.

Mr. MINER. The revenue department requires, if you are going to mix flour, a separate set of books, so that the thing can be kept entirely separate. You have to keep your corn flour in one place and your wheat flour in another place, and have it there so that when the inspector comes along he can follow it up and see that we have not used any that we have not paid a tax on. It is necessary to put these stamps on so that the package can not be opened without breaking the stamp, and it is practically impossible if the requirements of the revenue law are absolutely carried out, and it would prevent entirely the shipping of this mixed flour in muslin sacks.

Mr. RAINEY. And there is likelihood, if the requirements are not followed strictly, whether they are violated intentionally or not, that you will be hauled before the United States court?

Mr. MINER. Yes, sir.

Mr. MOORE. Would it not be the same thing in the matter of your income tax?

Mr. MINER. Yes, it is; and I am always scared to death in making my return on that.

it.

Mr. LONGWORTH. Are these stamps put on the small packages? Mr. MINER. They are required on every package, as I understand

Mr. LONGWORTH. How can they assess the value of the stamp on the package?

Mr. MINER. I do not know. It is beyond me.

Mr. DIXON. As I understand it, Mr. Miner, if this bill is repealed you would escape all of this unnecessary annoyance, and you would go right on and do business just as any other man would do; you would have to brand your package of flour under the pure-food law, and you would be liable for penalties if in some other way than by the present inspection it was found that you were violating the provisions of that law.

Mr. MINER. So I understand the pure food law.

Mr. DIXON. In other words, the public would have the same security under the pure-food law that they have now, but you would have very much less annoyance, and you would not have the 4 cents to pay. Is that the idea, now?

Mr. MINER. There would be more protection to the public than there is under the pure-food law under this bill, if it passes. The requirement to state the percentages of the mixture is quite an important feature, and that is not now required by the pure-food law or by the revenue law either.

Mr. HILL. In your judgment, as a wheat flour miller and a corn flour miller also, would the public be better protected under the law as proposed than under the law as it now exists?

Mr. MINER. It would be better protected, because you must state the percentage of the mixture, and this bill also provides that only products of grain can be mixed.

Mr. HILL. Which would be the most advantageous to you as a corn miller or as a wheat miller-to leave it as it is or change it? Mr. MINER. I can not see that it would make any great difference, except that it would give a further outlet for corn products.

Mr. LONGWORTH. Are the wheat millers opposed to this bill? Mr. MINER. So far as I can learn from the gentlemen, here in Washington they are opposed to it.

Mr. FORDNEY. You do not agree with the Secretary of Agriculture when he says that the repeal of this law would greatly weaken the food-and-drugs act?

Mr. MINER. I can not understand why he thinks that.

Mr. RAINEY. He does not say that.

Mr. FORDNEY. I will read it. No; I will not read it, except the substance of it. I think the following gives a fair explanation of the whole paragraph:

Such a precedent would be unfortunate in opening the way for other special legislation, rendering less stringent the labeling provision of the food-and-drugs act as applied to particular articles.

Mr. MINER. His understanding is evidently very different from

mine.

Mr. FORDNEY. He is talking about flour. The law deals with flour.

Mr. MINER. I understand this label to be more exacting than the pure-food law provides.

Mr. RAINEY. The Secretary suggests another paragraph in the place of that paragraph, which he says he thinks will be more effective than the paragraph now in the bill.

Mr. MINER. Anything that would make branding more effective we would have no objection to whatever.

Mr. FORDNEY. The Secretary of Agriculture says by marking it "mixed flours," if you put the letters on there he does not use those words, but that is the substance-it is an improper thing to do, and the unsuspecting public would be defrauded.

Mr. RAINEY. I do not think he says that.

Mr. FORDNEY. That is the language of his letter. If this is a good thing to kill, I want to do it, and if it is a good thing to pass I want to do that. I want to do what is right in this matter.

