much if we can get a bill of that kind through. If we can I would be in favor of it. Mr. Rainey would probably be better able to tell you about that. Mr. RAINEY. A bill of that kind passed the Senate at the last session, but a few of us stopped it in the House and would not let it go through. Mr. LIND. You stopped it in the House? Mr. FORDNEY. "A few of us," the chairman said. Emphasis upon 66 a few of us." Mr. RAINEY. We did not let it come up in the House because it was a revenue proposition and ought to originate in the House and not in the Senate. Mr. SLOAN. I have a communication from the secretary of the State board of agriculture of our State in defense of this bill, which I would like to file, not indorsing it or opposing it, but as he sent it to me evidently he desires me to present it to the committee. Mr. RAINEY. The gentleman may file anything he wants to. (The letter is as follows:) Hon. W. R. MELLOR, WASHINGTON, D. C., January 22, 1916. Secretary State Board of Agriculture, Lincoln, Nebr. DEAR SIR: There is being sent you a copy of The Facts Concerning Mixed Flour. This covers the subject matter of a bill which the Hon. Henry T. Rainey, of Illinois, on the 19th instant introduced in the House of Representatives (H. R. 9409), and which will be sponsored in the Senate by the Hon. Albert B. Cummins, of Iowa. The main features of the bill are given on page 6 of the pamphlet. You will note that mixed flour is defined and provision made for proper control of its manufacture and sale. There is added to the provisions of the food and drug act the stipulation that mixed flour must be labeled in such manner as to show both the names and relative proportions of all ingredients. If this bill becomes a part of our pure-food legislation, mixed flour will be the most fairly and accurately labeled mixed-food product on the present market. * One of the leading agricultural papers-the Farmers' Review-recently commented on the situation, a copy of the editorial being inclosed herewith. It is, of course, obvious that the passage of this measure will have a tendency to increase the demand for "cash corn "-a matter of vital interest to the farmer. Hon. Len Small, president of the Illinois Board of Agriculture, writes as follows: " * * * The board * * unanimously passed the resolutions presented in favor of corn. You are doing good work in favor of an ecnomical, wholesome food and our great agricultural prduct. Success to your efforts." The Hon. Jewell Mayes, secretary of the Missouri State Board of Agriculture, writes: Some legislation should be passed to amend the mixedflour law, for as it now stands upon the books, it is unfair to the greatest American crop-the vegetable gold of the North American Continent." 66* * * May we ask you to immediately lay this before your board, with the idea in mind of formally endorsing the movement? A sample draft of suitable resolutions is inclosed for your convenience. The element of time is of the utmost importance as the matter is even now before the Ways and Means Committee. Will you also immediately, by letter or otherwise, take the matter up with Senators Hitchcock and Norris as well as your several Congressmen? Hoping to hear from you at your early convenience, we are, Very truly, yours, AMERICAN MANUFACTURERS' ASSOCIATION OF PRODUCTS FROM CORN, By ROBERT G. GOULD, Secretary Mixed Flour Committee. P. S.-Please address me in care of the New Willard Hotel, Washington, D. C. ROBERT G. GOULD, Secretary, LINCOLN, Nebr., January 29, 1916. New Willard Hotel, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR SIR: Your letter of January 22 received. Personally we do not coincide with your views. It may be perfectly natural for Illinois, Iowa, and Missouri-States that produce corn in great quantities and but small yields of wheat-to assist legislation to increase the value of their crop production. Here in Nebraska over a period of years we raise nearly equal amounts of corn and wheat as to value; and our breeding and feeding of live stock is another matter for consideration. In the live-stock industry the Government gives Nebraska a 1915 production of all animals (figuring a one-third value on horses, mules, and cattle on the basis that it takes three years to mature) of more than $121,000,000. This breeding and feeding industry is vitally interested in securing forage and grain at prices permitting a margin which will not cripple this great activity. The passage of the law you desire would materially cheapen wheat if it raised the price of corn. We think that mixing corn flour with wheat flour would reduce the cost of making the flour a trifle to the manufacturer, but would the people benefit in such reduction? We think not. The small miller would have to either purchase his corn flour from the big milling concerns or else put in expensive machinery which would have to be paid for out of additional profits. We are also of the opinion that bread made from a mixture of corn and wheat flour would be very white and light, but, to offset that pleasing feature, on account of the starch in the corn flour it would dry out very quickly, leaving the bread dry and hard within 24 hours after baking. Added to this, corn flour would lack flavor, and the tasty qualities in such mixed bread would come wholly from the wheat flour, therefore we do not think dry and tasteless bread would prove any great boon to our citizenship. Therefore, in summing up, Nebraska is dotted over with small local milling industries, many of which would be put out of business