Page images
PDF
EPUB

baker? Is the wheat miller asking for it? Most certainly not; and why not? Because he is producing the cheapest and best food for the price and at the smallest possible margin; because it is an industry that is highly competitive and absolutely free from agreements or combinations; because flour always has been considered the staff of life and as dependable as sterling silver. When the buyer asks for flour he wants flour, because he knows that it will give him better results than any mixture or compound. He wants the real thing. There is only one real thing in flour, and that is flour.

It seems to me that the ones most interested in this proposed repeal are those who think they would be benefited by its repeal, namely, the maker or seller of the adulterant. The repeal of the present law would bring about most pernicious results and open the way for the lowering of the standard of breadstuffs. This is no flight of the imagination, but an absolute condition confronting this great industry.

Who wants this repeal? If the corn people wish to increase the human consumption of corn products, let them inaugurate a campaign of education. They can not make people eat corn, because the people want flour; and by that I mean wheat flour. Corn, excepting in a small way, is not human food, but stock food or feed.

Now, when we come to cornstarch, we find a different condition. We have heard that seven refining companies grind upward of 56,000,000 bushels of corn annually. There is one milling company in Minneapolis which grinds annually upward of 56,000,000 bushels of wheat into the staff of life. The repeal of this bill would mean legalized adulteration or deception.

And I framed those words before I heard Dr. Wiley yesterday.

The people greatly interested are the refineries which wish to find a market for this by-product, cornstarch. All this talk about corn flour and corn meal is all poppy-cock; it all simmers down to cornstarch. This little booklet we have here refers very suavely to corn flour, but the whole meat in the nut is cornstarch.

The inclusion in flour of this product would reduce the quantity of wheat ground in the same amount. It strikes me that the advocates of corn and corn by-products want the millers of wheat flour "to pull their chestnuts out of the fire." Let me assure you, gentlemen, that were this fine corn meal and cornstarch or flourine, or whatever you may call this by-product, secured chemically in the manufacture of glucose, not white in color, this repeal would not be under consideration. Were this stuff pink or gray or blue or yellow, like cottonseed meal, we would not be here to-day. If this stuff is so good, why will the bakers not use it? If these people want to increase their business, why not put up cornstarch in 49-pound sacks or in 24-pound sacks and sell it to the grocers and start a campaign of education? The millers have had to educate the people up to the use of spring wheat against winter wheat. If the public wants cheaper food, why don't they do that? I will tell you why; they won't use it, because they know, and know absolutely, that it will not produce satisfactory results. If the people want cheaper flour, they can get it in the low grades, which are perfectly nutritious but of inferior or darker color.

The man who attempts the exportation of this proposed flour mixed with cornstarch would be a very sorry exporter, because the

foreign markets will take nothing but pure flour. Do we want to kill our export flour business of from 15,000,000 to 20,000,000 barrels annually, which means labor for those employed? Do we want to take a step backward? Do we want to make deception easy, for that is what it means? Do we want to lower our standards? I do not believe that we do. I do not believe that the people want it. The bakers oppose this repeal and the millers oppose this repeal, because it is vicious and wrong, and the family consumer doesn't know that his daily bread is in jeopardy.

That is all I have to say, and that is the whole meat in the nutshell.

Mr. RAINEY. I thank you very much. That is one of the best statements that has been made, both on account of its intrinsic merit and its brevity.

Mr. ROGERS. Dr. Fowler has made no statement, and if it is agreeable to the committee, to save time, I would like permission to file a statement by him. It will be very short.

Mr. RAINEY. How many pages?

Mr. ROGERS. Not to exceed three.

Mr. RAINEY. That will be all right. The committee will permit you to file that.

Mr. LANNEN. I have some matters I would like to put in the record before the hearing closes, if I may. I would like to file and have printed in the record, which I will not stop to read, first, a letter from Mr. R. K. Bliss, director of the Iowa State College of Agriculture and Mechanic Arts, favoring the repeal of the tax.

(The letter referred to is as follows:)

Mr. R. G. GOULD,

Secretary Mixed Flour Committee,

AMES, IOWA, January 28, 1916.

New Willard Hotel, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. GOULD: There certainly seems to be no reason why mixed corn and wheat flour should be taxed, especially since the pure-food law provides that the contents of the sack shall be printed upon the outside. I therefore trust that the repeal of this law, sponsored by Senator Cummins, will be favorably acted upon by Congress. I think you will find our people all O. K. from this State. Very truly, yours,

R. K. BLISS, Director.

Mr. LANNEN. A letter from Oliver Wilson, master of the National Grange, Patrons of Husbandry, Peoria, Ill., favoring the Rainey

bill.

