The CHAIRMAN. But they can mix it if they want to, except that they would not say how much of the corn flour they put into it? Mr. LIND. There are thirty-odd mixing houses now, but not for bread consumption. It is mostly for special products, such as pancakes and flapjacks.

The CHAIRMAN. This does not change the law in that respect, so far as selling.

Mr. LIND. The present law, Mr. Chairman, requires a Government stamp on the mixed-flour container. The ignorant negro in the South, the ignorant foreigner in the lumber camp in our State or in the mines of Pennsylvania or elsewhere he sees this stamp. He can not read. They do not do any reading. They do not pay any attention to reading, but they see this stamp. What is that for? It is mixed flour. There is cornstarch in it. "That does not go."

The CHAIRMAN. Do you agree with what has been said by the cornflour millers, that the idea of this law was to throw odium on corn products?

Mr. LIND. Not at all; but on corn products selling under the improper name of flour.

The CHAIRMAN. Would it not satisfy you just as well and those whom you represent, Governor, if the Government would label flour that contains starch as impure food? Would not that satisfy you?

Mr. LIND. No; it is not impure; not at all. Mr. Chairman, I apologize sincerely if I have said anything here that conveyed the impression here that I regarded starch that is properly made, with the sulphuric acid eliminated, as impure food. Wheat flour carries 70 per cent of starch. Starch is not impure food, but it is insufficient food by itself.

The CHAIRMAN. When an ignorant man finds a stamp I think it conveys to his mind that it is starch. It is something that he does not want to eat. Therefore it does not come into any sort of contact with the flour made in Minnesota.

Mr. LIND. Oh, it is in Kansas, Nebraska, and your own State, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. You do not answer that question in the affirmative?

Mr. LIND. Certainly; I will answer that in the affirmative. That is a visual reminder to him when he sees that Government stamp that he is not getting wheat flour.

The CHAIRMAN. And it is a visual reminder to him that starch is impure.

Mr. LIND. No; no.

The CHAIRMAN. But, according to your admission, that it is a visual reminder to him that it contains something impure; is not that true, according to your statement?

Mr. LIND. Not at all; it is not impure, but it is not what he wants. He wants flour, and that is a mixture.

The CHAIRMAN. If it is labeled on the package telling him that he is getting 20 per cent of corn flour or cornstarch, does this bill give him more information about it than the law as it now exists?

Mr. LIND. The reading contained on the package does not amount to a great deal. It is the earmark of the Government stamp that counts for more than anything else.

The CHAIRMAN. Right in this connection. Your position is that you must preserve the purity of the flour that goes abroad. Mr. LIND. And at home, as well.

The CHAIRMAN. We are talking about exports now, and for that reason it is absolutely necessary to retain the law as it now stands? Mr. LIND. I think so.

The CHAIRMAN. The law as it now stands, Governor, does not require that the packages that go abroad contain any percentages at all, or any information to the foreigner as to how much corn product there is in that package. That is true, is it not? Let me ask you this: The packages that go over must be branded "mixed flour" under the law as it now stands

Mr. LIND. There will never be any go abroad but once after the foreigner knows that we have relaxed our law. Now, he' has the assurance of a law that protects the American wheat flour.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there anything in the law now that prevents wheat flour and corn flour mixed from going abroad?

Mr. LIND. No; there is not anything.

The CHAIRMAN. And if it does go abroad it will be labeled "mixed flour" under the law now?

Mr. LIND. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. If it goes abroad under this law it will be labeled "mixed flour," and in addition to that labeling it will show how much there is in it of cornstarch?

Mr. LIND. Yes; but

The CHAIRMAN. If it does not go abroad, then it is not likely to go abroad any more because we tell the foreigner how much corn flour there is in it?

Mr. LIND. We should not have any relaxation from our food laws. The CHAIRMAN. Is that any relaxation? When this bill says that you must also retain that label and you must also tell the foreigner how much mixture there is in it, I do not follow you because I do not see how that is a relaxation.

Mr. LIND. I can not answer that by yes or no, without referring to the new bill

The CHAIRMAN. I know you can not, but I should like to have that answered.

Mr. LIND. I have not had the time to study this new bill with reference to the pure food act as carefully as I would like, and as I hope to before the hearings are concluded, but it is my present judgment that this amendment, the pending bill, takes mixed flour out of the general operation of the pure food act.

