THE WHOLESALE GROCERS' EXCHANGE OF CHICAGO, Hon. HENRY T. RAINEY, Ways and Means Committee, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: I beg to call your attention to House bill No. 16675, by Mr. Rainey, now before the Ways and Means Committee, which amends the mixed-flour law so as to permit the manufacture and sale without penalty of pancake flour, etc., when sold as mixed flour or compounds, and so branded in full conformity with the requirements of the pure-food law of June 30, 1906, and with the laws of all States. You may not perhaps realize the importance of the immediate enactment of this measure. It is generally admitted that the best grade of pancake flour, as now demanded by the consuming public, must contain more than 50 per cent of wheat. But if the product does contain more than 50 per cent wheat it is not only subject to the tax, but there are many other rigorous and burdensome requirements of the law which make the manufacture of this product practically prohibitive to all but a very few of the largest manufacturers. The reason for the importance of immediate favorable action by your committee is that for many years past this law has been generally misunderstood by manufacturers, and the impression has prevailed among by far the majority of them that it did not apply to pancake flour. Now, however, that the Department of Internal Revenue has clearly advised manufacturers upon this point, it makes it necessary that practically all of them so change their formulas as to use less than 50 per cent of wheat flour. This will mean a vastly inferior product, and will greatly tend to discourage the consumption of this healthful and economical article. The present law as a revenue measure has wholly failed, as the total revenue derived therefrom is not sufficient to cover the cost of collection, and yet by its indirect operation it has a tendency to increase the cost of living to the average consumer. It will be disastrous to the trade unless this amendment is enacted in time to take care of the fall business. It does not seem that anyone can horestly or in good faith offer any sound objection to the proposed amendment, and as its importance to the trade and to the public is so great can not we rely on you to do everything in your power to see that it is reported out favorably at once? Respectfully, yours. ALBERT N. MERRITT. THE EKENBERG CO. MILK PRODUCTS. Cortland, N. Y., May 19, 1914. Hon. HENRY T. RAINEY, Ways and Means Committee, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: It has recently come to our attention that through an unrepealed section of the war revenue tax law of 1898, mixed flour containing more than 50 per cent of wheat was subject to a small war revenue tax of 4 cents a barrel and that the manufacturers thereof are required to take out a license in order to pursue their business, and each package containing mixed flours must be marked in letters of certain height, "mixed flour." It appears that when this law was passed it was intended to affect those who were mixing cheaper flours with wheat flour and then selling this adulterated flour as wheat flour. Since the passage of the pure food drugs act, however, such a law appears to be unnecessary as adulterations are prohibited and if wheat flour is mixed with other flours it is necessary to so proclaim it on the labels. At the time this law was passed, however, the framers probably had no knowledge of such an article as the many self-rising flours which have now come on the market and it was not intended to tax these packages, many of which contain only about a pound and which are plainly marked to comply with the pure food law, indicating what kinds of flours are used. It would seem also that there was no more reason for the taxing of a mixed flour containing more than 50 per cent of wheat and properly labeled than there would be for taxing mixed flour containing 50 per cent corn, rye, rice, buckwheat, oats, and other cereal products. The amount of this tax is negligible and enforcement of it would entail on the Government a large expense for inspection and collection and would subject the manufacturer to a lot of petty annoyance in application for a license, procuring stamps and printing of smaller packages with the proper legend as well as necessary bookkeeping in order to make proper return. Most manufacturers of self-rising flours have never heard of this law until within the past few weeks and probably many of them have not heard of it yet, for, with a very few exceptions, this class of goods is packed by the small miller, practically for local consumption, and as the cartons and containers are usually ordered in quantities far ahead of their consumptive requirements, enforcement of this law as against manufacturers of self-rising mixed flours complying fully with the pure food law, would entail a great hardship to them. We hope, therefore, that the bill which you have recently introduced exempting such products as pancake flours, health flours, etc., when sold as mixed flours or compounds under their distinctive names and not as wheat flours, may be reported on favorably by the committee and may receive prompt action by the House, as we feel sure that a prompt passage of this amendment would save a great deal of unintentional violation of an unknown law and prevent an apparently unwarranted annoyance of a class of innocent small manufacturers, while the revenue derived by the Government from its enforcement of the law would be insignificant and the cost of the collection would probably be more than