These figures prove more eloquently than any argument that the tax on mixed flour has operated to practically stamp out the industry.

THE STAMP.

Our opponents seem to express a divided opinion as to the revenue stamp that the existing law requires to appear on a sack of mixed flour. Some of them, on the one hand, would have you believe that it is a guaranty of purity, and others of them, on the other hand, that it stamps the product as a thing to be shunned.

Let us analyze this double-headed argument. If Government stamp conveys to the purchaser the idea that in some way the Government has guaranteed the integrity of the product, bearing in mind the allegation that the product is in effect an adulterated one-a product that the public should not be permitted to consume--then there is no escaping the logical conclusion that the stamp tends to deceive. If such is the case, the Government is a party to a fraud. If, on the other hand, the Government stamp brands the product as a thing to be shunned, then there is no escaping the conclusion that the stamp tends to create a prejudice against the product, and in that respect is unfair. No matter which one of the alternatives is accepted, the logical conclusion must follow that the enforced use of the stamps is wrong as applied to a wholesome food product. We can all agree that it is unbelievable that the Government should be a party to a fraud. On the other hand, it is not right nor fair to compel a product to bear a mark or brand that will create a prejudice against it.

We have not singled out the stamp as being in itself the thing that has militated against the sale of mixed flour any more or less than anything else in the regulations or the existing law. But Mr. Miner said of it that

"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."

Great stress was laid on the fact that the stamp would serve as a notice to the ignorant. Gov. Lind said on this point that the ignorant negro in the South, the ignorant foreigner in the lumber camp in his State or in the mines in Pennsylvania or elsewhere, will see this stamp and will understand that it is mixed flour. In answer to this we have to say, in the first place, that courts have repeatedly held that the fairness of a label can not be judged by what effect it will have on an ignorant man. Ignorance is a misfortune that is to be deplored, but it has never been the policy of this Government or of any other Government to place a premium on ignorance by passing laws that will be burdensome on the majority. And if, as is our contention, this law tends to deny to the masses a cheaper breadstuff, then it does work to the disadavantage of the many for the protection of the ignorant few. But however this may be, the fact remains with respect at least to the negroes of the South the stamp does not afford protection. We make this assertion for the reason that the ignorant, as a rule, are poor, and the poor buy, as a rule, in small packages at retail. Under this internal-revenue law the stamp is not required to be on small packages, nor is it required to be on goods that are sold in bulk at retail. It is just this kind of sales that are made to the ignorant negro of the South, and perhaps to the lumberman and the miner of the North. They are not provident; certainly not the negro. They do not lay in stores of food. They do not buy at wholesale. They live from hand to mouth, as a rule.

PARTIES INTERESTED.

The millers and the bakers stand practically alone in opposition to the Rainey bill. This clearly shows the selfish interest they have in this matter. Against this consider those who asked you to repeal the tax. There are represented on our side of this controversy the consumer, the poor, the corn growers, State boards of agriculture, scientific and technical men, economists, the housewife, commercial organizations, such as the Wholesale Grocers' Association, the National Confectioners' Association, and many others, in addition to the manufacturers of cornstarch and corn flour. The press of the country, so far as we have been able to see, is on our side of this controversy.

The manufacturers of corn products are here, of course, representing themselves primarily. But in asking for the repeal of the existing law they are

voicing the sentiment of practically the whole corn-raising industry of the Nation, as well as that of others who favor the repeal. A glance at the letters and resolutions contained in this record will show that the agricultural interests of several of the States have gone on record by resolutions of their boards of agriculture as favoring the repeal of this tax. Farmers' associations and other organizations have done likewise. There are also many letters and telegrams in the record favoring the repeal of this law from people who are interested and who are not manufacturers of corn products. Therefore, you have before you a diversified demand for the repeal of the tax coming from varied sources.

