eases enumerated. (Read the word "Advertisement" according to its definition. (Sec. 2 (1), p. 3, lines 15-17.)

XXVI. Druggists want to know: What is the standard for the word health? Is health the same for each individual?

XXVII. Pharmacists want to know if an inspection of methods, processes, finished and unfinished materials does not mean letting inspectors know all the details of manufacture which have been perfected after years of study, experience, and research.

XXVIII. Druggists want to know if a crook cannot avoid section 14 by having a continual change of sales agents within the State.

XXIX. Druggists want to know if compulsatory destruction of merchandise under section 16 (d) (last sentence) would be enforced against merchandise innocently purchased if they could be reconditioned.

XXX. Perchance a druggist should write to some member of his family or to another druggist in another State, something contrary to the Secretary of Agriculture experts medical opinion. Then, under section 17 (3), would he not be criminally liable?

XXXI. Often druggists are directors for corporations. Should a board of such directors pass an appropriation for advertising, and part of this money which is paid for an advertisement be declared later on to be misleading (by the Secretary of Agriculture), would not each and every director be criminally liable and subject to fine and imprisonment?

XXXII. Druggists want to know if section 19 is not really substituting for the former plan of multiple seizure, the closing of a factory by injunction, by the Secretary of Agriculture. Multiple seizure is unfair in many instances, and the Secretary of Agriculture seems determined to put out of business those with whom he differs, when he so desires.

XXXIII. What redress will a druggist have against the Secretary of Agriculture if his name or business is ruined, should the Secretary of Agriculture under mistaken fact issue unfavorable publicity under the last sentence of section 21?

XXXIV. The amount of tax for service under section 22 must be stated in the bill. Over half of the sixty thousand druggists are to be found in the red today. If they are to contribute to the support of a bureau of the Department of Agriculture, how much in dollars will this cost?

XXXV. Druggists want to know, will the Secretary of Agriculture expect 48 States to also have a voluntary inspection service? If so, how will conflict of service be avoided? Can a druggist avoid paying for Federal and State revenue a double tax for one purpose?

XXXVI. Pharmacists want to know why the finding of fact by the Secretary should not depend on substantial evidence before it is conclusive?

XXXVII. How much greater will a druggist's liability be under section 24 than under the common law, and how much less will a Government official liabilities be under section 16 (b) than under the common law?

The word "Regulations" appears in S. 1944 33 times, and gives thereby power to the Secretary of Agriculture and this power is not limited by the bill. This power given to the Secretary of Agriculture is more far reaching than the known provision of the bill.

Druggists as well as Senators and Members of the House cannot possibly know the scope of this bill. Under S.1944, an act one day may be legal. The next day, the same act may be a crime. The reason for this might be an "inference" an "ambiguity.'

Many criticisms made by Dr. J. W. Beal, of S. 1944, to be found in the minutes of the hearing before the subcommittee, have been purposely omitted from this brief. Dr. Beal's brief is concurred in.

The retail druggists are not trying to split hairs. Years of experience with Federal Government officials has given us many sad experiences. We could cite incident after incident when the hair splitting has been on the Government inspector's side, especially when they are young and inexperienced. These often desire to make a record.

New laws make much trouble through misinterpretations of their wordings and through interruption of business, pending court decisions, which decisions often take years of litigation.

An amended food and drug law has been suggested instead of S. 1944. It is not only possible to amend the present law, but is the thing to do at this time if any changes are to be made. As the attorney for the National Association of Retail Druggists, I recommend an amended food and drug act, instead of S. 1944.

The CHAIRMAN. I will now call on Mr. Charles M. Cox, of Boston.

STATEMENT OF CHARLES M. COX, BOSTON, MASS.

CHARLES M. Cox. My name is Charles M. Cox, and I am president of the New England Grain Products Co. I am representing the American Feed Manufacturers' Association. We are coming here to ask for a word in regard to the food we furnish for animals and poultry. Ours is a very large industry, sir; probably larger than people appreciate. For example, about 300 carloads a day of feed roll into New England from other States. My own concern handles 50 cars per day. That does not include anything for food for human consumption. It is entirely food for animals and poultry. I might say that, with certain exceptions, we are in sympathy with this bill as it is being introduced. I might say that we might cause some enlivenment in this meeting by introducing some samples of our chicken feed, but I feel it would not meet with the response or receive the welcome accorded other products introduced here today.

The CHAIRMAN. If you will come down to Broadway, you will find plenty of candidates.

