Page images
PDF
EPUB

Page.

Teller, George L., Chicago, m..

132–139

Wagner, T. B., New York City, representing the American Manufacturers' Associa-

tion of Products from Corn.

155-

186, 251, 252, 288, 293, 243-346, 383–385, 445, 446, 462, 463
Wearen, W. H., Stanford, Ky., secretary of the Central Kentucky Millers Asso-

ciation

196-205

Wesener, Dr. John A., Chicago, Il-

109-

132, 144-147, 177, 215, 289, 291, 292, 385–389, 395

Wickersham, C. W., New York, N. Y., representing Biscuit & Cracker Manu-
facturers' Association

464, 465
Wiley, Dr. Harvey W., Washington, D. C-

359-382
Young, Hon. George M., of North Dakota --

290-303

Letters, telegrams, petitions, etc., submitted by-

Mr. Kitchin.-

556, 557

Mr. Rainey

557–575

Mr. Hull

575, 576

Mr. Fordney

125

Mr. Moore

57, 119, 120, 318, 326, 355, 363, 370

Mr. Green

305, 306

Mr. Sloan-

461, 462

Mr. Denison.

423-426

Mr. Schall

257, 259

Mr. Lannen

454-160

Mr. Rogers.

390-392

Mr. Wagner-

550, 557

Statements, etc. :

Boswell, Miss Helen V., New York City, chairman political science committee,
representing the General Federation of Women's Clubs_-

72-77

Burns, Jay, Omaha, Nebr., president Jay Burns Baking Co--

392-414

Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft, New York City, attorneys for the Biscuit and

Cracker Manufacturers' Association -

464, 465

Cauble, Miss Laura, New York City, late special investigator of the bureau of

food supply, representing the New York Association for Improving the
Condition of tne Poor.

78-103
Crocker, William G., Minneapolis, Minn., representing the Minneapolis Miliers'
Club

193, 194, 452-454

Denison, Hon. Edward E., of Illinois.

422, 423

Faircloth, E. C., Nashville, Tenn., secretary-treasurer of the American Bread Co. 306–321

Fuller, 11. C., of the Institute of Industrial Research, Washington, D. C--

466-472

Genung, J. H., Indianapolis, Ind., representing the American Hominy Co-- 39-48, 61

Gross, Howard H., Chicago, Il., president of the Tariff Commission League 303-305

Hamilton, William V., Caledonia, N. Y., representing the New York State Millers'

Association.-

62-63

Haskell,

Harry L., Toledo, Ohio, representing the National Association of White

Corn Millers---

60, 61, 148–154, 175, 177, 178, 183

Howard, Burton J., United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, D. C- 285–288
Hunt, A. J., Arkansas City, Kans--

326-330
Husband, A. P., Chicago, I., secretary of the Millers' National Federa-
tion

192, 193, 260-284
Hutchinson, Hon. E. C., of New Jersey-

245-257
Keith, B, C., Chief of Miscellaneous Division, Internal-Revenue Bureau, Treasury
Department, Washington, D. (..

5-30
Kelly, E. M., Nashville, Tenn., president of the Liberty Mills.

60, 180-196, 205-219
Lannen, T. E., Chicago, III., counsel, representing the American Manufacturers'
Association of l'rouucts from Corn.

30, 31, 63-72, 109,
111-113, 129, 132, 136, 137, 139, 142, 143, 145, 147, 153, 159, 178, 184, 185,
204, 205, 216–219, 221, 233, 242-245, 250, 256, 259, 260, 264, 268, 269, 284,
288, 290-294, 304, 309, 330, 336, 346, 347, 359, 379-383, 390, 401, 402, 407.

412-422, 426-428, 432, 433, 440-442, 444, 445, 454-460, 462, 463, 472-503
Lind, Hon. John, Minneapolis, Minn., representing the Millers' National
Federation.- 37, 38, 49–63, 65, 70, 77, 96, 97, 115, 116, 130, 131, 143-147, 150,

155, 156, 159-161, 163, 190, 193, 195, 196, 205, 220-222, 227, 228, 235,
241-243, 245, 250-252, 259, 260, 266-269, 285, 288, 289, 292, 299, 300,
306, 307, 309, 311, 321, 323-326, 328-330, 336, 337, 344-347, 351, 358,
359, 379, 386–390, 401, 402, 404, 406, 411-413, 421, 422, 426–428, 432,
435, 436, 460-463, 503-556

TO REPEAL THE MIXED-FLOUR LAW.

. COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS,

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

Washington, D. C., January 31, 1916: Pursuant to notice, the Committee on Ways and Means met at 10 o'clock a. m., Hon. Claude Kitchin in the chair.