the tax collected. Very truly, yours, Hon. HENRY T. RAINEY, THE EKENBERG CO., Vice President. THE EKENBERG CO., MANUFACTURERS OF MILK PRODUCTS, Cortland, N. Y., May 23, 1914. Ways and Means Committee, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: Your favor of the 21st instant inclosing copy of H. R. 16675, which you have introduced in the House, is at hand, and you seem to have covered in a few words the necessities of the case, and the passage of this bill will meet a condition which had not arisen at the time the law of 1898 was passed and prevent a large number of small millers from continuing as breakers of the law, of which probably not one in twenty-five have ever heard. The writer has in mind particularly one small manufacturer of pancake flour, whose entire tax for the two years or more that he has been making these goods, would probably not amount to $5, and he probably has never up to this time heard of the law. We note that in a copy of the Regulations of the United States Internal Revenue concerning mixed flour, which we recently secured, the law which you are now seeking to amend is referred to as "The internal revenue act, approved June 13, 1898, as amended by act of April 12, 1902," while your bill, in referring to the law, says, "As amended by the act of March 2, 1901." Trusting that the bill will meet with no opposition and may speedily become a law and thanking you for your interest in the matter, we remain, DEAR SIR: We beg respectfully to thank you for the consideration which has resulted in the introduction of House bill No. 16675, the purpose of which is the exemption of flour when sold as pancake flour-that is, as a mixed flour under a distinctive designation, and not as an article adulterated for the purposes of deceit-from the tax now assessed against mixed flours. We hope for the enactment of this amendmeit to the law, because at present the quality of pancake flour is necessarily limited by the law. The larger the proportion of wheat flour present in such compositions as pancake flour the better the article. And every step which insures to the public a more wholesome article, without increase of cost, should commend itself to the Members of Congress and the House. Again thanking you for the kindly service you have already done the manufacturers of this product, we remain, Yours, very truly, Mr. HENRY T. RAINEY, PIESER-LIVINGSTON CO. Per I. PIESER. A. H. PERFECT & Co. (INC.), House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: We wish to call particular attention to the law that is upon the statute books with reference to "mixed flour," which, as we understand, was put there during the time of the Spanish-American War, when it was necessary to raise additional revenue, and inasmuch as this law is still on the statute books and has not been enforced and still is there, making liable anyone who does not comply to prosecution and fine, we respectfully request the attention of your committee to this matter and see whether or not it is needable and desirable at the present time to have the same removed from the statutes. Trusting you will give the matter your consideration, and thanking you in advance, we are Yours, very truly, Hon. HENRY T. RAINEY, A. H. PERFECT & Co., Per A. H. PERFECT. MCNEIL & HIGGINS CO., Committee on Ways and Means, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: Our company wishes to call to your attention what is known as the mixed-flour law, which we think works a hardship on the wholesaler and retailer by taxing pancake flour and certain health flours, the greater percentage of which is wheat flour, mixed with corn meal, rice, and leaven. We are quite certain that this law was never intended to cover such articles as we have mentioned, but it has been so construed to include them. We are informed that a bill is to be introduced by you, amending this law, to the extent of exempting pancake flour, health flour, etc. We feel sure that all the wholesale grocers of the United States, as well as the retail grocers, greatly appreciate this action in endeavoring to remove this unreasonable and foolish restriction on these important food articles. We are Yours, very truly, MCNEIL & HIGGINS Co., Secretary. THE TOWLE MAPLE PRODUCTS CO., Mr. HENRY T. RAINEY, Ways and Means Committee, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: We understand that a bill is being introduced to amend the mixed-flour law of June 13, 1898. We believe that it is only fair that this law should be amended, and would call your attention to the inconsistency of taxing mixed flour when it contains between 50 per cent and 100 per cent wheat flour and not taxing it when it contains under 50 per cent or is made wholly of wheat flour. There certainly is no logical reason why a flour mixture should be taxed at all if the label on the package shows what the mixture is composed of, and we sincerely hope that you will give your help to having this unfair law repealed or amended. Yours, truly, THE TOWLE MAPLE PRODUCTS Co. Hon. HENRY T. RAINEY, Washington, D. C. FRANCE MILLING CO., COBLESKILL, N. Y., May 16, 1914. DEAR SIR: We understand that a bill has been introduced in the House and Senate repealing the mixed-flour act of June 13, 1898, as amended March 21, 1901, and April 12, 1902, or repealing parts thereof that refer to pancake flour, health flour, and other mixed flours that are household commodities. We are very much interested in this bill, and hope that it will pass at this session. We are large manufacturers of pancake flour, which we pack in a manner that