Here is a report of Alex. J. Wedderburn, special agent appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture at the time that this law was before Congress and being discussed, and he says in his report:

It is estimated by my correspondents that the adulteration of flour now runs from 10 to 40 per cent, which, with wheat at 70 cents per bushel-this is in 1897-would mean from 35 cents to $1.40 per barrel less the cost of the starch or meal, or a profit of from 15 to 60 cents per barrel. The profits to the adulterator and the loss to the honest manufacturer can be easily calculated on mills turning out from 100 to 1,000 barrels per day, allowing the adulterants cost even one-half the price of wheat.

Mr. MINER. Do you appreciate that that was before there was any mixed-flour brand required and the flour was sold as wheat flour? Mr. FORDNEY. But if you repeal this law you are right back to where you were.

Mr. MINER. Oh, no; no. You are nowhere near it. When that occurred there was no branding required at all. Mixed flour could be sold as wheat flour and was, and that was what the law was meant to prevent.

Mr. HELVERING. If you repeal the law you are back to the purefood law.

Mr. MINER. Yes, sir.

Mr. FORDNEY. Is your only objection directed to the 4 cents per barrel, or the inspection?

Mr. MINER. The 4 cents per barrel tax would not be as much trouble as complying with the regulations.

The CHAIRMAN. How long will it take you to get through?

Mr. MINER. I am through now.

Mr. MOORE. Have you something in addition to read?

Mr. MINER. Just a paragraph-just to say that we are expecting to have here this afternoon some bread which was baked by a housewife.

Mr. LIND. Mr. Chairman, may I ask Mr. Miner a few questions? I will explain my connection with this matter later.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. LIND. I would like to ask you whether you would make the same statement with reference to the mixture of cornstarch with wheat flour that you have contended for with respect to the mixture of corn meal or flour, as you call it, with wheat flour.

Mr. MINER. I am not familiar enough with starch to make any such statement. I do not know.

Mr. LIND. You limit your opinion entirely to an admixture of corn flour or corn meal?

Mr. MINER. That is my business. That is all I know anything about. I do not know anything about starch. Corn flour is what we advise mixing and not corn meal.

Mr. LIND. Not starch; you do not know anything about starch? Mr. MINER. No.

Mr. McGILLICUDDY. Under this bill would it not be possible to put cornstarch in?

Mr. MINER. As it now reads, I understand it would. I see no objection to it, but I do not advocate it. I do not know anything about it. It could be put in just the same under the present law. Mr. RAINEY. Did I understand you to say you had some samples of bread?

Mr. MINER. There will be some samples of bread here that I am expecting by express, made from 10 per cent corn flour.

Mr. MOORE. Would the removal of the 4-cent tax affect the price of the loaf to the consumer?

Mr. MINER. The tax alone would not make any difference. It is so small it would not reach the consumer.

Mr. MOORE. It would not pass on to the consumer in any way?
Mr. MINER. I do not think so; it is too small.

Mr. MOORE. Has the price of the loaf to the consumer been raised on account of the increased price of grain?

Mr. MINER. It has not, because all the bakers at the present time are using cheaper flour which they bought last fall.

Mr. MOORE. Then a raise in the price of grain would not affect the price to the ultimate consumer?

Mr. MINER. The price of the 5-cent loaf? It would affect the size. Mr. MOORE. The size would be decreased? The repeal of the 4-cent tax would not, in your judgment, affect the price of bread?

Mr. MINER. It would, by permitting the mixture of corn flour to cheapen the price of flour; and, while it might not reduce the price of the loaf of bread, the result would naturally be an increase in the size of the loaf.

Mr. MOORE. Would it be possible to pass on to the consumer either of mixed-flour bread or pure-wheat bread this reduction of 40 cents. per barrel?

Mr. MINER. It would to people who do their own baking, and whether it would through the baker or not would have to be discovered.

Mr. FORDNEY. Would you be willing to have the stamp tax repealed and let the balance of the law stand?

Mr. MINER. Yes.

Mr. FORDNEY. Just repeal the 4-cent tax-simply take that revenue feature out of it--and let the inspection go on?

Mr. MINER. The new bill would be better for the people than that, because there is even more protection to the people in the new bill than in the old.

Mr. FORDNEY. Would you be willing, yourself, to repeal the 4-cent stamp and let the balance of the law stand?

Mr. DIXON. Have you ever placed any mixed flour on the market?