tion. The net result of this legislation, therefore, if enacted, will be this: The same interests which now control the production of cornstarch and which also control many other of the important industries of the Nation, at least financially, having observed the food field as one of great promise of profit, if it can be occupied, have determined to possess it to the exclusion of competitors; in other words, if they can monopolize the means of appeasing the hunger of the Nation, as they can under the operation of this bill, it will enable them to become masters of the situation and the miller the servant.

That they are prepared for this opportunity and are quite frank about their intention to avail themselves of it, is evident from the statement made by their counsel at last year's hearing:

"If this law is repealed, our people-that is, the cornstarch manufacturers— will, of course, push the sale of the flour. We have brokers and sales agents in every large city in the United States. In every city of any size whatever we have our brokers, and a selling campaign would be started immediately, so the consumer would get the whole benefit of the repeal of this law. It is not going to be hard to educate the consumer to use this flour, because with our sales force that we have, and the brokers that we have scattered all over the United States, a selling campaign would bring it immediately into use, and the repeal of the law would be felt by the people almost immediately. We have tried to do it heretofore. We have tried to sell these products, but we have been unable to do it on account of this tax." (Hearings before the committee of the Sixtythird Congress, p. 17.)

If the bill becomes law the economic operation of the industry will be this: Flour will be purchased from the millers in Minnesota, Kansas, and other points of manufacture, shipped for eastern consumption, stopped in transit at a convient glucose factory and converted into the "mixed" flour and go forward to its destination. If there is one demand which never fails it is the demand for food. If the pure product is driven out of the market the adulterated product must be eaten.

The advocates of the bill contend that the food-and-drugs act has dispensed with the necessity of the earlier legislation regulating the adulteration of flour. If this is true why are they not content with a repeal of the act taxing mixed flour? Why do they ask to have the pure-food act emasculated for their benefit?

The amendment which they propose to the food-and-drugs act places cornstarch in a class by itself as a favored adulterant of flour above all the vegetable and fruit starches. It withdraws this adulterant from the operation of the general provisions of the food-and-drugs act, and the proposed amendments are so artfully or artlessly drawn that is is impossible to see in advance of judicial interpretation what their operation will be.

Printed as Appendix II are the relevant sections of the food-and-drugs act with the proposed amendments inserted in the places where it is intended that they shall go.

THE ALLEGED DISCRIMINATION AGAINST CORN IN THE PRESENT LAW.

Discrimination to be unjust must be unequal. Pace v. Alabama, 106 U. S., 584, 585.

It is alleged that because there is a tax on a mixture of wheat and corn there is a discrimination against corn. It is difficult to see how such a contention can be made by any one possessing a mind capable of adult reasoning. The tax is not on the ingredients, it is on the mixture, and if the mixture contains 80 per cent wheat and 20 per cent corn the wheat pays 80 per cent of the tax, and therefore is discriminated against four times as much as the corn. There is not now and never has been any restraint upon the sale of corn or of the products of corn any more than there has been against wheat or the products of wheat. Each can be sold upon its merits and for what it is. By recognizing the likelihood of fraud in the sale of flour adulterated with corn products the present law does not forbid this mixing, but regulates and supervises it so that the fraud is minimized. The application of the law is now uniform throughout the country. Every package containing the adulterated product whether sold in the States, among the States, or in foreign commerce must be marked by the Government to show that it is an adulterated product. This is no discrimination against corn. To forbid the watering of milk is not to discriminate against water.

When interests so thoroughly commercialized as the Corn Products Association are, appeal to Congress for legislation to legalize the use of their product

as an adulterant of food and urge the cause of justice to the producers of the raw material of the product and the cause of humanity and philanthropy as principal reasons for the proposed legislation, legislators, in our judgment, should look with suspicion upon such arguments. When a business man comes forward and assigns reasons of humanity and the injustice to producers, in whose behalf he is not interested, as the reason for the legislation which he seeks, we are apt to regard it, expressed in common parlance, as "bunk."