has always complied with the law. We think the larger part of the manufacturers of self-rising pancake, self-rising buckwheat, health flour, and other self-rising flours have made an effort to comply with this law, and a great injustice could be done them if they were prosecuted. We will appreciate your cooperation very much. Yours, truly, FRANCE MILLING CO., CLIFFORD FRANCE, President. Hon. HENRY T. RAINEY, MEBIUS & DRESCHER Co., Sacramento, Cal., June 24, 1914. Member of Congress, Washington, D. C. HONORABLE SIR: Referring to H. R. bill 16675, introduced by your honorable self, repealing the tax on mixed flour, we desire to compliment you on the introduction of this bill, which we think is a very important one. The tax heretofore imposed is highly unnecessary and very unjust, as a tax on mixed flour, a necessity of life, is a premium on the cost of living, and as such has no place on the statute books in time of peace. We are therefore writing to the members of the Ways and Means Committee of the House of Representatives, as also the Congressmen from this State, asking their prompt and favorable consideration of this bill, and trust it may be enacted into law as early as feasible. Thanking you for your good efforts in this direction, we beg to remain, Hon. HENRY T. RAINEY, MEBIUS & DRESCHER CO., By S. C. DRESCHER, President. WITMAN-SCHWARZ CO., Harrisburg, Pa., May 13, 1914. House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: We believe that you have been asked to refer a bill to the Committee on Ways and Means, of which you are a member, to exempt the tax prescribed on mixed flours, such as Pancake flour, Health flour, Self-raising buckwheat flour, etc., when sold as mixed flour or compounds under distinctive names and not as wheat flour. As such commodities are poor men's food, and as the tax imposed in 1898 naturally increases the cost, and as we believe it was originally enacted as war revenue, we believe, in your good judgment, you will see such an exemption only fair and just. Asking you to use your good office, and thanking you in advance for your consideration of the same, we are, Very truly, yours, WITMAN-SCHWARZ CO. ALEX. E. KING, Hon. HENRY T. RAINEY, Columbia, S. C., January 27, 1916. House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: I notice that you have introduced a bill in Congress to repeal the mixed-flour law, and I hope very much that you will be successful in having this bill enacted into a law. Thanking you for your action in the matter, I am, A. E. KING. BOARD OF TRADE OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO, January 26, 1916. Hon. HENRY T. RAINEY, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR CONGRESSMAN: I was very pleased indeed to learn that you are sponsor for House bill No. 9409, known as the "mixed-flour bill." I am entirely in sympathy with this legislation. For nearly 20 years I was in the business of manufacturing products from corn, and am quite familiar with the manufacturing end of this business as well as the commercial or marketing end of the same. Under the modern methods of manufacture, every product of corn with which I am familiar is absolutely pure and wholesome. My information, gleaned from a very thorough investigation by the best talent in this country, is that an admixture of corn flour with wheat flour is not only not injurious, but in many respects carries more merit than a straight wheat flour. I fully recognize that there are many complex interests involved in this question. Corn is produced in nearly every State in the Union; the great bulk of wheat is produced in less than 10 States. Corn flour would only be mixed when crop failure, war, or some other unusual situation carried the prices of wheat to an exorbitant figure. When situations such as I have described exist, the addition of a moderate amount of corn flour would not have an appreciable effect on the price of wheat nor would it materially reduce the consumption of the latter grain for flour-making purposes. On the other hand, it would naturally stimulate the demand for corn, and while I do not think it would be fair to say that it would appreciably advance the price of corn, the tendency would be along that line. To me it seems unfair to tax the mixture of wheat and corn flour, unless it is alleged and proven that such mixtures are injurious. Such a contention would not be borne out by the facts, for corn flour is just as pure and wholesome a product as wheat flour. Likewise, the provisions of your bill protect the public by compelling the proper labeling of packages so that the consumer would know the exact character of the product he is buying. We can safely leave with the Department of Agriculture a rigid enforcement of the pure-food law, including the proper labeling of packages. I deem your measure to be most meritorious, and hope that it will receive the favorable approval of the present Congress. Sincerely, yours, J. P. GILFIN. PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC LEDGER, Hon. HENRY T. RAINEY, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR CONGRESSMAN RAINEY: For editorial information, and for the enlightenment of the public, I venture to ask that you tell in a letter to the Public Ledger the chief reasons for the bill sponsored by you to relieve mixed flour of taxation, with the provision that all mixed flours should carry a label stating the contents and their proportions. I am sure that whatever you might have to say on this subject would be of high public interest and value. Yours, very truly, H. B. BROUGHAM. |