(The letter referred to is as follows:)

Mr. R. G. GOULD,

NATIONAL GRANGE, PATRONS OF HUSBANDRY,

Peoria, Ill., January 27, 1916.

New Willard Hotel, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: I have your letter stating that the Rainey bill will be before the Ways and Means Committee on Monday next. I have notified Mr. McSparran, of Pennsylvania, and Black, of Maryland, members of our legislative committee, to be present to represent the National Grange. I gave them your address; told them to inquire for you on their arrival, at the New Willard Hotel. Mr. Freeman has been sick for several weeks, not even been able to attend to office work. So, of course, will not be present.

As you know, the National Grange went on record in favor of the repeal of the tax on mixed flour.

I am, very truly, yours,

OLIVER WILSON. Master of National Grange.

Mr. RAINEY. I understand you have several letters there from organizations and persons interested in the bill?

Mr. LANNEN. I just want to refer to them briefly. It will not take me but a minute to run right through them.

A letter from the Horton-Holden Hotel Co., a large consumer of flour, Waterloo, Iowa.

(The letter referred to is as follows:)

R. G. GOULD,

Mixed Flour Committee,

WATERLOO, IOWA, January 28, 1916.

New Willard Hotel, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SIR: We beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 24th inclosing me copy of the editorial from the Farmers' Review, of Chicago, and also sending the facts concerning mixed flour used by your people.

Representing our firm, who, as you know, are large users of flour in our different hotels, you can rest assured that we appreciate the work that your committee, as well as your firm, are doing for the public when they take a stand in favor of corn. We are very much in sympathy with the Rainey bill to remove the discrimination against corn. We shall be very glad to write our Congressman, or if we can help you in any other way, please advise.

Yours, truly,

HORTON-HOLDEN HOTEL CO., By O. G. HARDEN.

Mr. FORDNEY. Are you going to put in your statement and the letters, too? You objected a while ago, Mr. Chairman, to referring to matters twice.

Mr. LANNEN. I am just referring to them.

Mr. RAINEY. He is just identifying them.

Mr. LANNEN. Letter from John Dill Robertson.

I am going to part with them, Mr. Congressman, and I simply want to have a record of them.

(The letter referred to is as follows:)

CHICAGO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,

December 6, 1915.

AMERICAN MANUFACTURERS' ASSOCIATION OF PRODUCTS FROM CORN,

1236 First National Bank Building, Chicago.

DEAR SIR: In reply to your letter of December 1, inquiring whether a bread made from a mixture of wheat flour and cornstarch or corn flour in the proportion, approximately, of 80 parts of the former and 20 parts of the latter would have any injurious effect upon the health of the consumer, I beg to reply that in my opinion such a mixture is fully as digestible and nutritious as the elements entering therein when considered separately.

Mixtures of wheat and corn flour in the proper proportions can not be criticized on the grounds of wholesomeness. The objections to such mixtures are due to the possibility of fraud, resulting from misrepresentation, all of which can be obviated by requiring the same to be properly labeled.

Respectfully,

JOHN DILL ROBERTSON,
Commissioner of Health.

Mr. LANNEN. A letter from Charles Downing, secretary of the Indiana State Board of Agriculture, or, rather, a resolution by the Indiana State Board of Agriculture, favoring the repeal of the tax, and signed by Charles Downing, secretary.

(The resolution referred to is as follows:)

INDIANA STATE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE.

At a meeting of the Indiana State Board of Agriculture held on the 25th day of January, 1916. in the Statehouse in the city of Indianapolis, the following resolution was adopted:

Whereas the present Federal statute which requires that all flour which is a mixture of wheat products shall be controlled by the Internal Revenue Department and pay a special tax to the United States Government is an unfair discrimination against corn and the growers thereof and is not necessary to protect the consumer, as the present pure-food laws, both Federal and State, insure adequate protection by virtue of honest labeling; and as a flour composed of wheat products and corn products is a wholesome and nutritious food; and as the repeal of this Federal statute would have a tendency to reduce the cost of living by rendering attractive to millers the marketing, under proper control, of a mixed flour at a less price than that necessarily demanded for wheat flour: Therefore be it

Resolved, That it is the sense of this board that the Federal statute referred to should be repealed at the next session of Congress.