Present: The chairman and Messrs. Rainey, Dixon, Hull, Garner, Collier, Dickinson, Conry, Oldfield, McGillicuddy, Allen, Crisp, Casey, Helvering, Fordney, Moore, Green, Sloan, Hill, and Longworth.

STATEMENT OF MR. B. C. KEITH, CHIEF OF MISCELLANEOUS

DIVISION, INTERNAL-REVENUE BUREAU, TREASURY DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D. C.

The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen, we have met to have a hearing on H. R. 9409. Mr. Keith is the first witness. Mr. Keith, just give a statement of what position you hold and whom you represent.

Mr. KEITH. I am chief of the miscellaneous division, Internal-Revenue Bureau, Treasury Department.

The CHAIRMAN. All right, Mr. Keith; just make such statement as you care to make in connection with this bill.

Mr. Keith. Mr. Chairman, I would prefer to answer any questions the committee desires to ask me.

The CHAIRMAN. As this is Mr. Rainey's bill, I will ask him to question you.

Mr. Rainey. I wish you would give us the history of the mixedflour law, how long it has been in operation, and what it has accomplished during the period it has been in operation.

Mr. KEITH. The mixed-flour law was originally enacted as a Spanish War revenue bill on June 13, 1898. Mr. Rainey. What happened to the rest of the war revenue bill? Mr. KEITH. It has been repealed, I believe.

Mr. Rainey. This is the only part of the statute still remaining in force ?

Mr. KEITH. This is the only part, so far as I know, that is now on the statute books.

It was amended March 2, 1901, by slight modification of the definition of mixed flour as it was defined originally in section 35 of the Spanish War revenue act. That amendment apparently did not attain the object that was desired to clarify the definition, so it was again amended on April 12, 1902, and it has remained on the statuto books as amended by that last act, to date. As it stands now we

5

speak of it as the act of June 13, 1898, as amended by the acts of March 2, 1901, and April 12, 1902.

Mr. RainEY:-}. R. 9409—that is, the bill under considerationdefines mixed Azur as it has been defined by the statutes from 1898 down to the present?

Mr. KEITH: Yes, sir. That defines it as it has been defined heretofore.

Mr. RÃINEY. I wish you would state how far this mixed-flour bill has succeeded as a revenue-producing agent.

Mi: Keith. It has been in operation 18 years, and the total collec.tions for the 18 years amounted to only $59,798.71.

Mr. Rainey. An average of about how much per year?
Mr. Keith. An average of $3,322.18.

Mr. Rainey. How do the receipts under the law compare with the expenses of enforcing the law?

Mr. Keith. That would not pay the cost or the salary of one single revenue agent.

Mr. Rainey. Then, the only question about this law as a revenue measure is how much of a deficit it produces in the Treasury?

Mr. Keith. There is no way of estimating the actual cost; but, undoubtedly, taking the time of those officers who are required to see to its enforcement, I should say it does not bring in as much revenue as it costs to enforce it.

Mr. Rainey. Have you prepared there some statement of the revenues, Mr. Keith?

Mr. Keith. Yes, sir.

Mr. RAINEY. Just file that with the stenographer and have it inserted in the record.

Mr. KEITH. I will do so.

(The statement referred to is as follows:) Statement of mired flour produced and withdrawn, tax-paid, also tarcs colStatement of mixed flour produced and withdrawn, tax-paid, also taxes collected

lected under this law, by fiscal years, since the inception of the lau.

Production.

Year.

Barrels.

Half bar

rels.

Quarter
barre.s.

Fighth
barrels.

Total pounds.

1899 1900 1901 1902 1903. 1904. 1905. 1906. 1907. 1908. 1909. 1910. 1911. 1912 1913 1914. 1915.

36, 241 39,578 38, 801

597 403 357 362 328 261 199 195 437 410 54 38 115 3,607

157, 774 155, 928 151, 973 71, 178 56, 325 55,004 59, 326 55, 753 65, 483 81, 191 83, 281 112, 272 59,388 50,056 55, 754 56, 066 47, 172

27, 220
29, 670
31,014
15, 299
4,175
5. 299
6,221
9, 157
12, 750
22, 572
29, 338
37,387
134, 265
162.613
157, 778
155, 886
175,989

83, 550
106.302
88, 036
25, 328
18,674
21.526
24,371
22,568
28, 195
29, 869
34,193
10,005
3. 877
3, 839
4, 228

6,023
253, 456

22,031, 051 22, 916, 099 22, 422,475 7,024, 116 5,029, 999 5,098, 676 5, 475, 783 5, 224, 249 6,211,194 7,978, 755 8, 169, 610 8,933, 390 8,482, 971 9, 275, 539 8,427, 773 8,438, 206 15, 159, 292

1

Total..

