tions 3 and 4, as proposed, and with regards to the fines and prosecutions. That was up for four hours in the committee, representing the State presidents of those different associations. We invited people to come to our convention from other States to hear what we were doing on this bill. In fact, the assistant food commissioners of one of the States, listening, questioning, and taking section by section, and they all said, "We believe you are right to build up from the foundationthat is the only law-a pure-food law against injury to the health of the whole people."

Mr. COOMBS. I would like to ask you a question. Who first suggested the idea-from what source did the idea of a pure-food law come? Mr. SCHERER. Who first suggested it?

Mr. COOMBS. Yes; who first instigated it.

Mr. SCHERER. You mean this bill I speak about now?

Mr. COOMBS. I mean with reference to all of these bills. From what source did the first one come?

Mr. SCHERER. The first one?

Mr. COOMBS. Yes; the inception of the idea.

Mr. SCHERER. I am not able to answer that.

Mr. COOMBS. It was not from your body at all, was it?

Mr. SCHERER. I don't believe it was. But as soon as we got organized, in 1893, I stated to this committee, the first year it was organized we came here; in fact we never moved

Mr. COOMBS. Was it not for the reason that you wanted to counteract the influences that were behind the Hepburn bill that you organized and proposed a law of your own?

Mr. SCHERER. No, sir; I want to disabuse your mind as far as I am concerned

Mr. COOMBS. I want to understand this; I am asking you in good faith

Mr. SCHERER. And I am answering you in good faith.

Mr. COOMBS. Is it not a fact that if no other law had been proposed here your association would not as an original proposition have come here and proposed this law? Would you not have been satisfied without any law at all?

Mr. SCHERER. Yes: because we were one of the principal originators of the Mann bill. We never came here, this association, to indorse any kind of a bill; but, as I stated yesterday, our experience with the food laws of the different States, our experience at the conference, at our university, with the professors there, with the different interests there, has revolutionized our idea with regard to certain food bills in the States, and also as to the needs of the food bills pending here that is, in the past Congresses. At that time there was none pending.

Mr. RICHARDSON. Is it not a fact that you were getting along very well before there was any bill introduced at all?

Mr. SCHERER. Yes, sir.

Mr. RICHARDSON. Is it not true that your patronage depends a great deal upon the question of how acceptable your commodities are to your patrons, and if it is an inferior article they will soon drop it?

Mr. SCHERER. Too quick.

Mr. RICHARDSON. And the community will protect itself?

Mr. SCHERER. Yes, sir.

Mr. RICHARDSON (continuing). Will it not to a great extent? The

matter that you complain of mostly is, you are willing to see those articles which enter into articles which are injurious, you want those eradicated, just as much as anybody else.

Mr. SCHERER. Yes, sir.

Mr. RICHARDSON. But you do not want anything done that hampers fair trade, in the way, for instance, of having to label everything? Mr. SCHERER. Yes, sir; that is right. You asked about the origin of this Mann bill?

Mr. COOMBS. No; I have found out what I wanted to know.
Mr. SCHERER. I was willing to give it to you.

Mr. COOMBS. I simply wanted to know if your association was not inspired in what you are doing here by a desire to oppose pending legislation, legislation which was pending before you came.

Mr. SCHERER. I will say in all frankness, no, sir.

Mr. COOMBS. I asked you that in good faith.

Mr. SCHERER. I am willing to tell all about it. I want to say further of the bill, in its features, that we recommended it for its passage and indorsement before the convention. It was taken up and discussed section by section, and you can go to our records and you will see that it was almost unanimously indorsed.

The CHAIRMAN. What bill?

Mr. SCHERER. It was almost unanimously indorsed by that convention, bill 9352. We have had a gentleman, who is a member of the legislature of Massachusetts, making the motion that I come here and represent the retail grocers of the United States-in other words, the National Association of Retail Grocers, which compose, as I have said, twentynine State and semi-State associations at that time. We are all the time organizing more. They indorsed this; I was delegated. Mr. Charles Linney, ex-senator of the State of New York and a grocer of Buffalo, is my assistant, and in the case of my absence here he would appear before your committee. I was instructed by the executive committee, if any administrative or any minor features (which we considered minor features because we believed that the Government would establish a food commissioner who would be a type of the highest citizen, and that that administration would be responsible; we believed that if it went anywhere else we did not have much objection), any changes of that kind, I was authorized to indorse such changes, with the principal feature that we were instructed in retained, and I am here now for that purpose.

