Mr. FORDNEY. May I, Mr. Chairman, interrupt the gentleman? We have been here all week, and if this is going to continue, I do not know when we will get through.

Mr. DIXON. The witness is not to be blamed for this. Mr. Longworth asked him the question.

Mr. LONGWORTH. I want to be put straight on this matter. I am trying to get clear in my mind whether this applies to interstate

commerce.

Mr. FORDNEY. I did not understand that. Go ahead.

Mr. LANNEN. There the act provides that articles of food containing certain narcotics shall be labeled to show the percentage of those drugs in the food, but that is the only provision in there that requires percentages to be stated, and that applies only to the quantity of a narcotic drug in a food. Now, third:

If in package form, the quantity of the contents be not plainly and conspicuously marked on the outside of the package in terms of weight, measure, or numerical count: Provided, however, That reasonable variations shall be permitted, and tolerances, and also exemptions as to small packages shall be established by rules and regulations made in accordance with the provisions of section three of this act.

Then, fourth:

If the package containing it or its label shall bear any statement, design, or device regarding the ingredients or the substances contained therein, which statement, design or device shall be false or misleading in any particular.

You will notice that there is not a word in there, except as applied to narcotic drugs, which requires the percentage to be stated on mixed foods. It does also require the percentage of alcohol in drugs to be stated, but not so far as food is concerned.

Mr. LONGWORTH. Then why do you limit this provision as to the statement of percentages to articles designed for export?

Mr. LANNEN. We do not. Right there in 3 (a) we add this proviso on there.

Mr. LONGWORTH. That is new law, is it?

Mr. LANNEN. Amending that law.
Mr. LONGWORTH. That is new law?

Mr. LANNEN. That is new law.

Mr. LONGWORTH. Precisely. Then why do you limit it to that part of mixed flour that is to be exported, as you do in section 2 of this bill?

Mr. LANNEN. Let me finish this. We put in the new proviso to require percentages of mixed flour, and say it shall in all respects comply with subdivision 3 (a).

Mr. LONGWORTH. Don't get away from what I am trying to get you to tell me. I want you to state right there and explain to me why in section 2 of your bill you limit the operation of your new law, to wit, 3 (a) of section 8, to that part of your mixed flour which is to be used for export. You do that in specific language, and I want to know why. I ask you now to read lines 10 to 18 of your bill.

Mr. LANNEN. Mr. Congressman, I have already said that the first part of section 2 subjects mixed flour to all the definitions of misbranding and adulteration contained in the law, just on a par with other foods. Now then, if we went on and did not amend this law, then mixed flour might be shipped to Europe under any label that the foreign purchaser might demand.

Mr. HELVERING. Do I understand that your term "mixed flour" here, the new definition of mixed flour, only applies to export?

Mr. LANNEN. No, sir. It applies to interstate commerce as well as to export.

Mr. LONGWORTH. Yes; so far as your definition is concerned, but not the question of the branding of it. You specifically provide that the branding of it shall apply only to that part which goes into export.

Mr. LANNEN. Mr. Congressman, the first proviso in section 2 provides this:

Provided, That no article shall be deemed misbranded or adulterated within the provisions of this act when intended for export to any foreign country and prepared or packed according to the specifications or directions of the foreign purchaser when no substance is used in the preparation or packing thereof in conflict with the laws of the foreign country to which said article is intended to be shipped, * *.

*

Now, we just simply go on and say, provided when mixed flour is shipped it shall be labeled so and so, thereby exempting mixed flour from that special privilege of being labeled according to the specifications of the foreign purchaser. In other words, we say, "Yes; all other articles here of food can be shipped to a foreign purchaser under the label demanded by the foreign purchaser, provided that mixed flour shall not be shipped unless it is labeled to show the percentage of each ingredient."

Mr. LONGWORTH. Is there any law to-day which would require mixed flour to be labeled so as to show the percentage of its ingredients?

Mr. LANNEN. No, sir.

Mr. LONGWORTH. You have made a new law in this bill?

Mr. LANNEN. We are amending the food law to require it.

Mr. LONGWORTH. Then why are you limiting that only to mixed flour for export?