CHAS. DOWNING, Secretary. Mr. LANNEN. A letter from A. R. Corey, secretary of the Department of Agriculture of the State of Iowa. (The letter referred to is as follows:)

Mr. ROBT. GOULD,

IOWA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
Des Moines, January 26, 1916.

New Willard Hotel, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR SIR: I have your letter of January 22, and I wish to say that we are to have a meeting of our board on February 9 and 10, at which time I will present your letter, and I do not think there is any question but what our board will be only too glad to pass a resolution in accordance with your suggestion.

We will also be glad to take the matter up with Senator Cummins and Senator Kenyon, as I understand they are greatly interested in having this tax removed.

Yours, very truly,

A. R. COREY, Secretary.

Mr. FORDNEY. Are those letters addressed to you, Mr. Lannen? Mr. LANNEN. They are addressed to the association, or to Mr. Gould, or some of us here.

A letter from Jewell Mayes, secretary of the State Board of Agriculture of the State of Missouri.

(The letter referred to is as follows:)

Mr. ROBERT GOULD,

MISSOURI STATE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE,
Columbia, Mo., November 29, 1915.

American Manufacturers' Association of Products from Corn,

1236 First National Bank Building, Chicago, Ill. KIND FRIEND: In reply to your general communication of the 24th day of November, permit me to say that as I understand the proposed legislation as introduced by Senator Cummins and by Congressman Rainey, in the Sixty-third Congress, I am personally positive that some legislation should be passed to amend the mixed-flour law, for as it now stands upon the books it is unfair to the greatest American crop, the vegetable gold of the North American continent. Yours, truly,

JEWELL MAYES, Secretary.

Mr. LANNEN. A letter from Edward van Alstyne, director of farmers' institutes, Department of Agriculture, State of New York. (The letter referred to is as follows:)

Mr. ROBERT GOULD,

NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
Albany, December 18, 1915.

American Manufacturers' Association of Products from Corn,

1236 First National Bank Building, Chicago, Ill. MY DEAR SIR: I beg your pardon for failure to acknowledge your favor of November 24 with the inclosed speech of Mr. Rainey on "Corn in Commerce."

My time has been so thoroughly taken up until this week that I have not had the opportunity to give it the careful study that it demanded.

I certainly indorse what he has said. I am, as you surmise, interested in the speech and the bill. We shall be very glad to give you any cooperation in our power.

Very truly, yours,

EDWARD VAN ALSTYNE, Director of Farmers' Institutes.

Mr. LANNEN. A letter from Mr. Walter Smith, president of the Farmers' Educational and Cooperative Union of America, at Vincennes, Ind.

(The letter referred to is as follows:)

FARMERS' EDUCATIONAL AND COOPERATIVE UNION OF AMERICA,
Vincennes, Ind., January 29, 1916.

Mr. R. G. GOULD,

New Willard Hotel, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SIR: I certainly am in sympathy with the Rainey bill. Discrimination against corn should be removed.

I may see you at the New Willard the 7th or 8th.
Very truly, yours,

WALTER SMITH.

Mr. LANNEN. A letter from Mr. A. J. Meyer, in charge of agricultural extension, University of Missouri. (The letter referred to is as follows:)

AMERICAN MANUFACTURERS' ASSOCIATION,

New Willard Hotel, Washington, D. C. (Attention Mr. R. G. Gould.)

UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI,
Columbia, January 29, 1916.

DEAR SIR: I have not been able to analyze in detail House bill 9409. The purpose of the bill, however, is a good one, and it is hard for anyone to understand how a statute placing a special tax on mixed flour could have remained on the books as long as it has. . The pure-food laws furnish all the protection that is needed or desired. If people want to use wheat flour which has been mixed with corn flour, and use it knowingly, they should most certainly have the privilege of so doing without paying a special tax.

Very truly, yours,

A. J. MEYER,

In Charge of Agricultural Extension.

Mr. LANNEN. Telegram favoring the Rainey bill from Mr. E. D. Funk, president of the National Corn Association. (The telegram referred to is as follows:)

R. G. GOULD,

BLOOMINGTON, ILL., January 30, 1916.

New Willard Hotel, Washington, D. C.: In response to your letter of January 24, and your telegram, just received, you may say to the committee that the officers of the National Corn Association are in favor of the repeal of the Federal statutes on mixed corn flour, and are in favor of the bill introduced by Mr. Rainey.

E. D. FUNK,

President, National Corn Association.

Mr. LANNEN. A letter from Len Small, president of the Illinois State Agricultural Department and a resolution of the State Board of Agriculture of Illinois, favoring the repeal of the tax.

« PreviousContinue »