I want to say here is a resolution on our national stationery regarding those bills that I have named that have been by our secretary, Charles Fifer, of St. Louis, and our president, Joseph E. Williams, of South Bend, Ind., sent to every one of you gentlemen and every member of Congress and United States Senator, to every one, showing our stand. Since that time a number of State associations that have had conventions have indorsed this bill unanimously. Also local associationsThe CHAIRMAN. Let me understand you. You say "indorsed this bill?"

Mr. SCHERER. The Mann bill.

The CHAIRMAN. You mean by that bill 9352?

Mr. SCHERER. Yes, sir. There was no other bill at that time on our part that we had to do with.

The CHAIRMAN. That is the bill you speak for?

Mr. SCHERER. That is the bill I speak for in regard to sections 3

and 4, and now the administration feature, I speak for 12348, and am authorized by my people to indorse in any such conference we may have to amend to suit our interests.

The CHAIRMAN. To suit the interest of the retail grocers?

Mr. SCHERER. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. You are here now advocating, as you understand it, the interests of the retail grocers with reference to legislation? Mr. SCHERER. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, in your present recommendation, you take out the important administrative features of the bill that your societies heretofore have indorsed?

Mr. SCHERER. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Then, I understand that you, representing the retail grocers, want the minimum of legislation, the least possible legislation?

Mr. SCHERER. We want the most forcible legislation as to impure foods, but no further.

The CHAIRMAN. And in doing that you advocate legislation that contains no prohibition, and that contains no penalty?

Mr. SCHERER. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, that is your idea of the legislation that benefits your trade?

Mr. SCHERER. That benefits the greater number of people.

The CHAIRMAN. You have been speaking for your trade?

Mr. SCHERER. For our trade-yes, sir; thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. And you are authorized to speak for your trade? Mr. SCHERER. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. You are not authorized to speak for your customers, the persons who may be harmed by deleterious foods; you do not claim to speak for them?

Mr. SCHERER. No, sir. When I said the greatest number I meant retailers.

The CHAIRMAN. Your societies have indorsed heretofore House bill No. 3109?

Mr. SCHERER. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. You regard that now as entirely too stringent?
Mr. SCHERER. Yes, sir; I do and our people do.

The CHAIRMAN. You have heard of no objection, however, with reference to that bill and the stringent features of it, from any of your customers?

Mr. SCHERER. In fact, I don't know; I never heard our customers speak much about food legislation except in a general way, saying we ought to have protection.

The CHAIRMAN. They felt that there was necessity for protection? Mr. SCHERER. Never anything about the quality of food except injurious.

The CHAIRMAN. You do not understand that that bill, 3109, attempted to affect any food except injurious food or to prohibit the sale of any food except injurious food, do you?

Mr. SCHERER. I would answer that in this way

The CHAIRMAN. That is the purpose of the bill, is it not, to prevent the sale of deleterious food?

Mr. SCHERER. I have not that conviction now. I used to think that, but I don't now.

The CHAIRMAN. What conviction did you have at the time you advocated this?

Mr. SCHERER. The convictions were, Mr. Chairman, on the same line as I have said, that we got entirely different ideas of the food laws when we saw their operations and rulings on them.

The CHAIRMAN. Then, your hostility to legislation is because of what you regard as faulty legislation on the part of the States?

Mr. SCHERER. No; I regard it as wrong legislation in the feature beyond deleterious foods.

The CHAIRMAN. Beyond deleterious foods?

Mr. SCHERER. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you find any food affected by House bill 3109 other than deleterious foods?

Mr. SCHERER. I would not say that the foods do, but I say that the relation of the different sections in there seriously affect the interests of the food dealers.

The CHAIRMAN. Of the food dealers?

Mr. SCHERER. Themselves, and have no particular helpful protection to the public.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, it is your opinion, is it not, that there should be legislation that would be preventive of the sale of deleterious foods?