Mr. Cox. We are accustomed to Government control of our business; definitely so. We are controlled possibly more than any other industry, and we are controlled by the State experiment stations; we are controlled very closely. Our own concern manufactures many specialties, and many more are placed on the market in our line by competitors. Our concern employs five specialists who are studying all the time how to improve our products so that we may improve the general line of goods that are sold by us. We are working with experiment-station men at all times. We look for you to produce a bill which we can favor. We have very little opposition to your bill, sir. I might state three instances, very briefly.

Page 4, lines 16 and 17, we would like to add the words "in a deceptive manner." That particular phraseology regarding the increasing of bulk of food-it is very often necessary for us to increase the bulk of our foods for cattle. We do it largely with bran, but we would like to have the words introduced "in a deceptive manner." On page 9, line 6. I am trying to say what I have to say just as rapidly as I possibly can so as to finish within my time.

The CHAIRMAN. You will be given time.

Mr. Cox. I am trying to go pretty fast so as to get done. Page 9, line 6. "In the order of predominance by weight", would lead toward an open formula. I do not think it is called for and we do not think it is necessary in our line of business. There are reasons why in certain periods of certain years some kinds of grains or byproducts are low in price and it is good business both for manufacturer and farmer to vary slightly our formulas in accordance with the prices. We do this in accordance with the experiment station opinions. We think if this clause were allowed to remain in, it might be an injury to people like ourselves where we have been operating 30 years to build up a reputation for our formulas which are successful. It opens up all of these avenues of information which gives anyone the very knowledge that we have taken years to acquire. The CHAIRMAN. Just a minute, Mr. Cox.

Mr. Cox. I am taking all the time you will let me.

The CHAIRMAN. This is not coming out of your time. It is coming out of the audience's time. Predominance by weight; would you

have any objection to enumerating the articles in their order by weight as long as you would not be required to tell the exact proportion of each one?

Mr. Cox. We would rather not. We find people just coming into this business, and they would take advantage of that to use our formulas. I might say I am not nearly as young as you are.

The CHAIRMAN. I think we are about the same age.

Mr. Cox. I beg your pardon, I am past you a lot. We have been building this business up and we have been playing this game for 50 years and no, we have not, it is only 30 years, that we have been in this special-feed business. We have been in the grain business for 50 years. We have been in the prepared-feed business for 30 years. It is a comparatively new industry trying to develop itself further, and I might say that we have grown with the business from the very time that it started. We are with the old timers in this business. We do not have food for human beings. I might say that we feed the hens and the chickens more wisely than we feed human beings. The CHAIRMAN. I agree with you.

Mr. Cox. If I knew how to feed myself and my family as well as I know how to feed hens and chickens, I think I should be a very able man, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. You would know how if you would listen to me, Mr. Cox.

Mr. Cox. I have, sir. Did I answer your question about the order of predominance?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. Cox. One more suggestion I would like to make on page 15, line 11. About definitions and standards for our foods. I want to impress once more that we are conducting a very enormous industry. I want to say that we are people who furnish possibly as much in dollars and cents as all of the human beings buy in this country or consume probably not that much, but it must run up pretty well, I am sure of that. There are no exact figures available. When you go into the standards of our industry, I think it is very doubtful if they can be made correctly by the Government. We have many relations with State experiment stations and are also known to Dr. Campbell. We do not know Dr. Campbell as well as we would like to, but we do know his assistants, Dr. Dunbar and Dr. Bidwell, with whom we are having conferences in our line of industry, from time to time, and I think they will agree with me that to make a standard for dairy feed is extremely difficult, exceedingly difficult, in fact, because the variations in conditions are so great. I am not talking about candy. Candy is entirely different from cattle feed; I am talking about hens and cows and chickens and hogs. In California there is almost no roughage outside the irrigated area; and down South roughage is pretty poor while cottonseed meal with its high protein content is low priced, and in the North, in New England, we have fair pastures; but in the Middle West they have fine pastures. Comparatively speaking, they are very fine. You cannot make a standard to cover the whole country; that is, we do not think you could. You would have to have a great many standards. I will say in closing—I can say a lot more, but I do not want to take up your time--I wish to take the liberty of making two or three suggestions. You have asked for them. I would like to suggest that you divide this bill and have a

bill for human beings and a bill for cattle feeds. Also, we would like to ask you to divorce cosmetics and drugs from anything relating to food.

Senator MCNARY. You mean that the bill should be separated into parts, two separate heads, one having to do with drugs, and the other having to do with foods?

Mr. Cox. Yes; or separate bills. I am not a legislator, but any way is satisfactory to us to get away from drugs and cosmetics and human foods.

Senator MCNARY. That has been suggested in a great many wires and telegrams that have been sent to me.

