« PreviousContinue »
Mr. MOORE. The label that has been used in evidence here and circulated about the table provides that there shall be stamped upon the package or the container, whatever it may be, the percentage wheat flour 80 per cent, cornstarch 20 per cent.
Mr. Lind. But that is only for illustration; that is not in the law. Mr. Hunt. The bill does not provide anything of that kind?
Mr. MOORE. The bill does not provide for it, but you have referred to other products of grain.
Mr. Hunt. That is provided for in the bill.
Mr. Moore. The bill does provide for that; that is, the repealer provides for that, which might mean cornstarch made from potatoes, as I understand
Mr. Hunt. No; potatoes are not a product of grain.
Mr. Moore. No; that is true; but starch from potatoes would be eliminated altogether from consideration here, although it could be mixed with wheat.
Mr. Hunt. It would be eliminated because it is not a grain product.
Mr. Moore. Then confine it wholly to grain. If we use such a label as was presented here in the previous hearings, informing the public that the content was 80 per cent wheat and 20 per cent cornstarch, how would that affect the relationship of these other grain products to the wheat products with which they were mixed?
Mr. GREEN. If you use that kind of a label and any other grain was put in, the party would be made to suffer a penalty
Mr. Moore. I will accept Mr. Green's answer to the question, but let me ask you this. Is it your understanding that if this repealer should be passed and some mixer were going to use the product of barley—that is, barley starch-with wheat flour, that the label then would say 80 per cent wheat and 20 per cent barley starch, or barley flour?
Mr. FORDNEY. Just 20 per cent starch would cover it. Mr. Hunt. I should say, 20 per cent starch, under the provisions of this bill; and, so far as the bill goes, I do not see where it provides for him having to say anything of that nature.
Mr. Moore. The bill simply provides that it shall be mixed flour, as I understand it.
Mr. LONGWORTH. No; it provides that there shall be a correct statement of the names and percentages and relative proportions of all ingredients; you could not simply say starch under this bill, you would have to say cornstarch.
Mr. Hunt. Suppose you put the product of kafir corn or millomaize in?
Mr. LoxGWORTH. You would have to state, then, that it was kafir corn or millomaize, I should think, under this bill. It requires a correct statement of the names and percentages, or relative proportions, of all ingredients.
Mr. Hunt. Then why not make them say they were going to put in pure Indian-corn flour rather than to state that it would be the product of corn?
Mr. MOORE. Well, first it is to be marked “ Mixed flour"; it must be marked "Mixed flour," anyway, irrespective of the ingredients, if it is a mixed product. Now, there must be, according to this repealer provision, a statement of the names and percentages or relative proportion of all ingredients contained therein. How would that affect other grain products entering into wheat, apart from corn; would they be at an advantage or a disadvantage?
Mr. HUNT. I do not think that there would be any particular advantage to them. There might be some slight advantage to them, especially to kafir corn, which is seeking a market. It is claimed by many producers to be equal to Indian corn in feeding qualities, and out of it to-day they are making a food product; it is being mixed with pancake four.
Mr. MOORE. Do you develop a starch from the kafir corn?
Mr. Dixon. What is the difference in price between the kafir corn and first-class Indian corn!
Mr. Hunt. Well, at this time, or the last I knew, it was about 10 or 12 cents a bushel lower than Indian corn.
Mr. Casey. You stated a few minutes ago that you represented a great many millers in different States in this country, and you stated that you wanted the committee to understand that when you spoke in the first person that you spoke for all the people you represented here. You further stated that you never mixed corn meal or corn flour with wheat flour. Now, what authority have you to say that that is true of all the people you represent?
Mr. Hunt. Only in so far as they have told me.
Mr. HUNT. I have only their word for it: yes. Any statement I make here in reference to representing other people means that I speak for them only in so far as I have had information from my associates.
Mr. Lind. May I ask one question at this time? Have you heard of a single incident since the passage of this revenue bill wherein a wheat miller has been accused by millers or by customers of mixing corn meal, corn flour, or cornstarch with his wheat flour?
Mr. HUNT. Not in our section of the country; I have never heard of a single such case.
Mr. MOORE. Have you heard of any prosecutions at all under the existing law?