The record shows very clearly that the millers do not want practicable regulation of the manufacture and sale of mixed flour. What they want is " regulation" which will amount to absolute prohibition of its manufacture. They will not, for instance, concede that it is proper to use the word "flour for a mixture of cornstarch and wheat flour, no matter how that name may be qualified. They explain this by saying that it is a mixture of flour and starch. If they were to stop here they might have at least a color of plausibility for their argument, but they make the same objection to a mixture of corn flour and wheat flour; and also to wheat flour and rye flour; in fact, they object to a mixture of wheat flour with any other flour. They refuse to admit that there is any flour of any kind except wheat flour. They are not willing to permit the word "flour" to be used at all on a label, no matter how qualified, unless the product is composed entirely of wheat flour. There can be but one explanation of such an unreasonable stand, and that explanation is that they are not willing to have the subject of labeling regulated at all. They want prohibition of the manufacture of mixed flour, and they are raising every point they can to accomplish their end. The Rainey bill calls for a labeling that anyone must admit is fair. It can not be successfully criticized as a labeling measure, and so they raised the point of adulteration, claiming that the product ought not to be put on the market, no matter how labeled. That is what their argument amounts to. In short, their contentions all the way through the record show that what they want is prohibition, not regulation. The present law is prohibitory and confiscatory, and that is why they are willing to let it stand.

ATTEMPTED PREJUDICE.

At the very outset of this hearing and all the way through it the millers and bakers lost no opportunity to endeavor to create a prejudice against the manufacturers of corn products. They talked of corn flour as simply the dust that accumulated in the corn mill, or something of that kind. They talked of chemical processes and acids used in making cornstarch. In this connection it should be borne in mind that the making of bread is a chemical process in that carbonic-acid gas and alcohol are generated by the action of the yeast on the ingredients in the dough. They referred to a Government suit in equity pending against one member of our association. In fact, they lost no opportunity to try to prejudice the issue against us. They even went so far as to point to our greatest cereal, corn, as the cause of pellagra. Quite different was the testimony of Miss Laura Cauble, who has a nation-wide reputation as a dietician and whose whole life is devoted to the betterment of the condition of the poor of our great cities. She said:

"America is a child among the nations and she is one of the strongest and greatest nations, and the gift of corn was one of the greatest gifts that America has given to the world."

THE RELIEF WE ASK.

It has been maintained that there is a market for wheat and the products thereof and a market for corn and the products thereof, each considered separately, and the point is readily granted. But our contention is that there is a real demand and a waiting market for an honestly labeled mixture of these two cereals and their products if such mixture be offered to the housewife in a convenient form ready for making leavened bread. The market for corn flour or cornstarch as such is not in issue; it is for the right to market cornstarch or corn flour as one of the components of mixed flour that we contend. The existing mixed-flour law by its strangulatory restrictions denies us this right and it is for relief from this situation that we appeal to you, gentlemen of the Congress of the United States.

Respectfully submitted.

THOMAS E. LANNEN.

APPENDIX.

At the hearing Congressman Fordney asked us to submit evidence of the existence of State food laws that would regulate the manufacture and sale of mixed flour in intrastate commerce. We could, if desired, furnish a copy of every State law in the Union and show that the subject is properly covered in every State. But, as the State laws are all very much alike, such a proceeding would accomplish no good purpose and would only encumber the record. We therefore simply submit the food law of the State of Alabama of 1909, and the regulations made thereunder, as typical of the laws that are in force in most of the States. Alabama is selected for the sole reason that it appears first in the alphabetical list of the States. We maintain that this law and the regulations made under it are broad enough to cover mixed flour in common with other food mixtures. Some of the States have more laws than Alabama and more stringent provisions.

ALABAMA.

THE FOOD AND DRUGS ACT.

[Act No. 190, Acts of 1909, approved August 26, 1909.]

AN ACT To regulate sale of food and drugs in the State of Alabama, To provide for enforcement and inspectors and prescribe penalties for violation thereof.

Be it enacted by the Legislature of Alabama:

SECTION 1. That it shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to manufacture, to sell or offer for sale within the State of Alabama any article, food or drugs which is adulterated or misbranded or which contains any poisonous or deleterious substance within the meaning of this act, and any person who shall violate any of the provisions of this act, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and for each offense shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined not to exceed five hundred dollars or shall be sentenced to one year's imprisonment, or both such fine and imprisonment in the discretion of the court, and for each subsequent offense, and on conviction thereof, shall be fined not exceeding one thousand dollars or sentenced to two years imprisonment or both such fine and imprisonment in the discretion of the court.