if it were necessary to make these changes, or even if they attempted to buy all the corn flour from the great milling centers. Our people would be compelled to eat dry and tasteless bread to benefit the large milling concerns; our feeders and breeders would be placed in a position of added expense in dairying and beef production; our farmers would secure less revenue from grain. All this with a very little encouragement for a trifling raise in the price of corn. In view of all these apparent obstacles, to me personally, we do not see how we Nebraskans can favor such a law. Yours, very truly, W. R. MELLOR, Secretary. Mr. LIND. Shall I answer the question that was left open in my brief? There was a statement here on the second day-there was one question of the legal effect of the passage of this act, which I attempted to leave open. I expressed my opinion, but with a reservation. I am prepared to answer that now, but I think I can do it to better advantage in the short brief that I will file. Mr. RAINEY. I think that will be satisfactory. Mr. LANNEN. Dr. Wagner promised to give Mr. Fordney some data, and it is a question of whether you want it now or want it written up and put in the record. Mr. RAINEY. If it is satisfactory to Mr. Fordney it may be put in the record. Mr. FORDNEY. What is that? Mr. WAGNER. One was about the tariff and the other about the yields Mr. FORDNEY. What is that? Mr. WAGNER. You asked me with reference to the present tariff— the Underwood tariff. I have the information now. I did not have it at the time. Mr. FORDNEY. I do not remember that I asked any such question. Mr. WAGNER. That was Gov. Lind. Mr. LIND. I do not recall that I raised any question about the tariff. Mr. WAGNER. I said that there were certain products which were "fit to be used as starch" that came in free, whereas under the provisions of the tariff act there should be a duty of half a cent a pound. That was one question. If you want the proof, I am ready to submit it. Mr. FORDNEY. The only thing I asked you about would be submitting at any time the cost of production, giving the real cost of raw material and other costs in making up your cost of production. Mr. WAGNER. If I understood you right, you asked me to what extent the item of labor entered into the cost of cornstarch. That was the question. Mr. FORDNEY. In the production of cornstarch and other materials from the corn. Mr. RAINEY. Have you prepared that statement? Mr. WAGNER. No; I would have to get that from the office. I could not possibly get it here. Mr. RAINEY. Without objection, Mr. Wagner will be permitted to file that statement. Mr. LANNEN. Just one word, Mr. Chairman. The record discloses something in regard to what Mr. Helvering said last night that I do not want to go unchallenged. I understood last night that Mr. Helvering wanted stricken off this record a reference to the SpanishAmerican war tax. Now, Mr. Chairman, I want to protest against that. Mr. HELVERING. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that he has no right to dictate to us how we print our hearings. Mr. RAINEY. But he has a right to address the committee on that subject. Mr. LANNEN. Mr. Chairman, we have heard here that in times of war Germany is compelling the people, under penalty of going to the penitentiary, to use mixtures of cornstarch and wheat flour. Mr. LIND. Not true. I challenge that. Mr. LIND. Yes; potato starch; and you exclude that by your definition. Mr. LANNEN. Mr. Chairman, when that tax was put on we were at war with Spain. I was one of the boys who went to the front at that time. Mr. HELVERING. So was I. Mr. LIND. I was there. Mr. LANNEN. And I served in a foreign country in that war, and as a Spanish-American War veteran I object to trying to strike from this record the fact that this was a war tax that helped to keep us from getting the food that we needed in time of war. Mr. FORDNEY. Mr. Chairman, that bill was introduced in Congress on the 22d of March, 1898. The war was not declared until April 28, 1898. It was not a war measure and never was intended to be anything of the kind, and when the gentleman says so he knows better, if he has studied this. The date of the introduction of the bill will show that. It did not pass until after the war was declared, but it was introduced before war was declared-a matter of a month before-and I know it, and so does everybody know it that wants to know anything about it. Mr. RAINEY. The bill will show when it was introduced. Is there anything else? If not, the committee stands adjourned. (At 5.45 o'clock p. m. the committee adjourned.) BRIEF ON BEHALF OF THE BISCUIT AND CRACKER MANUFACTURERS' ASSOCIATION IN OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED BILL. It is not the purpose of this brief to discuss at length the relative advantages and disadvantages of the present law and the proposed amendment. But it will be confined to the presentation of a number of points which it is desired to submit to the committee for its consideration. Speaking generally, it may be said that it is feared that the effect of the amendment will be to restore certain unsatisfactory conditions which existed prior to the passage of the act of 1898, and perhaps to flood the market with inferior goods. It does not seem to us that the pure-food act alone gives the protection to the public against either mixed or adulterated flour, which is to-day afforded by that act in combination with the act of 1898. I. GOVERNMENT INSPECTION IS THE REAL PROTECTION AGAINST MIXED FLOUR. Under