The contention that the corn and the corn farmer are discriminated against has already been disposed of. It is too absurd for argument. It is a matter of common knowledge that the two cereal products involved in this discussion are raised principally in the States of the Middle West, and it is safe to say that at least 70 per cent of the acreage in those States is equally fitted and equally available for the production of either commodity. Whether the land shall be planted to wheat or corn in a given season does not depend upon any revenue act, but on the relation of the prices between the two commodities. This was evidenced by the response of wheat culture to the higher prices resulting from the European war. If next year, corn should have a relatively higher price than wheat, the corn area will be increased and the wheat area decreased until the normal cost-of-production relation between the two products is again established.

With respect to the consumer, this may be said: It is common knowledge that the retail prices of commodities do not vary and fluctuate with the variations in the wholesale price. We do not recall when the price of the loaf of bakers' bread has been less than 5 cents, nor do we recall a time when it has been more, although the wholesale prices of flour have fluctuated from time to time. The ordinary consumer, especially the poor man, who for the time being is the pet of the Glucose Trust, does not buy his flour by the barrel. He buys 10-pound sacks, 25-pound sacks, and very rarely as large a quantity as a 50-pound sack. Will it be argued that there will be any variation in the retail price of these lesser packages of flour by reason of a possible reduction in the price of the barrel of flour to the amount of 40 cents to 60 cents by the introduction of a 20 per cent adulterant of cornstarch?

We say, without fear of contradiction by the record, that the proponents of this bill have not been frank or fair to the committee, to the consumers of this country, to the millers of the country, or to the mechanical manufacturers of corn flour, some of whom they deluded to attempt the delicate job of raking the chestnuts of the Cornstarch Trust out of the fire. The record shows that the question was repeatedly put to the proponents of the bill whether or not they would be content with a repeal of the present legislation on the subject of mixed flour, which they contend is a discrimination against corn, and to operate their business under the general provisions of the pure-food act as it now stands, but in no instance was it possible to elicit a definite answer as to their position in that regard. They are, of course, conscious of the fact, which they prudently decline to admit, that the pure-food law, as at present interpreted, would prevent the mixing of cornstarch and its sale as flour, "mixed or otherwise, and therefore not only do they insist that the mixed-flour law be repealed but that they be given a legislative license to adulterate wheat flour under their proposed amendment to the pure-food act. Respectfully submitted.

APPENDIX I.

MIXED FLOUR.

JOHN LIND.
EDWARD S. ROGERS.
FRANCIS M. PHELPS.

[H. Rept. No. 1537, 55th Cong., 2d sess.]

"

The Committee on Ways and Means have had under consideration the bill (H. R. 9380) defining mixed flour and also imposing a tax upon and regulating the manufacture, sale, importation, and exportation thereof.

This bill was presented to the committee as a substitute for House bill 6705, introduced by Mr. Pearce, of Missouri, January 17, 1898.

Hearings before the full committee were granted to all persons who expressed a desire to be heard. The evidence thus presented to the committee will be found in Document No. 309, and consists of a report submitted by the Secretary of Agriculture showing the fact and extent of the adulteration of wheat flour,

together with the kind and character of the adulterants used; also the statements of the representatives of the millers' executive committee, the Millers' National Association, the Winter Wheat Millers' League, the Southwestern Winter Wheat Millers' Association, the Illinois Millers' Association, besides representatives from the millers' State associations of Minnesota, the Dakotas, Wisconsin, Michigan, and all other States where flour or corn milling is a leading industry. The document referred to also contains letters from foreign buyers of American flour and reports from American consuls upon the fact and effect of the adulteration of wheat flour upon the export flour trade of the United States.

All of the foregoing evidence was submitted in support of this proposed legislation. In addition, there was filed with the committee numerous petitions and resolutions from boards of trade, chambers of commerce, and produce exchanges, representing almost every State in the Union, urging the passage of H. R. 9380, herewith reported. The only interest represented before the committee and appearing for the purpose of opposing the bill was the Glucose Sugar Refining Co., of Chicago,

The most important facts found by the committee from the evidence submitted are that wheat flour is, and for the past two years or more has been, adulterated by manufacturers and dealers in certain sections of the country and sold for pure wheat flour at about pure wheat-flour prices, and that in almost every case the adulterants used are deleterious to health. The principal adulterants are corn flour, flourine, mineraline, and barytes. The chemical analyses of the three last-named products prove that all of them contain matter positively injurious to health, while mineraline and barytes contain absolutely no_muscle-creating or life-sustaining qualities whatever.