121,989

1,373, 927

1,016, 633

761,340

176, 299, 478

under this law, by fiscal years, since the inception of the law-Continued.

[blocks in formation]

1899.

35, 720 155, 374 26, 697 1900.

81, 149 39,629 156, 281 2,852 106,384 1901. 33, 735 150,496 3), 934

87,785 1902.

1, 121
72,706

15, 468 25, 462 1.903.

403 56.588

4,202 1904.

18,701

357 55,077 5, 276 21, 248 1905.

352 59, 669 6, 265 24,707 1906.

338

55,768 9,089 22,270 1907.

263
65,635

12,575 1908.

26,955

199 89.993 22,086 3), 367 1909.

194 82,704 29,010 31, 368 1910.

438 112,910 37,091 10.750 1211,

410 59,411 134, 224 1912.

3,857

54 50,077 162, 13) 3,961 1913.

38

55,778 156, 814 4,300 1914.

115 54, 102 157, 545 5,935 1915.

2,987
45,642

175, 614 249, 303
Total.

121,353 1,368,611 Withdrawn for export free of tax, 1899.

1,014, 902

759, 002
Withdrawn for export free of tax, 1915..
Included in production, 1902, not taxable under amendment Mar. 2, 1901.
Destroyed in factories, allowed..
Balance in factories, June 30, 1915.

[blocks in formation]

Number of establishments for which

special tax was pail.

Year.

[blocks in formation]

1899. 1900. 1901. 1902. 1903. 1904. 1905 1906. 1907 1908 1909. 1910. 1911. 1912. 1913. 1914. 1915

[ocr errors]

---లులులులు సలులాల

116 112 101 45 35 21 17 33 35 26 23 19 20 14 22 20 35

$1,859.40
1,568.44
1,022.50

500.00
428, 56
226.58
18.02
909.50
672.00
376.00
317.00
244.00
287.00
157.00
289, 0
285.00
488.80

$7,840.62

7,439. 46 6,006. 36 2, 212, 85 1,795,50 1,65.58 1,648,39 2,567. 23 2,722. 25 2,380. 72 2,618.04 3.051.30 2,764.14 3,143, 25 3,223. 98 2,963, 10 5,255.94

1

Total

633

[blocks in formation]

Mr. Rainey. Now, in the enforcement of this law as it at present appears on the statute books, I want to call your attention to this label which I have prepared for a package of flour, which reads as follows:

DOE'S BEST

FANCY
PATENT

FLOUR.
40 LBS. NET.
RICHARD DOE & CO.,
MINNEAPOLIS, MINN.

MIXED FLOUR,
WUEAT, AND CORNSTANCI.

66

If a mixture of that kind was on the market, or placed on the market by this supposed firm, under the law would that marking be sufficient

Mr. Keith. Under the law it would. We have attempted, however, by our regulations, to prevent the use of any term in connection with the branding prescribed for mixed flour which might induce the belief that it was pure wheat flour. The question is whether or not the term “ fancy patent” would come under that prohibition. I would not like to say.

Mr. RAINEY. "Mixed flour" would be sufficient, without any percentages of ingredients?

Mr. Keith. So far as the law is concerned, it would. If they state the percentages they should state the correct ones.

Mr. Rainey. Now, I have prepared a label here. You have examined the bill we are considering?

Mr. KEITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. Rainey. I have prepared another label here, which reads as follows:

а

49 LBS. NET

STIR

BRAND
MIXED FLOUR
CORNSTARCH 20%
WHEAT FLOUR 80%
JOHN DOE & CO.

CHICAGO.

Under the bill we are considering now would that label be sufficient?

Mr. Keith. Under the definition as given in the bill now before the committee it would.

Mr. RAINEY. With the percentages?

Mr. Keith. That is according to our interpretation and enforcement of the law under that definition,

Mr. RAINEY. Would type substantially that size in which the words “mixed flour” are printed comply with the law ?

Mr. Keith. It is only required that the letters in the words“ mixed flour" be three-quarters of an inch. That is larger than actually required.

Mr. RAINEY. That is the rule you follow?
Mr. KEITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. RAINEY. This label gives to the purchaser much more information about the contents of the package than the label that it is possible to use now under the present law, does it not?

Mr. KEITH. Yes, sir. They do not, under the present law, have to state the percentages of the ingredients. They have to name the ingredients, but they do not have to state the percentages. If they do state them, they are supposed to state them accurately.

Mr. RainEY. Must they name them in any kind of order, Mr. Keith?

Mr. Keith. Well, the law does not require that. They can name them in any order.

Mr. Rainey. With reference to the export packages of mixed flour, would this labeling under the first bill to which I have called your attention be sufficient?

Mr. Keith. So far as the law is concerned, it would.

« PreviousContinue »