SEC. 2. That the examination of specimens of food or drugs, shall be made by the State chemist and assistants as herein provided for under the direction and supervision of commissioner of agriculture and industries or municipal or county inspectors where appointed for the purpose of determining from such examinations whether articles are adulterated or misbranded within the meaning of this act; and if it shall appear from any such examinations that any of such specimens are adulterated or misbranded within the meaning of this act the commissioner of agriculture and industries shall cause notice thereof to be given to the party from whom such sample is obtained. Any party so notified shall be given an opportunity to be heard before the commissioner of agriculture and industries and the attorney general or the municipal or county inspector where appointed and circuit court solicitor, under such rules and regulations as may be prescribed by the commissioner of agriculture and industries and the attorney general and if it appears that any of the provisions of this act have been violated by such party the commissioner of agriculture and industries or other assistants as herein provided for shall at once certify the fact to the proper prosecuting attorney with a copy of the result of the analysis, or of the examination of such article duly authenticated by the analyst or officer making such examination, under the oath of such officer. That in case it shall appear to the satisfaction of the commissioner of agriculture and industries and the attorney-general that the violation of this act is properly a subject of interstate commerce or otherwise comes under the supervision and jurisdiction of the United States then the commissioner of agriculture and industries, municipal or county inspector, where appointed, or other assistants, as herein provided for shall certify the case to the United States district attorney in whose district the violation may have been committed; but if it be under the jurisdiction of the courts of this State, then the commissioner of agriculure and industries, municipal or county inspectors, where appointed, or other assistants as herein provided for shall certify the case to the solicitor of the court in the county where the offense occurred. It shall be the duty of the state solicitor to prosecute all persons violating any

of the provisions of this act as soon as he receives evidence transmitted by the commissioner of agriculture and industries, municipal or county inspectors where appointed, or other assistants as herein provided in the several counties of the State. Provided city attorneys shall prosecute with assistance of court solicitors and the attorney-general suits brought by municipal authorities and inspectors. After judgment of the court, notice shall be given by publication in such manner as may be prescribed by the rules and regulations aforesaid. SEC. 3. That the term "drugs" as used in this act shall include all medicines and preparations recognized in the United States Pharmacopoeia or National Formulary, for internal or external use, and any substance or mixture or substances intended to be used for the cure, mitigation, or prevention of disease of either man or animals. The term "food" as used herein shall include all articles used for food, drink, confectionery or condiment by man or animals, whether simple, mixed or compound.

SEC. 4. That for the purpose of this act an article shall be deemed to be adulterated, in case of drugs.

1st. If when a drug is sold under or by a distinctive name recognized in the United States Pharmacopoeia or National Formulary, it differs from the standard strength, quality, or purity, as determined by the test laid down in the United States Pharmacopoeia or National Formulary official at the time of investigation provided, that no drug defined in the United States Pharmacopoeia or National Formulary shall be deemed to be adulterated under this provision of (if) the standard of strength, quality or purity be plainly stated on the bottle, box or container thereof, although the standard may differ from that determined by the test laid down in the United States Pharmacopoeia or National Formulary.

2nd. If its strength or purity shall fall below the professed standard or quality under which it was sold. In case of confectionery: If it contains terra alba, barytes, talc, chrome yellow, burnt umber or other mineral substance, or poisonous coloring or flavoring or other ingredients detrimental to health, or any vinous, malt or spiritous liquor, or compound or narcotic drug. In case of food: 1st. If any substance has been mixed and packed with it so as to reduce or lower or injuriously affect its quality or strength.

2nd. If any substance has been substituted wholly or in part for the article. 3rd. If any valuable constituent of the articles has been wholly or in part abstracted.

4th. If it be mixed, colored, powdered, coated or stained, in a manner whereby damaged or inferiority is concealed.

5th. If it contains any added poisonous or other added deleterious ingredient which may render such article injurious to health; provided, that when in preparation of food for shipment, they are preserved by any external application applied in such manner that the preservative is necessarily removed mechanically, or by maceration in water, or otherwise, and directors for the removal of such preservative, given name and component parts (in red letters) on the covering of the package, or on a tag securely attached to the article; the provisions of this act shall be construed as applying only when said products are ready for consumption, and shipment or delivery to retail trade.

6th. If the package, vessel or bottle containing it shall be of such a composition, or carry any attachment or such a composition or metal or alloy, as will be acted upon in the ordinary course of use by the contents of the package, vessel or bottle in such a way as to produce an injurious, deleterious, or poisonous compound.