Mr. Hunt. No; I have not. I do not know that there have been any, and I can not say that there have not been any; but I have never heard of a miller in our section of the country having any difficulty with the law as it exists; it is entirely satisfactory to us.
Mr. Rainey. You understand that the proposed bill permits the mixing of wheat flour or the flour from any other grain?
Mr. Hunt. The product of any other grain-
Mr. Rainey. Do you understand that the law as it exists now permits that very thing!
Mr. HUNT. I do.
Mr. LANNEN. Do you have any members you represent here that make self-raising flour?
Mr. HUNT. Yes, sir.
Mr. LANNEN. Now that self-raising flour is made from wheat flour and corn flour and rice flour and different cereals, is it not-for instance, cornstarch !
Mr. Hunt. I never have heard of any of them that mixed any other ingredient into their self-raising flour—that is, the flour that is known as self-raising flour—other than wheat flour and the leavening qualities that enter into it necessary to make it rise.
Mr. LANNEN. Well, now, how about pancake flour; is that a straight wheat-flour product?
Mr. Hunt. I don't know anything about the pancake-flour business;
I have never been in it. Mr. LANNEN. If a product sold as pancake flour or self-raising flour contained cornstarch or rice starch, or any other cereal product, do you think the name “ self-raising flour" is a proper name for it, or that “pancake flour " is a proper name for it?
Mr. HÚNT. I think the name "pancake flour" would be the appropriate name for it-self-raising pancake flour—which comes under the law, as I understand it.
Mr. LANNEN. You would not object to the use of the word “flour" in that case, even though the mixture did contain cornstarch?
Mr. Hunt. None whatever, so far as I am concerned. I do not enter into that business.
Mr. Lind. That is not sold as a bread product anywhere?
STATEMENT OF E. F. SHOENING, OF COLUMBIA, ILL.
Mr. SHOENING. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, my home is in Columbia, Ill., in Monroe County. I am a miller, and I represent here the Southern Illinois Millers' Association, an association which is composed of 62 individual mills located in southern Illinois, with the exception of one that is located across the river in Missouri.
This association has been in existence for over 30 years, and our main object when it was organized—and I was one of the organizers-was to interchange ideas and information in regard to operative methods. We are all small millers, as you would call us now.
Mr. Lind. What is the capacity of your mill, for instance?
Mr. SHOENING. My mill—the one at Columbia-I own three mills, but I will speak of the one at Columbia-makes 600 barrels of flour a day. Thirty years ago we made 100 barrels. I have two more mills, each of which has a capacity of about 250 barrels a day. They are all country mills. As I said, the object in the formation of this association was to impart mechanical and operative information among the members of the association. The association has been of great benefit to us in this way, that through every mill putting out a high quality of flour, the quality of flour that is put out by the Southern Illinois Millers' Association stands as the highest grade of flour-and I say it without fear of contradiction—in all the markets of the South. I believe my competitors will bear me out when I
say that we get more money for our flour than the millers in any other section in the United States, for the simple reason that it is worth more. We make a high-grade flour. Understand me right; I am not knocking my competitors, but we give value received with
our flour. That has been our aim; that has been our hold that has kept us in the market.
Mr. GREEN. You make that from the soft wheat?
Mr. GREEN. What is the percentage of gluten in soft wheat as compared to the hard wheat?
Mr. SHOENING. I tell you, Congressman, while I am now a mill owner, my trade is that of a practical miller; that is my work and has been all my life. I am an operative miller. I have operated my mill making flour up to three years ago, although I have my son in now as a miller. I had to raise him as a miller, and he is taking my work now. The percentage of gluten-the quantity of it—does not govern the bread-making qualities entirely. Every practical miller knows that.
Mr. GREEN. I am glad to hear that
Mr. SHOENING. That is right. The quantity is a criterion, but it is the quality of the gluten that governs the bread-making qualities of the flour. I can wash out more gluten out of a low-grade flour than I can wash out of my best flour, but the gluten is not near so good; when it comes to fermentation and raising qualities there is a difference in the quality of gluten. And an expert will bear me out on that. I am no chemist; I can not go into any arguments with these learned men here. I am only speaking from the standpoint of a practical miller that makes flour.