Mr. LANNEN. I am not. I can not agree with you on that at all. Just follow me while I read through that law:

Provided further, That the words "mixed flour" shall be taken and construed to mean a food product resulting from the grinding or mixing together of wheat or wheat flour with any other grain or with the product of any grain, whether the same contains a leavening agent or not; and when the same is intended for export or is shipped or delivered for shipment to a foreign country, the same shall in all respects comply with subdivision third (a) of section eight of this act in the case of food.

Mr. LONGWORTH. Precisely. Now, you have limited your subdivision 3 (a), which is your new law, to that flour intended for export, in specific words.

Mr. LANNEN. Not at all. We are dealing there with a provision that applies specifically to export, and is confined to export products, in that part of the law.

Mr. ĤILL. Is it not all in the application of the word "same"? If the word "same" was changed to the words "mixed flour" in both cases, it would include that which was intended for export as well as it would that shipped in interstate commerce. Is not the application of the word "same," the meaning of it being carried forward in the previous part of the section? I agree with you on the proposition, but at the same time I can see where the difference might

arise. Let me substitute the words "mixed flour" for the word same," and see if you do not get the entire idea.

66

Mr. LONGWORTH. I do not see how that cures it at all. You will limit it at any rate to that intended for export-the operation of the new law.

Mr. LANNEN. You see this deals with export. You start out with the word "provided," then you go on to exclude export products, deal specially with export products, then you go on and say, "provided further" in dealing with the export product, mixed flour shall be labeled according to the provision of section 3 (a).

Mr. LONGWORTH. Which is new law?

Mr. LANNEN. Which is new law.

Mr. LONGWORTH. And applies only to exports.

Mr. LANNEN. No; section 3 (a) applies to interstate shipments. Mr. LONGWORTH. It does not, according to the particular wording of your act.

Mr. HILL. It seems to me that if you changed the word "same" to the words "mixed flour" it would be clear. Let me read it. Put a period after the word "not," in line 14, instead of a semicolon; strike out" and," and start a new sentence, and what have you done? You have provided, in the first place, for mixed flour in interstate commerce, have you not, down to the word "not."

Mr. LANNEN. Yes, sir.

Mr. HILL (reading):

When mixed flour is intended for export or is shipped or delivered for shipment to a foreign country, mixed flour shall in all respects comply with subdivision third (a).

Mr. LONGWORTH. Which is new law.

Mr. LANNEN. Yes, sir.

Mr. LONGWORTH. Then, that part which comes between line 10 and your new period

Mr. HILL. Take it under the next section.

Mr. DIXON. What do you think of these attorneys filing briefs in this case and let this matter be submitted to the committee on briefs? Mr. LONGWORTH. All right.

Mr. LANNEN. Your point would be taken care of, as I understand it, if you simply said "if the same is intended for interstate commerce that the same shall be labeled showing the percentage of ingredients." Mr. LONGWORTH. My point is that there is no law, or you have said that there is no law except this new proposed law, to wit, section 3 a, which provides for the naming of percentages.

Mr. LANNEN. There is no law now.

Mr. LONGWORTH. There is no law now.

Mr. LANNEN. But there will be when this law is passed.

Mr. LONGWORTH. Yes; and you have limited the operation of that law only to mixed flour designed for export.

Mr. LANNEN. Well, I can not agree with you on that construction of the law, Congressman, but I am willing to have it amended in any way that would cover that point, because that is the object we are aiming at.

Mr. HILL. Do you concede that the repeal of the present law putting a tax on the mixed flour, transferring it by this bill into the interstate-commerce act, would leave it entirely free for people to mix flour within the limits of the State?

Mr. LANNEN. Without marking what it was?

Mr. HILL. Yes; the pure-food act instead of the interstate-commerce act, repealing the provisions of the law which now place it under this tax?

Mr. LANNEN. We would not concede that at all.

Mr. HILL. You do not concede that?

Mr. LANNEN. No; I do not concede that.

Mr. HILL. Why don't you?

Mr. LANNEN. Because there are State food laws that will take care of that.

Mr. HILL. You concede it takes it out of governmental control and puts it under State control?

Mr. LANNEN. So far as intrastate business is concerned, certainly. Mr. HELVERING. You do not contend that this definition of mixed flour would put it under the existing State laws?

Mr. LANNEN. Why, no. Under the existing State laws mixed flour would have to be labeled in any way that the State law required.