The CHAIRMAN. You are entirely wrong in that.

Mr. LIND. I am not in error, so my associate says, who has spent more time on that than I have. If this bill be passed in its present form, no provision of the pure-food act will apply to it except the provisions contained in the amendment. That is my best judgment, subject, of course, to correction.

The CHAIRMAN. You do not want to be understood as saying that it does not come under the pure-food law?

Mr. LIND. Mixed flour is under special regulations pertaining to it. The CHAIRMAN. I have too much respect for your legal attainments and ability to think that you mean that. I am sure you do not mean that.

Mr. LIND. There is a slight reservation in my mind, but that is my best judgment, with the limited time during the day that I have had to study it.

The CHAIRMAN. I hope you will read it again.

Mr. LIND. I certainly shall satisfy my mind and communicate the fact to the committee, because I want to be, as I hope you appreciate, very frank with the committee in what I

say.

The CHAIRMAN. You have such a splendid reputation, almost international, as a lawyer that I am sure you do not want to spoil it by such a statement as you have just made. I would not want you to, anyway.

Mr. LIND. I surely would not. I simply say that that is my offhand opinion with the opportunity that I have had to study and reflect upon it, and if I come to a different conclusion I will advise the committee.

One other point that I want to call the committee's attention to, and then I am done. The pure-food act, which was discussed when I had the good fortune to be an associate of some of you gentlemen, provides that for a mixed commodity, a compounded commodity, to bear the name of the principal commodity it must be a mixture composed of varieties of the same commodity. That is, a blend. Blended whisky is a blend of different kinds of whisky. You can blend any other commodities of the same kind, and it is a blend; but you can not, under the provisions of the existing pure-food act blend starch and wheat flour and call it mixed flour. It is a mixed cereal product. That would be the proper name. It is not a mixed flour, because starch is not flour-never was and never will be.

Mr. ALLEN. What proportion of patented-process flour that is made to-day is gluten, in a pound, say?

Mr. LIND. Ranging from 10 to 14 per cent.

Mr. ALLEN. Is that as much as it was formerly, under the old millstone process?

Mr. LIND. Yes; it is higher.

Right in this connection, if you do not suggest that I sit down, I want to make just one more observation. You are spending millions for the improvement of agriculture; we are in our State spending millions for the improvement of agriculture, and every other State in the West is doing the same thing. I think in the East, also. Every improvement in agriculture that is connected with the raising of cereals is directed to one end-to increase the gluten in the wheat berry. That is why we select better seed, better varieties, better fertilizers of the soil-not to get more starch, but to get more of the staff of life, more gluten-and we are actually increasing the gluten in our State, and they are also in Kansas, from year to year. Now, it is proposed to take away from the masses of the people the benefit of this muscle and tissue builder and substitute therefor a waste product-not waste in the sense that it is deleterious to health or harmful. Starch is not. Starch is not. I do not mean waste. I mean byproduct. It is largely a by-product. To prccure a market you have to sell it under a name not its own.

Mr. MOORE. Before you take your seat-when this bill was passed in 1898, during the Spanish-American War period, there was ample justification for it, in your judgment?

Mr. LIND. Oh, yes.

Mr. MOORE. And, of course, you are opposed to its repeal at present for the reasons you have given. Do you object to the use of the word "flour" by those who would take advantage of the new bill offered by Mr. Rainey?

Mr. LIND. I do.

Mr. MOORE. On the ground that what they would put into the bread would not be flour?

Mr. LIND. Yes, sir.

Mr. MOORE. And the name would be a misnomer? That is your position?

Mr. LIND. Yes, sir.

Mr. MOORE. You have said that the millers were a competitive body, as I remember. There is no combination of millers such as might be regarded as in restraint of trade in the United States, is there?

Mr. LIND. Absolutely, no; and never has been. They have tried time and again to combine, but there are so many of them that they could not.

Mr. MOORE. The wheat millers of the United States are not at the present time in any monopoly, so far as you know?

Mr. LIND. Absolutely not.

The CHAIRMAN. Except that they are opposing corn flour?

Mr. LIND. That is simply a dictate of self-preservation.

Mr. MOORE. I would like to ask you this question. Do you know of any lobby that has been working in opposition to the Rainey bill maintained by the millers of the country?

