We make a great deal of flour, and we export flour. We think our industry as a whole, perhaps, is quite as essential as the industry of making munitions or automobiles, although it is not so profitable. We are opposed to any change in the present law regulating the sale of flour. During the few years prior to 1898, when the sale of mixed flour was carried on rather extensively, we were forced practically to the verge of bankruptcy. Competition in our business is always very severe, and it was particularly difficult in those days to sell flour in competition with the millers who were mixing anywhere from 5 per cent up to 50 per cent of corn products. I suppose if the younger members of the family had had their way about it, we might have gone into the mixing business, because we knew positively that had we done so we would have made some money, and as it was we were losing; but my father would not do it, so we did not do it.

If permitted, Mr. Chairman, I would like to express at this time my appreciation of the remarks made by one of the witnesses this morning in reference to my father, which I cherish most highly.

There seems to be no question but what the law enacted in 1898 effectively stopped the adulteration or mixing of corn products with wheat flour. That law has controlled the matter since then, so that during these 18 years that have elapsed there has been very little of such products sold. My personal opinion on the subject is that the marking of a package containing mixed flour is very essential. Under the present law the packages are marked in an unmistakable manner. My opinion is that people do not and never did and never will buy a mixture of corn flour and wheat flour in any quantity if they know what they are buying. Prior to 1898, which is the only period when any considerable amount of such mixture was sold, people bought it because they did not know what they were getting. Maybe the men that bought from the miller knew what they were getting. Indeed I know of one instance where a flour mill run by friends of ours sold a mixture at that time containing 50 per cent. approximately, of corn products and of wheat products. He told me that the man that bought that from him, the jobber, remixed it and took a fifty-fifty split, too. The miller put in 50 per cent of corn product and the man that bought it put in that much more, so that ultimately the consumer, thinking he was buying wheat flour, actually was buying a mixture which contained 25 per cent of wheat flour.

There has been a great deal of talk here during the various days of this hearing-and I have been here at all of the sessions-about a loaf of bread, and about whether a loaf of bread is as nutritious if it is made partly of wheat flour and partly of corn flour. Gentlemen, the only loaves of bread that have ever been made out of such a mixture have been those that have been made in kitchens or in laboratories or in kitchens connected with the laboratories. There never has been any trade demand for that kind of bread. The mixed flour that was sold prior to 1898. at which time there was some volume of it sold, was practically all sold in the South. Now, gentlemen, they do not bake bread down there as you talk about bread. The 5-cent loaf has no connection with this subject whatever. There never has been any 5-cent loaf or 4-cent loaf or any other loaf made with this corn-flour mixture or starch mixture. No baker ever put any

such product on the market when he could get it. I mean prior to 1898. He never has put it on the market since then, yet he can buy any of those ingredients. He can buy corn flour or cornstarch. There is no tax on it. He can buy wheat flour, as he does. He can mix those two. Every baker has these mixing appliances, yet he does not do it. There is nothing to hinder him. He can do it. He can buy it a dollar or two dollars or three dollars a barrel cheaper than he can buy wheat flour. He does not make mixtures to-day because he considers it does not pay to do so. If he could make any money selling loaves of bread made out of that mixture, he would do it, but he doesn't because he thinks he can not make any money. He may have some philanthropic ideas besides, but the reason he doesn't is because he doesn't make any money. There is no tax on his doing that.

What I am trying to show is that when this mixed product was sold in 1898 and before then none of it went into light bread.

All of it went into the South, where they take mixed flour and make biscuits out of it, and nine-tenths of that flour was bought by people who did not know what they were buying. They thought they were buying flour, but they didn't know how much mixture of something else was in it.

The territory, as I have just said, of these mixtures was very definite. I can state to you all the mills there are practically in the North and in the West. None of those mills ever mixed any flour. The only mills that ever mixed any flour were those that sold in the South, mills in Indiana and Ohio, in the southern portions of those States, along the Ohio River, and mills in Tennessee. Those are the ones that mixed. These gentlemen that testified during the first few days of this hearing did not seem to know just about this mixing. They never had mixed any flour when it was sold. The corn-products people, the American Hominy Co., never mixed any flour. What they are trying to do is to work things around so that the millers will be buyers only of their products. They want the millers to do the mixing, of course. They do not want to mix; they never did mix. and if you knew their minds you would know that they never intend to mix, no matter what legislation you pass. They want the millers to do it.