Mr. HELVERING. The result would be that every State law would have to be amended so as to meet this definition of mixed flour, would it not?

Mr. LANNEN. No. The State laws would require it to be labeled in the manner in which the food law requires those things to be labeled now. For instance, in the State of Nebraska, and this gentleman is from Nebraska who talked here a moment ago the State of Nebraska has a food law which requires the exact percentages of all ingredients in mixtures to be stated on the label. I helped to try that case out there in the Supreme Court of Nebraska, the case of the State of Nebraska v. Paxton & Gallagher, and in that case the Supreme Court of Nebraska held that the exact percentage of all ingredients must be stated on all mixtures of foods. It is the same way in some other States, and in some other States they have not this same requirement. Each State would have the right to prescribe its own rules. Take Nebraska, for instance. It is not right to enforce any labeling on them. Dr. Wiley, who was here yesterday, tried to force a flour ruling on them. His department ruled against the shipment of bleached flour in interstate commerce and tried to bar it entirely. Nebraska, in self-defense, had to pass a law legalizing mixed flour. Suppose Indiana or Illinois does not like our definition of mixed flour; they may like some other definition. Illinois is a great corn State, you remember. Illinois may not like this definition of mixed flour. In fact, I have heard some people interested in this subject say that they object to the discrimination of requiring percentages to be stated on mixed flour, that it was not fair to corn. You may not force that on Illinois. It is not right that you should. Mr. LIND. May I ask a question at that point?

Mr. LANNEN. Yes.

Mr. LIND. Just one question. Then why don't you leave the pure food act as it is intact-then you don't have to state percentages? If you repeal the revenue act, why do you disturb our pure-food act and make a class by itself?

Mr. LANNEN. Just to save ourselves from your attack, Gov. Lind. If we did that you would come along here and say, "Why, you can ship that stuff to Europe without stating percentages on your label; all you have got to do is to get a purchaser in Europe to say, ‘label

this as pure wheat flour,' and we would be shipping it there as pure wheat flour," and we are forced, in self defense, to amend the purefood law so as to meet that objection.

Mr. FORDNEY. If we are going to get through with this hearing we have got to limit this kind of argument.

Mr. LONGWORTH. I do not know what you mean by that. This was all precipitated by a question that I asked Mr. Lannen. It is not a question of whether it is proper to mix flour or not, but it is a question of whether this bill applies only to export flour.

Mr. FORDNEY. I am not objecting to your questions and the answers to them. I want you to get it if it will help you, but the gentlemen have gone now beyond the realm of anything contained in your questions at all.

Mr. LANNEN. Maybe the chairman can answer you, Congressman; he drew the bill and is interested in that point.

Mr. LONGWORTH. I would be glad to talk to the chairman on that point.

Mr. RAINEY. What was that?

Mr. LONGWORTH. I was not satisfied whether this bill, as it is drawn, would not apply only to flour which was used for export? Mr. RAINEY. My object in drawing it was to make it apply to both.

Mr. LONGWORTH. Yes; but I am not yet satisfied that it does. Mr. RAINEY. If it does not I would be glad to change it so as to make it apply, because that is the object I had in view.

Mr. LANNEN. I would like to say this in that regard, too. Mr. Chairman, and to our friend, Gov. Lind, over here, and the wheat millers, that so far as we are concerned we would be perfectly willing to have this bill reported out of this committee as a separate bill and leave the food law alone, reported out as a separate bill dealing with mixed flour alone. That was my original idea on the subject.

Mr. LIND. You mean just repeal the mixed-flour law?

Mr. LANNEN. Understand, I mean to report out a bill repealing the existing mixed-flour law and regulating the interstate shipment of mixed flour and export shipments of mixed flour and leave the pure-food law alone.

Mr. LIND. Substitute a new food law?

Mr. LANNEN. That was the argument made and that would be the position we would be in. They would say we had parallel legislation to the food law, and we would be just as deep in their criticism as we are now.

Mr. RAINEY. Representative Denison, of Illinois, has been waiting for some time, and he wants a little time.

We will hear you now, Mr. Denison.

STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD E. DENISON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS.

Mr. DENISON. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I will not take up but just two minutes. I do not want to be thought to be appearing here as a witness in any sense, because I have no technical knowledge about chemistry or dietetics or any of the technical questions in