the present law every maker and packer knows that his mill or plant is subject to Government inspection, and that the insertion of mineral substances in his goods is likely to be discovered. Moreover, mixed flour can be kept off the market more effectively in this manner than if the protection to the consumer given thereby is removed. This is shown by the marked decrease in the number of mills paying revenue under the act of 1898 (with the exception of last year, in which case the increase is probably due to the higher price of flour resulting from the war). The evident purport of the act was to protect the public from mixed flour, and to assure a pure-wheat flour to purchasers. It was a step toward maintaining a high standard for bread and other bakery products, and, doubtless, for that reason, was allowed to remain when other portions of the Spanish War tax act were repealed. The statistics show that it has been successful and that the volume of sales of mixed flour has been negligible. If, however, the protection afforded by Government inspection is removed, it seems certain that a large increase in the volume of mixed flour and of so-called "corn flour" will doubtless occur, in addition to the increased danger of the marketing of mixtures containing mineral substances. We presume that the committee will have before it evidence with respect to the value of gluten in whole flour and that it is unnecessary for us to call attention to the differences between wheat and so-called "corn flour" in this respect. II. THE NEW BILL DOES NOT STRENGTHEN THE PURE-FOOD ACT. On the contrary, the effectiveness of the pure-food act is materially weakened. The additional branding required-that is to say, the stating of the percentages-is not the equal as an aid to public protection of Government inspection and sworn statements. Moreover, the markings may readily be overlooked. The housewife is not a chemist, and not knowing how to counteract the ingredients of a mixed flour would be unable to make the right kind of bread. III. TWO SAFEGUARDS ARE BETTER THAN ONE. Congress is asked to repeal a law upon the ground that it is not necessary to have both the pure-food act and the act of 1898 in operation. The argument is fallacious in that the safeguards provided by the two acts are different, and the two together give more protection and better regulation than the pure-food act alone. IV. IF THE PROPOSED BILL WERE LAW, GREAT DIFFICULTY WOULD BE ENCOUNTERED IN ITS ENFORCEMENT. In many instances a skillful chemist would be required to analyze the product for the purpose of ascertaining the relative quantities of wheat and other grain or elements, and it is highly probable that in many instances correct analyses would, as a practical matter, be impossible to obtain. V. THE PROPOSED BILL WOULD INCREASE THE USE OF CORNSTARCH IN WHEAT PRODUCTS. The persons who appeared before the committee have discussed the various aspects of the use of cornstarch and the probability of its use in making a mixed flour under the proposed amendment. It therefore seems unnecessary for us to reiterate the difficulties other than to say that it seems highly probable that the consuming public would be given in increasing quantities bread and bread products, crackers, biscuits, and other similar foodstuffs not made of whole wheat flour, but of a mixed flour composed largely of cornstarch or of corn husks, To-day, owing to the provisions of the act of 1898, the retailer can not purchase mixed flour. It is not on the market; that is to say, in any substantial quantities. If the restrictions are removed, it will, we fear, become possible for retailers, millers, bakers, and others to obtain it in large quantities, and the temptation may, in some cases, be irresistible to use it instead of a whole wheat flour to produce the ultimate product. VI. AS TO CHEAPER BREAD. It should be borne in mind that the demand in this country is for quality and not quantity as regards bread. The people do not want a cheap article if in attaining cheapness quality is sacrificed. Americans desire their bread to be of the best wheat, and they are entitled to have it so. VII. AS TO THE JURISDICTION OF CONGRESS. It will be noted that the act of 1898 applies to all the trade throughout the country, whereas the pure food act applies only in interstate commerce. The act of 1898 affords, therefore, protection to the entire American public, whereas the pure food act gives only a relative protection restricted to limited channels of trade. While these channels are large, they are by no means complete. This is particularly so in the bread trade. We venture to say that a great majority of the people of the United States eat bread which is baked, put on the market, sold, purchased, and consumed in the same State. It is obvious that evasions of the proposed bill would be easy. Wheat raised in Illinois and corn raised in Nebraska can each be readily shipped separately to a packer in St. Louis. If the mixing is done in St. Louis, for sale and consumption in the State of Missouri, it is hard to see how either the proposed bill or the pure food act would have any application. We therefore respectfully submit that the present law should not be repealed or amended, as proposed, and that the proposed bill should not be enacted into law. Respectfully submitted, this 8th day of February, 1916. BISCUIT & CRACKER MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION, By W. M. BROWNELL, Secretary. 25718--16--30 C. W. WICKERSHAM, 40 Wall Street, New York City, |