« PreviousContinue »
arise. Let me substitute the words "mixed flour" for the word same," and see if you do not get the entire idea.
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 Jaw 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
volved in this hearing. I simply want to make a statement before the committee in an endeavor to represent the people of my district, because they are interested in this bill.
I have received a number of letters and telegrams from my constituents. I represent the twenty-fifth district of Illinois, which is the extreme southern district and is in the wheat and the corn belt. I do not know that I could state which crop predominates in southern Illinois or that part of it which is in my district, but it is a great wheat-raising and corn-raising country.
There are in my district some 22 or 24 large mills, flour mills, milling companies. They manufacture both flour and meal, but I have not received from a single one of my constituents an appeal or request to favor this bill. On the contrary, every one of them that I have heard from has requested me to appear before the committee and oppose it.
They represent to me that it would be a step in the wrong direction, and that it would put us back into conditions that prevailed before the present law was enacted, and they say that that would be a bad thing for the country, and so, in obedience and in accordance with their request, I have felt that it was my duty, as their Representative, to appear here and enter a protest on behalf of the people of my district against the passage of this bill.
Now, I happen to be acquainted with most of these millers personally, and I know they are a high class of people and a representative class of millers of the country, and so I have a great deal of faith and confidence in their judgment about the matter, and am willing to appear before the committee on representations that they have made to me. They manufacture a great deal of flour, most of which is used in this country, but they export a considerable also. They have sent me a number of letters and telegrams, and if it is not objectionable to the committee I would like to have the privilege of filing a few of them that bear most directly on the question as a part of the record.
Mr. RAINEY. We will be very glad to have them. Just hand them to the stenographer.
Mr. DENISON. Of course I have culled out those that do not state tersely their reasons for their objections to the bill, and have only filed here a few of those letters and telegrams from the millers that I am personally acquainted with and in whose judgment I have a great deal of confidence, and will ask leave to file them as part of the documents for the consideration of the committee.
Without exception, these industries in my district protest against this bill and ask me to use what influence I have to oppose the passage of it, so I will file these.
(The letters and telegrams referred to by Mr. Denison are as follows:)
CAMPBELL HILL, ILL., February 1, 1916.
Washington, D. C.
Hon. E. E. DENISON, M. C.,
DEAR SIR: We are absolutely opposed to any change, modification, or repeal of the mixed-flour law as is now in force, and we hope you will do everything in your power to defeat the passage of the Rainey bill, H. R. 9409.
We would not like to go back to the conditions prior to 1898 then existing in the milling industry, when it was a notorious fact that mixing was going on from 5 to 75 per cent of some kind of corn mixture with flour.
What chance did a miller of pure wheat flour have against such odds? It is the glucose, starch, and corn-flour factories that want this law passed and not the soft-wheat flour miller or the wheat producer.
Yours, very respectfully,
MOHLENBROCK MILLING Co.,
Hon. E. E. DENISON,
STEELEVILLE, ILL., December 22, 1915.
DEAR SIR: We understand that there is now pending in Congress a bill for the repeal of what is known as the mixed-flour law. The bill is being fostered by Congressman Rainey, and is ostensibly for the benefit of the farmers in the Illinois corn belt.
Southern Illinois is essentially a wheat-growing section, and the bill is inimical to the interests of our part of the country. Further than that, we believe that the bill, at bottom, is only an effort to further the sale of corn flour on the reputation of our southern Illinois soft-wheat product.
There is no objection to the sale of corn flour as such, and, as we understand it, the present statutes do not forbid the sale of corn flour as corn flour in any way. It is only when it is used to adulterate a higher-priced product that the law imposes any restrictions.
The chief objections to the bill now pending is that it opens the way to the adulteration of flour. Corn flour itself is entirely healthful. The adulterant, however, is, we understand, a by-product, without any great food value-a starch-and was used freely as a filler by unscrupulous manufacturers before the present law, protecting both the honest manufacturer and the consumer, was passed.
Believing that the repeal of the mixed-flour law would be detrimental to the farming and milling interests of southern Illinois, we hope to find you opposing the Rainey bill.
Yours, very truly,
Hon. E. E. DENISON,
Washington, D. C.
STEELEVILLE MILLING CO., By P. F. WILSON.
STEELEVILLE, ILL., January 3, 1916.
DEAR SIR: We thank you for your letter of December 28, and feel confident that when you are advised as to the real meaning of the bill now pending for the repeal of the mixed-flour law that you will line up against the proposed bill, as it is aimed not only at the milling industry but at the wheat-raising districts. Yours, very truly,
Hon. E. E. DENISON,
Washington, D. C.
STEELEVILLE MILLING CO., Per P. F. WILSON.
H. C. COLE MILLING Co., Chester, Ill., November 29, 1915.
DEAR SIR: I am informed a bill will be introduced into Congress to repeal the law prohibiting the mixing of corn flour or cornstarch with wheat flour.
This would be directly opposed to the pure-food law and an undoubted swindle on the consumer.
I know of no demand for such a law except from the makers of cornstarch and corn flour, both products of the glucose factories, I believe.
Before the enactment of the present law it was done to a large extent, and a mill that did not do it was put out of business. The adulteration was hard, if not impossible, to detect, hence the consumer bought on price.
This put pure flour at so much higher price that their product was almost driven out of the market.
Adulteration under the present law is permitted by so branding the flour and paying a tax of 4 cents per barrel. The tax could be paid and a large profit made now, but the branding of it as mixed would stop its sale.