As to the point of State legislation, I believe we all know that State laws are not carried out, at least with the same energy that a Federal law is. In our own particular case a very large part of our trade in the soft winter-wheat flour is in the State of Georgia. One of our chief competitors in that market is a mill in Atlanta, Ga. I was quite certain, as the restriction was not very definite, that the mill in Atlanta, Ga.. would just flood the whole south of Georgia with mixed flour. And you were submitted here a label providing for 80 per cent wheat flour and 20 per cent of the other. When this mixing started they put in 5 per cent corn flour, and before they got through—well, they testified here up as high as 65 per cent. There is no restriction. They may put in any per cent they want. They merely say what they put in, and there is nothing in the world to prevent them from saying that they are putting in 20 per cent of corn product and put in actually 25. That would be done absolutely, without question. People are not all honest, and millers are not all honest, and in the trade competition is fierce. We do not make very much money in this

business, and you give the millers an opportunity to practice a little deception, and they are, a lot of them, going to do it. They are sure to do it.

The south half of Georgia, when mixed flour was a mercantile commodity, in my opinion, used one-half of that which was mixed. Those poor people down there didn't know what they were getting, and they won't know again if you permit this, change this law, and open up the way for more mixing. If you do that, those people will not know what they get. They do not know anything about the Westfield School of proper purchasing of supplies for the kitchen. They go in and buy some flour, and their merchants will presume on their ignorance, and the millers will start to mixing it, and they won't live up to that label.

We are here on the defensive, the millers of this country; that is, we want the legislation left as it is. Some of us think that perhaps Congress ought not to be bothered about this matter at this time. The people who are proposing this bill have some reason for doing it. They are trying to open up a field for their products. They think if they can just change this law the millers will take a chance and start mixing and use their products and become nice customers of theirs. If each of these products-wheat flour and corn and its products are sold as they are now there is no tax on them. There is no tax on corn any more than there is on wheat. There is not anything about the price of a 5-cent loaf of bread. That won't be affected one way or the other. The bakers will not use corn products under this law." They didn't use any before this law was passed, and they won't use any after this law is changed, if it is changed.

One of the gentlemen this morning, I believe, asked some questions about self-rising flour. We make what is called the self-rising flour, and have for a number of years. So far as we know, the manufacture of it is quite in accordance with the laws of the States where we sell it, and the Federal law. It is made by mixing certain chemical ingredients in with flour so that the mixture, with the addition of water, becomes self-rising. That flour is never made into light bread, except there may be a few isolated cases. It goes to the South. The demand for it is all in the South. It is used for making, in the South, what they call hot biscuit. There does not seem to be anything wrong about self-rising flour, or apparently any way in which it comes into this subject at all. To my knowledge, there is no corn flour mixed with any other flour to-day into a self-rising mixture, unless it be some pancake preparation.

Mr. SLOAN. Are these chemicals you speak of mineral chemicals or vegetable?

Mr. SPARKS. I could not say as to that, sir; but I can tell you what they are. They are phosphates-sodium phosphate, I believe. I do not know what that is, except that I know it is used in making baking powder-phosphate and soda; bicarbonate of soda-and then we put in a little salt.

Mr. LONGWORTH. In the event that this bill should pass, how much, do you suppose, of the flour mixed in the hands of the miller would go into interstate traffic?

Mr. SPARKS. There would be quite a good bit.

Mr. LONGWORTH. Your product goes now in what States?
Mr. SPARKS. We sell everywhere.

Mr. LONGWORTH. Could you form a general idea of how much would go into interstate commerce and how much would be sold within the State?

Mr. SPARKS. I think more than half would be interstate.

Mr. LONGWORTH. Then more than half would be affected by this law?

Mr. SPARKS. I think so.

Mr. DIXON. What is the extent of your foreign trade?

Mr. SPARKS. We do a large foreign business, relatively. Our production in our own company last year was six hundred and some-odd thousand barrels for the year, and, as near as I can say, perhaps one-third of that was exported. I remember we had one order for a little over 100,000 barrels and another order for over 50,000 barrels. Mr. DIXON. What is your judgment as to the effect on your foreign trade if this law was ever changed?

Mr. SPARKS. I do not think it would make any difference. They would not buy mixed flour if they could get it. They could get it now if they wanted it. They don't want it.

Mr. SLOAN. Do you grind the corn?