Mr. GREEN. I was trying to find out whether the quality of the flour depended upon the amount of gluten.
Mr. SHOENING. Not entirely so, sir. Of course, if there is no gluten at all, poor gluten is better than no gluten, but the quality of the bread does not depend entirely upon the quantity of gluten. In other words, a flour that would show under a chemical analysis in a laboratory a content of, say, 11 per cent gluten, and another soft winter-wheat flour or another flour contains 8 per cent gluten, it is not an absolute fact that the flour containing 11 per cent gluten will make a better loaf of bread than the flour containing 8 per cent.
Mr. GREEN. That is what I was trying to get at.
Mr. SHOENING. I know them as facts, not theories, laboratory statements.
If you will permit me, I am no debater; I have no notes; and I would like to make my statement. I think we are here, as I understand it, to show our reasons why we are opposing the repeal of this present flour law. I have no notes; I did not know that I would be called upon to speak, but I will do the best I can. I am not a miaster of language, but I know how to make flour, and I want to state to you on what grounds I base my opposition to the repeal of this bill. I am opposed to the passage of this bill, the so-called Rainey bill. Now, Mr. Chairman, you will understand that I do not mean anything personal when I refer to the Rainey bill, because I have not got the number of it; I simply mean I am in opposition to the passage of the bill that bears your name, and, of course, I do not mean anything or to say anything against you, Mr. Chairman, in talking against the bill. Mr. MOORE. But this is only one of a hundred Rainey bills.
Mr. SHOENING. I base my opposition to the repeal of the present law and the enactment of the so-called Rainey bill on two premises
that I consider self-evident truth. If I am wrong, then all my argilment is wrong; I will admit that.
The first of these premises is, if you add an inferior article to a superior article you are adulterating-and I use the word deliberately—you are adulterating the superior article. If that is a selfevident truth, if we accept that, then this law ought not to be repealed. If it is not a self-evident truth, then my argument falls.
The second premise that I base my opposition to the passage of this Rainey bill on is that it enables the adulterator and when I say adulterator I do not mean to call him a thief or a rascal, but he is adulterating the pure article-it enables him to use the name of flour, and they want to have it named flour; they want to repeal everything of the old law excepting that term “mixed flour," which crept into the original bill by an error, by ignorance, you might say. The bill was drawn without consulting practical millers.
There is but one product in the whole world that should be known as mixed flour, and that is the product which results if you blend two different types of flour. A baker takes two or three kinds of flour, different types, perhaps gets a carload of southern Illinois soft-wheat flour and a carload of Tennessee soft, and probably a carload from Kansas, and blends them together to get a better product. That is a mixed flour.
Mr. MOORE. You mean mix grade 1 and grade 2 or grade 1 with some other grade of flour?
Mr. SHOENING. Yes; blended; he blends one type of flour with another, and that is a mixed flour.
Mr. MOORE. One type of flour with another?
Mr. SHOENING. Yes; of course. There is often a difference in the different types of wheat. It makes different flour. Now, there is a motive for every action. These people who are advocating the passage of this Rainey bill have a motive in doing it. I am not coming up here, staying here all this week, since Sunday afternoon, for simply the fun of it or for any philanthropic purposes, no; I came here because my self-interests compel me to come here. And so I suppose the promoters of this bill have come here for the same reason, for selfish reasons. That is common sense. There are the starch-manufacturing people; they do not come up here for the benefit of the poor consumer or for the benefit of the poor corn farmer; they want to accomplish something else; perhaps they have a laudable purpose in being here—every man has a right to kind of analyze, putting himself in the position of the other fellowand reasoning out, why in the world should they be so anxious to have this law that has proven satisfactory to every interest, as long as it has been on the statute books, why should they want it repealed! And then, why should they want to repeal all but that one feature that they can make use of? It is very clear to my mind why they are advocating it, although, of course, this is only my personal opinion. I am just stating why I am against it. I am against it, in the first place, because it is an adulteration, and this present law stopped that adulteration. So I am against the repeal of the law.
The law stopped one of the worst eras of corruption and deception and demoralization in the flour trade that has ever existed. I am afraid if you will repeal this present law and enact into a law the Rainey bill in its place, without putting further restrictions