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 Í 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, Marion, Ill. 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. Last year where wheat was so high some mills tried to use corn adulterants, but it would not go, even at the reduced price. I do not know of a mill that is in favor of the repeal of the present law, but on the contrary all are much opposed to it. I trust you will see your way clear to do all you can to defeat any such vicious efforts to repeal a good law. Yours, very truly, C. B. COLE. H. C. COLE MILLING CO., Chester, Ill., December 7, 1915. Hon. E. E. DENISON, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: Herewith find list of mills as requested furnished by Mr. J. L. Griggs, secretary Southern Illinois Millers' Association. I have made some corrections. This association has passed a resolution protesting against the repeal of the law, as is shown by inclosed copy of proceedings. The association will meet in Chester next week and I will bring the subject up and warn them of the necessity of prompt action. No honest miller can compete with the adulterated flour, hence its a handicap to them and a swindle on the consumer. We are not in Germany and compelled to eat fake bread. Yours, respectfully, C. B. COLE. Mr. E. E. DENISON, RED BUD, ILL., December 29, 1915. House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: We understand that there is a movement afoot to try to have the law known as the mixed-flour law repealed, and we take this means of respectfully requesting you to lend all the assistance in your power to defeat this measure when brought before your honorable body. We feel that the people are entitled to what they pay for, and by mixing other flours with wheat flour and selling it as wheat flour is not only a deceit to the consumer, but works a hardship upon the miller who is trying to meet such sort of competition with a square deal for the consumer, and in our way of thinking should be punishable by heavy fine and confiscation, on account of misrepresentation of facts, as statistics will prove that pure wheat flour has a greater percentage of nutrition than the adulterated product. Thanking you in advance for your assistance in defeating the movement to repeal the law, we beg to remain, Yours, very truly, Hon. E. E. DENISON, Washington, D. C. C. BECKER MILLING CO., Secretary and Treasurer. CARBONDALE MILL & ELEVATOR CO., Carbondale, Ill., February 2, 1916. MY DEAR SIR AND FRIEND: The people in southern Illinois interested in milling seem to feel that the bill introduced by Hon. Henry T. Rainey repealing the mixed-flour law will work a hardship in this business, as well as on the farmer who raises the wheat. I personally am not familiar enough with the bill to know its details, but am writing you, as it affects us here and those mills in this section. I am sure, however, you will go into the matter from every angle before making your decision. Yours, very truly, FRANK CLEMENTS. Hon. E. E. DENISON, M. C., Washington, D. C.: AVA, ILL., January 29, 1916. Prior to 1898 we did a great deal of mixing of corn and wheat flour, at which time the mixed-flour law went into effect. Our experience was that it was a detriment to the public and caused a great deal of unfair competition. We most strongly urge you to oppose the passage of the Rainey bill, H. R. 9409, repealing the mixed-flour law of 1898. Hon. E. E. DENISON, DEAN MILL Co. MURPHYSBORO, ILL., January 29, 1916. House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.: We most strongly urge you to oppose the passage of the Rainey bill, H. R. 9409, repealing the mixed-flour law of 1898. Our experience in the past proves to us that mixed flour is an imposition on the public. RELIANCE MILLING CO. Hon. E. E. DENISON,. Washington, D. C. CHESTER, ILL., January 31, 1916. Accept our thanks for your telegram. A large number of individual millers and representatives of associations of millers throughout the country are in Washington now. Mr. E. F. Schoening, of Columbia, is also there or will be to represent the Southern Illinois Millers. Please see him. He will doubtless see you. This movement is fathered by a small number of corn-products manufacturers against thousands of millers who are unanimously opposed to the repeal or modification of the present law. H. C. COLE MILLING CO. Mr. LIND. I would like to call Prof. Snyder. Mr. RAINEY. I want to ask Gov. Lind and Mr. Lannen if we can not, in some way, limit this so as to get through to-night if we have a night session? Mr. LIND. I think we can, if that is the desire of the committee. I will only call one other witness. Mr. RAINEY. How long will it take you, Mr. Snyder? Mr. SNYDER. I think I can get through within 30 or 40 minutes. I do not want to make it too short, but I will make it just as short as I can. Mr. RAINEY. Have you something that you can print in the record without reading it? Mr. SNYDER. I have a great deal that I will put right into the record, if it is agreeable, and thereby save a great deal of time. Mr. RAINEY. The committee would much prefer that you did that. Mr. SNYDER. I realize that the committee is tired, and they have certainly had a hard week's work. Mr. RAINEY. Well, all right, Mr. Snyder; just put that in the record. Mr. SNYDER. I thank you for that suggestion. Mr. FORDNEY. You say you have one other man who wishes to make a statement? Mr. LIND. Yes, sir. Mr. FORDNEY. Have you anybody that you want to present to make any further statement, Mr. Lannen? Mr. LANNEN. We have nobody else. I have not finished my remarks. There are one or two points that I want to make. I have cleared up nearly everything I had to say. Mr. RAINEY. The understanding is that you and Gov. Lind, after the testimony is all in, will want to sum up before the committee? Mr. LIND. I do not want to occupy this committee's time to rehash the facts. That would simply be a waste of the committee's time and of our time. Mr. LANNEN. I do not want to waste the committee's time. Mr. RAINEY. The committee does not want anybody to do that, either. Mr. LIND. Why can we not file briefs digesting the evidence briefly and bringing out the salient points, and let them file a reply brief? Mr. FORDNEY. I was going to suggest that myself. Mr. ROGERS. I think that will save the committee a great deal of work. Mr. RAINEY. If that is satisfactory to you, Mr. Lind and Mr. Lannen, then you may file briefs. Mr. LIND. That would be satisfactory to me, Mr. Chairman. Mr. RAINEY. Will that be satisfactory to you, Mr. Lannen? Mr. LANNEN. Certainly. What time would those briefs be filed, Mr. Chairman? Mr. RAINEY. How much time would you want? Mr. LIND. Oh, 15 or 20 days. Mr. RAINEY. That is a good while. Mr. ROGERS. It would be helpful to the committee, it seems to me. We would have to have the transcript of testimony. Mr. LIND. Not only the transcript, but the printed record. We will not ask counsel on the other side to submit his brief to us, and to have cross briefs or reply briefs. As far as we are concerned we will submit a short brief setting out our points of view. Mr. RAINEY. It will be a long time before this record is printed. That would be too long to wait, I am afraid. Mr. LIND. We have a typewritten transcript, Mr. Chairman. Possibly by that time it will be considerably curtailed. We can work on that. Mr. RAINEY. The chairman thinks you ought to file briefs next week. Is that satisfactory to the committee? (There was no objection.) The CHAIRMAN. Then you will have all of next week to file briefs. STATEMENT OF MR. HARRY SNYDER, REPRESENTING THE MINNEAPOLIS MILLERS' CLUB, MINNEAPOLIS, MINN. Mr. SNYDER. My name is Harry Snyder, of Minneapolis, Minn. I represent the Minneapolis Millers' Club, composed of membership of the manufacturing millers of Minneapolis and the surrounding territory. I would also say that I am a chemist and for 18 years was professor of agricultural chemistry in the University of Minnesota, and for 10 years during that time was collaborator nutrition expert in the United States Department of Agriculture, conducting digestion experiments in connection with the digestibility of wheat and cereal products, rather as a collaborator. I have published a number of books, four of which are used in agricultural colleges to-day. |