In flourine, the adulterant most generally used, the amount of protein or muscle-forming material is so small that, according to the report of the Department of Agriculture, a laboring man would have to consume 150 pounds of it per day in order to obtain a sufficient amount of protein for an average day's work. (See Bulletins 21, 23, and 45, U. S. Experiment Stations, Department of Agriculture.)

In a letter transmitting a chemical analysis of flourine Prof. Snyder, of the University of Minnesota, says:

"This flourine contains 0.018 per cent of free sulphuric acid. The acid character is so pronounced that when a piece of sensitive blue litmus paper is pressed against the dampened flour the paper is turned red, indicating the presence of free acid. The reaction of flourine is decidedly acid. The excess of acid has undoubtedly been used to give the material a better appearance, and also to prevent fermentation when the product is mixed with flour."

In this same letter Prof. Snyder sums up the objectionable features of flourine as follows:

"Briefly stated, the analysis shows the objectionable features of flourine to be: The absence of bone-forming materials as phosphates, and the presence of objectionable mineral matter as sulphate of soda. Flourine is deficient in both protein and fat, and contains free sulphuric acid. If a person were fed on pure flourine he would soon die for the want of the proper vital nutrients, because starch alone can not sustain life."

The following is the result of the chemical analysis of flourine referred to in the letter of Prof. Snyder:

W. C. EDGAR:

UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA EXPERIMENT STATION,
CHEMICAL LABORATORY,

St. Anthony Park, Minn., April 13, 1898.

The sample of flourine received April 10, 1898, has been found to have the following composition upon analysis:

The fact that sulphuric acid is used in the manufacture of flourine was admitted by Dr. Arno Behr, who appeared before the committee as a representative of the Glucose Sugar Refining Co., and who is in the employ of said. company as an analytical chemist, the quantity of acid thus admitted being not less than 2 ounces to a barrel of water. The use of sulphuric acid in the manufacture of glucose and flourine is also proven by the affidavit of Frank W. Powers, of St. Louis, Mo., who for more than two years was the head miller in a glucose mill. (See printed hearings, p. 111.) The presence of this acid in flourine being established by the science of chemistry, by the sworn testimony and admissions of the employees of the producers of flourine, the evidence of experts and scientists is not necessary to prove that flourine used in the adulteration of wheat flour is injurious to health. If evidence of this character is needed, it may be found in the letter of Dr. George M. Kober, a reputable physician of the city of Washington, who for a number of years has made a study of this matter. Evidence to the same effect may be found in the letter of Prof. H. Wiley, Chief of the Division of Chemistry, United States Department of Agriculture. (See p. 67 of the printed hearings.)

Mineraline used as a wheat-flour adulterant is nothing more nor less than white clay, or kaolin, ground into a flour. Its constituent parts are shown by the chemical analysis made by the same chemist who analyzed the flourine hereinbefore referred to. The result of his analysis is herewith submitted: UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA EXPERIMENT STATION,

W. C. EDGAR:

CHEMICAL LABORATORY,

St. Anthony Park, Minn., May 24, 1898.

The sample of mineraline received May 23, 1898, has been found to have the following composition upon analysis:

The material is feldspar and contains a small amount of clay (as an impurity). It is a mineral found quite abundantly in many localities.

HARRY SNYDER, Chemist.

I also submit the letter of Prof. Snyder transmitting the analysis of this mineraline:

66

UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA, AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION, St. Anthony Park, Minn., May 24, 1898. DEAR SIR: I inclose the report of the analysis of the material called mineraline." The analysis shows that it is feldspar, containing a little clay. Feldspar is a mineral which is used for making the glaze on porcelain. If used as an adulterant in flour it would be most decidedly injurious to health. This material is in a very fine state of division, and, being insoluble and indigestible, it would seriously interfere with the digestion and absorption of the food, to say nothing of its action as an irritant.