Mr. SPARKS. No, sir. We have ground wheat for 60 years, and to my knowledge never have ground a bushel of corn in that length of time. And we do not mix corn flour or any other such similar matter with wheat flour at any time.

Mr. SLOAN. The milling companies which you represent, do any of them also grind corn?

Mr. SPARKS. Yes, sir; some of them do.

Mr. SLOAN. What is the relative grinding both of corn and wheat? Mr. SPARKS. Their corn business is their small part-very small. Mr. SLOAN. Do they grind corn into meal, or do they grind it into what might be called flour?

Mr. SPARKS. Mostly into meal.

Mr. SLOAN. You have not any objection to a law that would be framed permitting the commingling of wheat flour and corn flour under the popular definition that flour is the finely ground meal of a grain?

Mr. SPARKS. Without reference to how it is marked?

Mr. SLOAN. Yes; suppose it would be sold as mixed flour, and it would be a mixture of wheat flour with corn flour, under the definition which I have mentioned.

Mr. SPARKS. Yes, sir; we would object. We would not want you to do anything that would be detrimental

Mr. SLOAN (interposing). Why would you object?

Mr. SPARKS. Because we do not believe that any of the markings proposed by this bill or any markings now required by any State law or by the national pure food and drugs act would be enough to prevent deception. We think the only thing that prevents deception at the present time is the unmistakable evidence of identity put on every package by the Treasury Department. That is unmistakable, and when people know that that is mixed flour they don't care much whether it is mixed with barytes or corn flour, or what not; they just don't want it. That is our experience in the business. They don't want it if it is marked so they know it is mixed flour.

Mr. SLOAN. It would not be much of a competitor in your business if the people would not want to buy it?

Mr. SPARKS. You remove this Federal restriction, the mark of identity put on it by the Treasury Department, and there is a class of people who won't know just what they are getting, and the people who put up mixtures will impose upon them. That is what we are afraid of.

. Mr. SLOAN. Do they now know definitely, or anything like definitely, what they are getting, whether they are getting 99 per cent wheat flour and 1 per cent corn flour or cornstarch, as the case may be, or whether 51 per cent and 49 per cent of the respective substances under the law as it now stands?

Mr. SPARKS. Under the law as it now stands with this present marking they know that it is mixed.

Mr. SLOAN. They know it is mixed, but do they know the extent to which it is mixed?

Mr. SPARKS. They do not.

Mr. SLOAN. It might be 991 per cent wheat flour and one-half per cent cornstarch or corn flour, and that would come under the designation that I have mentioned?

Mr. SPARKS. In the last few months almost, at least within the last year, there has been a very slight revival of the trade in that territory for a mixed product, because certain conditions have put the price of wheat higher than it perhaps ought to be, but those same conditions have not affected the price of corn so materially.

Mr. SLOAN. Speaking in a percentage way, corn now is nearer the price of wheat than ordinarily, is it not?

Mr. SPARKS. I believe during a series of years it is, that the average increase or the average higher price for corn is a little more decided than is the average price of wheat. I think corn is a little on the up grade.

Mr. SLOAN. That is, the arithmetical difference between wheat and corn still exists, but in a percentage way corn is better?

Mr. SPARKS. I think it is. I would not certify to that. That is my impression, that corn is not only holding its own, but it has somewhat gradually increased.

There was some evidence given here that just occurred to me. It was assumed that 100,000,000 bushels, or thereabouts, of corn is used for human consumption. My own opinion is that that is too high, but my opinion might be wrong.

Mr. SLOAN. That is, nearly one-fourth of all the corn that is moved out of the vicinity in which it is grown to be consumed elsewhere?

Mr. SPARKS. I should say hardly a fourth; a fifth or sixth, perhaps.

Mr. SLOAN. I think the Department of Agriculture fixed the amount for one year at 440,000,000 bushels.

Mr. SPARKS. That is, no doubt, quite correct. I have always figured it at about six or seven hundred million, but that may be too high. I do not believe there is 100,000,000 bushels of corn used for human consumption, but there may be. That is but a very small proportion of the total crop. If you permit 50.000,000 bushels, by any connivance, to displace 50,000,000 bushels of wheat flour, the percentage is lower the other way. That is, 50,000,000 bushels of corn is a very much less percentage of the crop than would be 50,000,000 bushels of wheat by about three to one.