etc.

Now let me call the attention of the committee for a few minutes to what this actually means. In the first place, "any article of food or drink." Now, I claim that under this bill it would be almost impossible to traffic in foods of any kind, and especially drinks of any kind.

I think that there is in almost every State of this Union a very general feeling that certain drinks are injurious to health. I believe that is the opinion also of a vast majority of physiological and hygienic experts and publicists of all kinds. I refer especially to alcoholic drinks. Now, it is well known that every one of these alcoholic drinks contains a substance which is a narcotic poison, and is not only injurious to health, but can easily produce death. Under the Corliss bill it would not be possible to ship a bottle of beer or a gallon of whisky or a bottle of wine from one State to another. If it could be enforced, and we may assume for the sake of argument that a law such as is proposed can be enforced, although I have pointed out the difficulties of enforcing it but assuming that it could be enforced, it would produce an absolute paralysis in interstate commerce in wines, beers, brandies, whiskies, cordials, liqueurs, and every other beverage which contains alcohol. Now, I am one of those who believe that legislation in regard to foods and drinks should be confined exclusively to securing freedom from fraud and plain statement of constituents.

I have never been a believer in sumptuary laws by either the State or the National Government. I believe that every citizen should be absolutely free to choose his food and his drink and his clothing, irrespective of what his neighbor may think is proper for him, provided in doing this he offend no law and commit no nuisance. Personally, I am no believer in the principle of prohibition, as you may readily infer. I am just as much opposed to drunkenness as to prohibition, but I don't think the man who takes too much whisky and gets drunk should be punished for that act, but only for any offense against the law which he commits under the influence of the drug. If I were a judge I would never palliate a crime on the ground that the perpetrator was intoxicated.

But what would this law do? I don't think it would be difficult to convince any judge or jury that alcohol is injurious to health. Now the question as it remains is, is it injurious in the quantities used or intended to be used? Here is one case where it would not be very difficult to find illustration. Every physician can bring before the court cases in which it could be shown that alcohol had been prejudicial to health, and thus, if this law means anything at all, which I honestly believe it does not, but assuming it to be a meaningful law, is it not a logical sequence that it would prohibit all interstate commerce in every substance containing alcohol?

Again, take the case of coffee and tea. These substances contain a highly poisonous alkaloidal principle belonging to the same class as morphia and strychnia; not as deadly in its action by any means, but I say belonging to the same class of poisonous alkaloids. In every community the physicians can bring before the court numerous instances of people whose health had been not only injured, but almost ruined, by the use of tea and coffee. There is a form of dyspepsia which is produced, exclusively almost, by these articles. Now, again assuming that this law has a purpose and can be enforced, it would absolutely prohibit interstate commerce in coffee and tea just as it would in alcohol.

Take the case of apples. How many hundreds of instances could be brought before the court of people who had suffered from colie from eating apples-especially children. Now, if this law means anything, it means that traffic in apples is to be prohibited because they contain an injurious substance or substances producing in many cases fatal results.

This law, Mr. Chairman, is sumptuary legislation of the most pronounced type. It strikes at the very root of human liberty, which. among other things, at least should provide that a man shall choose his own diet and not have it prescribed for him by law.

It has been said here that the Hepburn bill is objectionable because it goes too far in prescribing that foods shall be sold for just what they are. I should like to know, Mr. Chairman, why vigorous opposition should not be exercised against this bill on the same ground. It not only goes too far, but it interferes with the inalienable rights of trade; it obstructs the regular channels of commerce; it prohibits the citizen from using what food or drug he pleases. Legislation has no right to prescribe what food a man shall eat, nor in what form he shall eat it; whether it shall be white, or yellow, or green; whether it shall be a protein, or a fat, or a carbohydrate, or a mixture of all of these; whether it shall be a vegetable or an animal product. All that legislation has a right to do is to secure to the purchaser the article which he wants. and let him be the judge of what he shall eat, and how much he shall eat, and when and where he shall eat.

I have only given you a few instances of staple articles of food which contain injurious substances which would be subject to exclusion under this bill, if it should become a law. Many others could be added to the list, but these instances would not increase the effectiveness of the argument against such an unwise, such an unconstitutional, and such a prejudicial act. The act itself under its own title is a prohibition. It is "to prevent the transportation of deleterious foods and drinks." I do not believe that Congress has the constitutional authority nor the moral right to prevent the transportation of any kind of a food product which is true to name. The Hepburn bill doesn't prevent commerce in food products nor purport to prohibit it. It is a bill "for preventing the adulteration, misbranding, and imitation of foods, beverages, candies, drugs and condiments, and for regulating interstate commerce therein," not preventing it.