Mr. Cox. We would like to submit a brief. I do not know as you will ever read it. We want to favor a bill. We are living up to the law now, and we propose to live under it. It helps us. It helps to keep out anyone who is not in accord with pure foods, and who is not going to create a good feed for animals. That would hurt our business. We want to write to our Senators and tell them to support the revised pure food bill and to give you every assistance.

The CHAIRMAN. I cannot speak for my colleagues, but I will read your brief when it comes in, I assure you.

Mr. Cox. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. I will call on Col. J. H. Hayes, of the Chesebrough Manufacturing Co.; of the Stanco Co.; of Daggett & Ramsdell Co.; and others. He represents a great many companies, but we are only going to allow him 5 minutes in which to present his statement, if that is agreeable to him.

Mr. HAYES. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. Colonel Hayes, proceed.

STATEMENT OF COL J. H. HAYES

Mr. HAYES. The corporations that I represent are in two categories. One that deals with toilet preparations, cosmetics; and the other is a line of drugs. Chesebrough Vaseline, Daggett & Ramsdell and Elizabeth Arden cosmetics; Stanco, manufacturers of Nujol, Misto, and Flit. It was my purpose to analyze the bill to the committee, but I think the bill has been analyzed quite well both by Judge Campbell, and also by Dr. Beal, and other speakers. While we are listed as an opponent to the bill, we are not an opponent to the bill in principle. We are certainly in favor of the protection of the public. We believe that the Department and its officials are earnest in their endeavor to protect the public. We feel that the so-called "fly-bynight" manufacturers should be brought in line; they should be made to obey the law. We feel that no fraudulent or misleading products should be put before the public. The Department, however, can be overzealous and they are seeking perhaps legislation that goes possibly beyond the bounds of reason. I think in this bill here that is presented and that we have been discussing, that they have gone way beyond what is necessary; that have practically told the industry to write a blank check and present it to the Department, for the Department to write in any time whatever amount they feel is needed. We certainly are opposed and object to such a method and such procedure. Senator McNary spoke about questions of finding of fact and the Department determining that a person is guilty before they send the

case to the district attorney for prosecution. That is exactly the same situation that I got from the bill, and the same opinion that I received of the bill, that you could be tried before the Department and then the facts sent to the district attorney for prosecution and unless the bill is amended in the manner suggested, the defendant would have no chance to controvert or show that the facts were not as they were presented by the Department. This question of discussion has been also with respect to the consensus of opinion. That has been covered quite fully and it is unnecessary for me to make any remarks except that every citizen has his own mind about things, whether they are truthful or not, and in connection with all sorts of conditions. It reminds me very much of a story of an oil producer who went to heaven and applied at the gate and St. Peter came to see him. He asked St. Peter for admittance and St. Peter told him that there were no seats, that the seats were all taken up by prior oil producers, and then the oil producer said, "St. Peter, would you give me a chance to go in there and talk to them?" And St. Peter said, "Yes." And he got in there and in about 10 minutes the whole crowd started to go out of the gate, and St. Peter said to this oil man, "Why are these fellows all coming out?" The saint saw all these men coming out, and this fellow bringing up the rear. He said, "What did you do to bring all of these fellows out?" "Well", said the oil man, "I told them that a million-barrel gusher had just been struck down in hell." "But", said St. Peter, "Why are you going along?" The oil man replied, "Well, St. Peter, there may be some truth in it, so I am going too."

That is the same thing that is going on in the marketing today in this country. I will not take up a great deal of your time with that. We have your permission already to submit a brief covering some of the points that we are interested in, and I will content myself with furnishing that.

The CHAIRMAN. We would be glad to have your brief. I will now call upon Mr. Samuel Fraser, Rochester, N.Y., representing the International Apple Association.

STATEMENT OF SAMUEL FRASER, ROCHESTER, N.Y.

Mr. FRASER. The International Apple Association, and, also, I am specifically representing various cooperative organizations and the other fruit interests in the Pacific Coast States as the Wenatchee Valley Traffic Association, Wenatchee, Wash.; Yakima Valley Traffic and Credit Association, Yakima, Wash.; and we wish to file a special memoranda with the committee later collectively or separately. The CHAIRMAN. I will be glad to receive it.

Mr. FRASER. Also, I represent the California Fruit Exchange, and the western division of the Chamber of Commerce of the United States, and the latter ask that I file with you a resolution which I submit:

FOOD AND DRUG RESOLUTION

Whereas there is pending before Congress for consideration at the coming regular session Senate bill 1944 and House of Representatives bill 6110, duplicate bills containing proposed radical changes in the present Federal Food and Drugs act; and Whereas there is no need for the alliance of food and drugs and cosmetics in the same act: Now, therefore, be it