Mineraline has a slimy feeling and leaves a highly polished surface. It is one of the most insoluble substances found in nature. In order to get it into condition for analysis it must first be roasted with strong fluxes at a high temperature. Concentrated hydrochloric acid dissolves less than 5 per cent of it. Its use as an adulterant would be equivalent to using pulverized rock. Very truly, yours,

Mr. W. C. EDGAR,

Northwestern Miller, Minneapolis, Minn.

HARRY SNYDER.

Barytes, which is another adulterant used by the sophisticators of wheat flour, is a white rock too well known to require any explanation or analysis to demonstrate the iniquity of its use in the manufacture of flour. When ground, as it is, into a flour it so nearly resembles in appearance wheat flour that it is practically impossible to detect the difference with the eye or by the sense of touch. The ease with which a large percentage of this adulterant may there

fore be used in the manufacture of wheat flour without the fear of being detected is very apparent. The fact that it is being used is proven by the following letter from a reputable wholesale flour establishment of Louisville, Ky.:

LOUISVILLE, KY., April 26, 1898.

DEAR SIR: We inclose you sample of what to us is a new method of adulteration. It is pulverized rock (barytes) and is being used by one of the large millers in this section. What per cent he is using we can not say, but it is found in considerable quantities in flour under his brand. Adulteration with corn products is plain stealing, but what do you think of adding injury to the theft?

This flour is sold principally in the Southeastern States.

We are yours, truly,

EDITOR OF NORTHWESTERN MILLER, Minneapolis, Minn.

JEFFERSON & Co.

From the evidence thus presented to the committee there is no room to question the fact that our wheat flour is to-day adulterated with material absolutely deleterious to health. This practice, therefore, constitutes a menace to the health of more than 70,000,000 people. But it is not alone the public health that demands a remedy for the evil of adulteration. Flour is not alone the product from which the "staff of life" is made, but is one of our most important articles of foreign and domestic commerce,

The milling industry is now the largest single industry in the United States, but it can not long exist part honest and part dishonest. Competition between the honest miller who manufactures flour from all wheat and the dishonest miller who manufactures flour from part wheat and part cornstarch, flourine, barytes, or mineraline, and then sells it for the pure article, must either destroy the business of the honest miller or make him a rascal like his dishonest competitor. No one who will stop to consider the facts will deny that this is not competition, but annihilation. This great and constantly growing industry is therefore seriously menaced by the fraudulent practice which has recently grown up among a class of men who, for the sake of larger profits, will not hesitate to destroy the health of their fellowmen. That this practice is rapidly driving the honest miller out of business or forcing him to be a dishonest producer of flour is evidenced by the following correspondence:

Mr. AUGUSTINE GALLAGHER,

Washington, D. C.

CHAMBERSBURG, PA., February 7, 1898.

DEAR SIR: We are gratified to note the great interest you have taken against the adulteration of flour. We ourselves are greatly interested in this subject, and believe every responsible manufacturer would issue a protest against the continuation of this malicious practice if they would but know or appreciate the results as it is probable we may see them in a few years hence if the Government does not put a stop to it.

Our business recently, we are well aware, has been quite profitable, it having been made so by the sale of corn-mill and blending machinery for warehouses, etc. This machinery is demanding a big price. We know, however, on the other hand, that this blending or mixing is injuring the trade of the honest and responsible miller, and especially is it injuring the little fellows, or mills which are doing local work. To cite one instance, we inclose you a communication just recently received from one of our friends, Mr. W. P. Sykes. He has a small mill of 50 barrels capacity and has always been up with the times, no doubt making money. You can infer from his letter, however, what is staring him in his face, and what is representative of like situations in probably 15,000 mills in the United States. While we are not directly interested in this matter, yet we feel as though what affects the miller affects us, and if we can be of any assistance in having this matter adjusted we would thank you to kindly command us; and with best wishes for your success, we are,

Yours, very truly,

THE WOLF Co., Per H. G. WOLF.

This company last year did a business of perhaps $400,000. It is by no means the largest of its kind in the country, but is one of the most enterprising, and is very keen to see that when they carry on business to compete with legitimate milling business of this country it is probably going to eat in and tear down the whole fabric.