Mr. LIND. Not until the last 24 hours. There are nearly 50 of them here, the largest and most important millers in the United States. Mr. MOORE. You know what I mean by a lobby. Has there been any unfair lobby?

Mr. LIND. Oh, not at all. There could not be; they are not that class of men.

Mr. MOORE. You said something a little while ago about foreign trade and the fact that the passage of a bill of this kind would lead to a loss of exports. Do you know to what extent corn flour or the product of corn is sold abroad now?

Mr. LIND. Unfortunately to a very limited extent. Our State is equally interested in corn with some of these other States. It has been one of the most difficult things that we have had to contend with-to educate the European to the use of corn. They are not accustomed to it as a food.

Mr. MOORE. Will you indulge me for a moment while I read a brief letter that came to me under date of July 28, 1915, under circumstances entirely foreign to this meeting to-day from the Secretary of Agriculture? After I have read it I should like to have your comment upon it.

(The letter is as follows:)

Hon. J. HAMPTON MOORE,

Philadelphia, Pa.

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
Washington, July 28, 1915.

DEAR MR. MOORE: Receipt is acknowledged of your letter of July 19, inclosing a letter from Mr. W. C. MacNutt, 863 Drexel Building, Philadelphia, Pa., requesting information as to whether the United States Government has ever sent representatives abroad to educate the foreign countries in the use of yellow corn with a proportion of wheat.

The Department of Agriculture had a corn kitchen" in connection with its exhibit at the Paris Exposition, in 1900. At this corn kitchen " all the various products of corn were demonstrated and given to the public free of charge, and. besides this attempt, on all occasions the department has favored and encouraged the introduction of corn into Europe.

Some time before the Paris Exposition the manufacturers of corn flour attempted to introduce the use of corn in Europe. They were for a time more or less successful in Belgium and in certain portions of France. In these countries the bread made by the use of a mixture of corn and wheat flour obtained considerable renown and became known as Murphy bread," so called after the name of Mr. Murphy, who was introducing the corn flour.

It is quite evident that these attempts to introduce corn flour and other corn products into western Europe have not met with success. The people of Europe are not as a rule lovers of corn as a human food, and very little corn is now being used for that purpose by the Europeans, except that in southern Europe, particularly Italy and the Balkan region, corn is well known and has been a staple food for a long time. It forms the very common dish, "polenta," of Italy, and is used in other ways. In Roumania, Servia, etc., it is also in daily Very truly, yours,

use.

D. F. HOUSTON,

Secretary.

I desire to ask if you are familiar with the conditions that the Secretary discusses in this letter?

Mr. LIND. Yes; and I will say that many efforts have been made by private enterprises to supplement the efforts made by the Government, but it has been uphill work. You have before you a sample of corn flour. It looks like wheat flour, and you could not tell it from wheat flour. But, put your finger on it and touc' it to your tongue and you will taste the difference at once.

Mr. MOORE. If the Secretary of Agriculture is correct in this letter, what would be the effect on the American wheat-flour trade by the passage of the bill? It would possibly raise a question as to whether we were sending pure wheat flour.

Mr. LIND. Absolutely disastrous, in my judgment, and for this reason: It was said a moment ago that you could determine the admixture of corn starch in wheat flour by chemical test. You can not. The only way you can determine the starch is by the slight difference in shape. Chemically, wheat starch and cornstarch are the

same.

Mr. SLOAN. Governor, if I gather you right, your objection is based largely on the word "flour" and what it means and what it covers; and, now, is this a fair definition of the word flour": "Finely ground meal of wheat or any other grain”?

Mr. LIND. No, sir; it is not.

66

Mr. SLOAN. I have just taken it from the dictionary that the Ways and Means Committee has at its disposal.

Mr. LIND. We have no definition under the authority of Congress. Years ago the Agricultural Department made a definition, and it limits it to wheat and rye and barley. What dictionary was that taken from?

Mr. SLOAN. It is the one that the Ways and Means Committee has on the desk here. It is Webster's.

Mr. LIND. It is not accurate.

Mr. SLOAN. Of course, Congress could make a better definition than Webster; that is, more binding on this committee.

Mr. LIND. It has made some definitions that were better than Webster and some perhaps not.