There is no kind of a food product for which a penalty for transportation is provided in the Hepburn bill which is plainly marked to show its real constituents. It contains no provision which prohibits the transportation of an article of food which contains an injurious substance as a part of its natural composition. It could not be used to prevent traffic in coffee, or tea, or wine, or whisky, or brandy. The poisonous ingredient which a food may contain must be added to it. not a part of its nature, and even then it does not prevent the transportation of such articles, even if they have added materials to them. It simply says they shall be liable to be proceeded against in a manner provided for by the bill and certain penalties enforced for traffic

therein.

Personally, I have never gone so far as my associates in the pure-food congress and other movements relating to injurious substances in foods. I have always been of the opinion, and still am. personally, that it is entirely sufficient to place upon a food label the nature of any sub

stance which has been added in the preparation of the food, and leave to the consumer himself and his physician the determination of whether or not that substance is injurious to him. In this view a majority of those associated with me disagree, and I of course can only yield to their superior judgment. I don't believe, Mr. Chairman, that any manufacturer of food products in the United States ever added to a product a substance that was poisonous for the sake of poisoning the people.

He may have used injurious substances as preservatives or coloring matters, but never as poisons. I further believe that if the commission provided for in the Hepburn bill should, after the utilization of all the highest physiological, chemical, hygienic, and business talent in the country, as provided for in that bill, issue an opinion that certain substances now used for foods are injurious, and that opinion was spread broadcast throughout this land, as it would be, every reputable manufacturer of food products in the United States would instantly stop the use of that body. In this case, it is seen that the whole traffic in substances containing added products injurious to health would be at once controlled without any further trouble. Such would not be the case, however, with imitations, mixtures, and blends. where no amount of publicity would prevent the continuance of the fraud, until some provision was made whereby the added substance should be plainly marked.

Now it is well known to you, Mr. Chairman, and to the members of the committee, that the only substances added to food which can in any way be classed as deleterious or injurious are coloring matters and antiseptics. Now there are honest differences of opinion among chemists and hygienists in regard to the use of these bodies. Some of them maintain that they are unnecessary and therefore when used should be prohibited. Others claim that in many instances they are necessary, and therefore their use should be simply regulated. Personally, I incline to the latter view. Let me illustrate. Foods become very injurious to health by the process of fermentation known as decay. Especially is this true with animal foods, but it is also true to a less degree with vegetable fruits. Often these injurious and poisonous substances are developed by fermentation before the process of decay has gone far enough to inform the palate and the nostril of the extent of decomposition.

In other words, food products may by fermentation produce poisonous substances known as ptomaines without becoming offensive either to the smell or the taste. When these foods are eaten most disastrous results ensue. Hundreds of cases are on record of death produced by ptomaine poisons in food which was entirely palatable. Now in such cases, granting that an antiseptic may have some injurious effect, it is perfectly demonstrable that that injurious effect is far less than that produced by those products of fermentation, and in this instance the public health would be conserved by the addition of an antiseptic.

The argument for a coloring matter is not by any means so strong, but still it is an argument. Food is valuable for three reasons: first, by reason of its nutritive properties; second, by reason of its pleasant taste and aroma, and third, by reason of its appearance. All these matters must be considered in determining the value of food. Now we associate with foods all these properties. In the case of color, we are accustomed to gouge a food largely by its appearance. In fruits you

are attracted by the color. If a man should offer on the market cherries of a deep green tint, it would be hard for him to find customers: or if green peas in the hull were colored bright red they wouldn't find a purchaser. In the preservation of some of these bodies it is desirable, if it can be done without injury, to preserve the original color.

This is especially the case with green goods. I am not referring now to the spurious coin, nor even to spurious bills of any kind, whether passed at the country store or upon the Interstate Commerce Committee, but I refer to green peas and green beans and green spinach. Now the green color of these bodies, the natural green color, is due to the substance known as chlorophyll, one of the most important elements in the composition of plants. Chlorophyll is a coloring matter which is of a very transient nature. In the course of a very short time it becomes, or tends to become, oxidized and to change its tint.