7th. If it consists in whole or in part of a filthy, tainted, decomposed or putrid animal, or vegetable substance, or any portion of an animal unfit for food, whether manufactured or not, or if it is the product of a diseased animal, or one that has died otherwise than by slaughter.

SEC. 5. That the term "misbranded" as used herein, shall apply to all drugs, or articles of food, or articles which enter into the composition of food, the package or label of which shall bear any statement, design or device regarding such articles, or the ingredients or substances contained therein, which shall be false or misleading in any particular, or to any food or drug product which is falsely branded, as to the state, territory, or country in which it is manufactured or produced. That for the purpose of this act an article shall also be deemed misbranded. In case of drugs.

1st. If it be an imitation of or offered for sale under the name of another article.

2nd. If the contents of the package as originally put up shall have been removed, in whole or in part, and other contents shall have been placed in such package, or if the package fails to bear a true statement on the label or fail to show in conspicuous letters a true statement as is or may be prescribed by the United States law or rules and regulations of the quantity and proportion of any alcohol, spirituous, vinous or malt liquor, morphine, opium, cocaine, heroin, alpha or beta eucaine, chloroform, cannabis indica, chloral hydrate, antipyrine, or acetanilid, or any derivative or preparation of any such substances contained therein; provided that nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to apply to such preparations as are specified and recognized by the United States Pharmacopoeia or National Formulary or to prescriptions of licensed practitioners of medicine or dental surgery and veterinary surgeons in course of their personal practice. In case of foods.

1st. If it be an imitation of or offered for sale under the distinctive name of another article.

2nd. If it be labeled or branded so as to deceive or mislead the purchaser, or purports to be foreign product when not so, or is an imitation in package or label of another substance of a previously established name, or which has been trade marked or patented, or if the contents of the package as originally put up shall have been removed in whole or in part, and other contents shall have been placed in such package, or if it fails to bear a true statement on the label in conspicuous letters of the quantity or proportion of any alcohol, morphine, malt, malt extract, opium, cocaine, heroin, alpha or beta, eucaine, chloroform, cannabis indica, chloral hydrate, antipyrine or acetanilid, or any derivative or preparation of any such substances contained therein.

3rd. If in package form and the contents are stated in terms of weight or measure, they are not plainly or correctly stated on the outside of the package. 4th. If the package containing it or its label shall bear any statement, design, or device regarding the ingredients or substance contained therein, which statement, design or device shall be false or misleading in any particular; provided that an article of food which does not contain any added poisonous or deleterious ingredients shall not be deemed to be adulterated or misbranded in the following cases:

1st. In the case of mixtures or compounds which may be now, or from time to time, hereafter known as articles of food under their own distinctive names and not an imitation of or offered for sale under the distinctive name of another article, if the name be accompanied on the same label or brand with a statement of the place where the said article has been manufactured or produced. But in case of baking powders every can or other package shall be labeled so as to show clearly and exactly what acid salt and what amount has been used in making the same.

2nd. In the case of articles, labeled, branded or tagged, so as to plainly indicate that they are compounds, imitations, or blends, and the words compound, imitations, or blend, as the case may be, is plainly stated in larger letters than other printing on the package in which it is offered for sale; provided, that the term "blend as used herein shall be construed to mean a mixture of like substances, not excluding harmless coloring or flavoring ingredients used for the purpose of coloring or flavoring only; and provided further that the label bear a true statement of the names of the ingredients entering into or going to make up the food sold or offered for sale in Alabama, as imitations, compounds, or blends; and provided, that this act shall not apply to stocks of drugs and medicines on hand in this State, until the first day of January, 1910, with exception set forth in section 17 of this Act.

SEC. 6. That no dealer shall be prosecuted under the provisions of this act when he can establish a guarantee signed by the wholesale jobber, manufacturer, or other party from whom he purchased such article, to the effect that the same is not adulterated or misbranded within the meaning of this act, designating it. Said guarantee, to afford protection, shall contain the name and address of the party or parties making the sale of such articles to such dealer, and in such cases, the said party or parties shall be amenable to the prosecution, fines, and other penalties which would attach, in due course, to the dealer under the provisions of this act.

SEC. 7. That any article of food, drug or liquor that is adulterated or misbranded within the meaning of this act shall be liable to be proceeded against in any court of the State of Alabama, where practicable within the county where the same is found and seized for confiscation by a process of libel or