Mr. SCHERER. Certainly, emphatically; we are all for that. I have not heard a dissenting voice among our people.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you not believe, then, in pursuance of that legislation, that there should be a prohibition upon men preventing them from selling deleterious foods?

Mr. SCHERER. From selling deleterious foods?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. SCHERER. Certainly; that is the object.

The CHAIRMAN. Then, do you not believe that there should be some method to ascertain whether or not they do sell deleterious foods? Mr. SCHERER. If you will allow me to answer-

The CHAIRMAN. Certainly.

Mr. SCHERER. I think that is operated in this way: Under a commission administering a law for the protection of foods deleterious to health-that is their object; that is their scope.

The CHAIRMAN. Then there must be some human agency or other to make those investigations?

Mr. SCHERER. Certainly.

The CHAIRMAN. They must have the power to investigate?

Mr. SCHERER. Sure.

The CHAIRMAN. After they have discovered that there are deleterious foods, they must have the power to stop that sale?

Mr. SCHERER. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. And they can not do that, can they, except they can be instrumental in the punishment of those who persist in selling that kind of food?

Mr. SCHERER. I do not look on it in that light. If goods are destroyed and published as being deleterious, it stops it at once; and if the State or national commissioner will confiscate my goods or anyone's goods that prove deleterious to health, then the man who is selling them is soon out of the market; and I want to say to you, gentlemen, in all due candor, that every retail merchant in the whole country will be

fearful of getting goods from any source where there has been a prosecution for deleterious goods. He will be afraid to touch anything of

that kind.

The CHAIRMAN. Which will result in giving a black eye to that particular brand of goods

Mr. SCHERER. That particular manufacturer, if you please.

The CHAIRMAN. But will it in any way prevent the inventive and ingenious gentleman who wants to sell a cheap article, without regard to whether it is deleterious or not, from changing his brand and trying anew with something else to impose upon the public, without you have some way of punishing him or restraining him from that conduct?

Mr. SCHERER. I would believe I would repeat what I have said in regard to that. If it was possible that your honorable body could conceive an idea about inserting "a guilty party," I don't care what the fines and prosecutions would do, but we could never separate that, and I still have the candid belief, Mr. Chairman, that we ought not to make nine innocent people suffer for one guilty one.

The CHAIRMAN. Let me get back again. If the retailer requires the guaranty, he is entirely exempt from the penalties?

Mr. SCHERER. If he receives that guaranty at a specific place, I have answered that; but if he happened to overlook that he is in for it. The CHAIRMAN. It is simply, then, to conserve his convenience that you object to that feature in this bill?

Mr. SCHERER. I beg your pardon; I want to answer that in an indirect way.

The CHAIRMAN. Can you not answer it in a direct way?

Mr. SCHERER. I want to say something directly to it. Before we have come here

The CHAIRMAN. Of course you will understand that I am not advocating one bill or another; I am simply trying to get your ideas on this matter.

Mr. SCHERER. You will allow me to say that I have the highest regard for all our national officers, and there is not a question in mind of any disposition on their part to be arbitrary.

I understand your question is for the purpose of getting the true situation, and I appreciate that. But I want to say that I have written to England, and I can read the letter I have received from the secretary in regard to the protection clause. We were very fearful as to how far such a clause would reach and how effective it would be, and whether it was not in a sense a special legislation or defeat.

Mr. RICHARDSON. I think it would be appropriate to read it.
Mr. SCHERER. If you wish you can read it yourself.

The CHAIRMAN. I wish to say that the bill that I have been referring to and that bears my name I have nothing to do with the authorship of: it is the bill of the pure-food convention, and was introduced by me at the request of the secretary; but there are some features of it that have been approved.

Mr. SCHERER. Do you desire that letter?

The CHAIRMAN. You can hand it to the stenographer, if you please. Mr. SCHERER. It is a private letter, but it deals with that feature. Mr. RICHARDSON. It gives information on that subject?

Mr. SCHERER. Yes, sir.

Mr. MANN. You need not take the time to read it.

Mr. SCHERER. I want to see whether I have got the right one here;