This is most beautifully shown in the change which comes in our autumnal foliage. The exquisite greens of the springtime give way to the mellow yellow and the ornamental reds of autumn. In other words, chlorophyll changes into xanthophyll to produce the yellow, and into erythrophyll to produce the red. This same change tends to take place, though in a much less marked degree, in preserved vegetables. There are certain chemical substances, as is well known, which are called mordants in dyes. These are substances which have no color of their own, but serve to fix in the fiber the colors which are added.

Now, if these substances are added to the green vegetables when they are preserved they produce exactly the same effects that are found in the mordants in the dye houses. These substances may or may not have their own colors, but they do not act by reason of their coloring matters. Two of the most active mordants for the color of vegetables are sulphate of zinc and sulphate of copper. One is a white or colorless salt and the other is a blue salt when crystallized and white when dry.

These are both poisonous bodies, but the addition of them in small quantities to the goods when prepared preserves almost indefinitely the beautiful green color of their natural state. Now, I maintain that the addition of these bodies to preserve vegetables is not a crime, provided the label state plainly their presence. I have no fear, Mr. Chairman, in eating French peas with my lamb chops, and yet I know they contain either copper or zinc. I am not afraid of becoming copperplated, nor of having my stomach changed into a galvanie battery.

I wouldn't eat French peas every day in the year, because these bodies are poisonous largely by their accumulative effect. If you eat them once in a while there is no accumulation of the poison in the system, and hence no evil effects are produced, but if you eat them every day that is quite different. I think all that is necessary in this case is knowledge-to know that these bodies contain small quantities of poisonous matters, and not to be deceived in buying them. Otherwise, I think the whole matter can be left to the individual himself and the physician he consults. In other words, I would not be in favor of condemning such a substance as deleterious and poisonous and thus prohibiting interstate commerce therein, but would be entirely content if Congress should enact such legislation as would plainly

mark these goods for what they are, and leave the rest to the good sense and the good judgment of the American citizens.

Now, Mr. Chairman, are the members of the 400" in New York and Chicago, for I suppose they have at least that many in the list out there, as consumers in favor of legislation by your committee, which would exclude from their tables some of the most desirable and delectable viands which now adorn them? Is it not sufficient that they could understand simply what they are eating and that they be not allowed to purchase poisonous or deleterious substances under a false impression? That seems to me all that is necessary, and that is all the Hepburn bill, if administered by the Secretary of Agriculture, will do. Compare such a wise provision, so mild in its statements, so broad in its scope, so generous in its character with the absolute prohibition which would be secured by the passage of such a drastic measure as that proposed in the Mann-Corliss bill.

By far the most objectionable part of the Corliss bill is section 4, which provides for entering a formula approved by the food commissioner upon the secret books of his office, and that any article of food subject to the provisions of the bill shall be exempt when prepared in accordance with said formula. In the first place it is difficult to see how anyone could determine whether any given sample was compounded according to a formula which is unknown and inaccessible. In addition to this, the provision places in the hands of a food commissioner a dangerous and powerful weapon, which could be easily used according to the pique, or misjudgment, or prejudice of the commissioner against any manufacturer. It places in the hands of the food commissioner the absolute judgment in regard to what is deleterious to health. It does not even provide that the food commissioner shall be a chemist, a physiologist or a hygienist. If we can judge by what has been done in the various States, he will be none of these, but probably some one who has rendered an eminent party service.

The advocates of this measure have failed to point out to the committee any way by which a food commissioner under this section could reach just and equitable and reasonable decisions. But whatever decision he does reach is absolute and beyond the reach of criticism or censure. The evil effects of such section are not difficult to see. A single illustration will show one of them. For instance, one of the Chicago firms manufacturing maple sirup will submit a formula for the approval of the food commissioner-such a formula as was described before this committee. The maple sirup in question will be composed of one part of maple sugar and three parts of glucose. The commissioner approves the formula, since it contains no matters prejudicial to health. The manufacturer is not required to submit any name to accompany his formula.

He can sell the product corresponding to this formula under any name he pleases and this product is guaranteed to be exempt from the action of the Federal law. When, therefore, he is arrested and tried in a State court for fradulent selling as pure maple sirup or maple. sirup a product which is not so, he at once shows that the United States law guarantees him from punishment for such a crime and appeals to the State authorities for the same privilege. In other words, he shows to the court that the United States is an accomplice before the fact and is engaged in legalizing unlimited frauds of this description.