if he wants a favor from the Government, if he wants to have the Government pronounce or approve a formula so that he may safely proceed under it, the record should not be public. It is true that anybody may have access to it, and I think everybody should have access to it. Private records in public business, in my judgment, should be considered against public policy. If it is a private record, it may enable the person who submits the formula to lead the public to believe that his pet is bolstered up by the Government, which I think is unwise.

If it is a public record anybody can use it, and a certificate is of no importance, creates no monopoly. What we are after, and what we want, is a law that will make everything that is deleterious contraband, and also to know upon what we can safely rely in doing business. We are not here seeking favors from the Government; we are not here seeking a thing that will give us the benefit of a private formula, and have that certified by the Government as a thing which may as a certificate give or tend to give us a private monopoly.

Mr. MANN. You spoke of the interests you represent. Does your firm or company manufacture as well as sell by the wholesale? Mr. MILLER. Yes, sir; very largely.

Mr. MANN. They are both manufacturers and jobbers?

Mr. MILLER. Yes.

Mr. MANN. Of course I understand that the firm is one of the largest in the country in that line of business, but I did not know how far they went as manufacturers.

Mr. MILLER. Now, have I made myself clear to the committee on the change from the Mann to the Corliss bill?

Mr. MANN. I take it that what you are interested in is not the administrative features of the bill-that is, the changes that have been made-but the substance of the bill?

Mr. MILLER. That is right. We do not care who administers this law; we do not care under what department of the Government it is; but what we care for is a law under which we can do business without unnecessary annoyance.

Mr. Chairman, I may digress just for a moment, but you will pardon me for doing it. I think that the members of Congress generally have not investigated the food question. I have great confidence in their seeking to arrive at the right position on this matter, but I believe, from talking with a few of them, that they are wholly unfamiliar with the subject.

I do not refer when I say that to this committee, for I know the members of this committee have to some extent investigated the subject; but I refer to the members of Congress who have not had occasion to investigate along this line. The average member of Congress has received his information from public addresses, from literature that has been scattered broadcast not issued by people who are engaged in business, but by those who, though unfamiliar with the business, honestly seek to get pure food. While they are seeking to prohibit dealing in deleterious goods, they are seeking to do it in a manner which places upon legitimate trade a burden which is unwarranted and unnecessary. Several of the States have enacted food laws. The interests that I represent, if they had been afraid of a pure-food law, would doubtless have gone before the committees of the State legislatures and argued the question. But they do not care what kind of a food law we have, so that it is workable, and they have

yes, sir, this is it; it deals with that feature, and we were fearful to come here and advocate anything. We are as serious as we can be to have a good law, a just law, an equitable law, and I do candidly believe you are going to help us to get an equitable law, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, and I hope you will report favorably on House bill 12348.

GEORGE A. SCHERER, Esq.,

Retail Grocers' Association, Peoria, Ill.

INTERNATIONAL GROCERS' BUREAU,
London, England, December 6, 1901.

DEAR Mr. SCHERER: Many thanks for your kindness in sending me on your circular on the national pure-food law. I notice, however, that in the circular you suggest a proviso similar to our "section 25 of the food and drugs act, 1899." I should think that must be a misprint, and that you must refer to section 25 of the sale of food and drugs act, 1875, which is the section dealing with the warranty. I send herewith a copy of a little book which Mr. Beck and I prepared on the whole question of food adulteration, and we have issued it pretty extensively. On page 38 you will find that section. We tried to get included in the 1899 act a provision that an ordinary invoice should be a warranty, i. e., that when a merchant sends to a storekeeper an article with an invoice, and puts it down as, say, butter, that shall be the merchant's warranty to the storekeeper that it is butter, without any additional words as a· guaranty.

When the storekeeper in England sells to his customer, unless he puts a label upon the article stating that it is mixed, or something of that sort, he gives what is called an implied guaranty of genuineness, and we ask that the merchant shall do the same. The written guaranty of purity which you mention is a very difficult thing to get and a difficult thing to deal with, because in England we find that the courts are not at all clear what they mean by a written guaranty of purity. A thing can be pure and yet not genuine; there may be a written statement generally that "all goods sold by us are genuine;" that is not enough for our courts; they require on every invoice a specific statement that the goods in this invoice are genuine, and so you see that the law is full of pitfalls in that respect, and the only way out of those pitfalls is to make the invoice the warranty, or, at any rate, that is what we think, and that is what we are working for. We have got so far that we now get many of the more important merchants to put a definite statement on every invoice, and we hope to make the others follow suit some day.

If you will run through this little book, you will be in a better position to understand the English laws than I think you otherwise would do.

Yours, faithfully,

ARTHUR J. GILES.

STATEMENT OF MR. JAY D. MILLER, OF GENEVA, ILL.

The CHAIRMAN. What is your firm connection?

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, I appear as representative of Sprague, Warner & Co., of Chicago, Ill., who are engaged in a wholesale way in dealing in food products, and also as the representative of the Commercial Exchange of Chicago, which is an organization that has existed. as I understand, for about thirty-five or forty years, and is composed of the wholesale dealers in food products of the city of Chicago.

I apprehend that the committee adjourns at 12 o'clock, and it is about 3 minutes until 12 now, and therefore I will not enter at this moment into a discussion; but in order that you may properly fix in your minds my position, I have made a memorandum which I will read, and then I will ask the privilege of making an oral discussion

to-morrow.

The CHAIRMAN. You will have the floor to-morrow morning.

Mr. MILLER. First, let me say that the Mann bill is the bill which I came here to advocate. That bill is now known as the "Corliss bill." The reason for the change was the absence of Mr. Mann in Chicago upon our arrival, and it appeared that a bill had been prepared which

eliminated the first and second sections of the Mann bill and substituted other sections therefor which was introduced by Mr. Corliss. The change is this: The Mann bill created a food department—an independent food department, if you please. The Corliss bill creates a food department in the Department of Agriculture.

Mr. CORLISS. A bureau you mean.

Mr. MILLER. A bureau of food in the Department of Agriculture. With that understanding I will read a condensed statement, showing our position.

Mr. Miller read to the committee suggestions in support of House bill No. 12348, which appear in full in the continuation of his statement to-morrow, Friday, March 14.

At the conclusion of the reading of the paper the committee took a recess until to-morrow, Friday, March 14, 1902, at 10.30 o'clock a. m.

FRIDAY, March 14, 1902.

The committee met at 10.30 o'clock a. m., Hon. William P. Hepburn in the chair.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Miller, I believe, has the floor this morning.

STATEMENT OF MR. JAY D. MILLER Continued.

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I desire at this time to file the paper which I read yesterday, and I shall file that as the suggestions of George A. Scherrer, representing the National Grocers' Association; Graeme Stewart, representing W. M. Hoyt & Co. and the wholesale grocers' division of the Illinois Manufacturers' Association, as its vice-president, and also representing the Commercial Exchange of Chicago; Frank H. Madden and Charles E. M. Newton, representing Reid, Murdoch & Co. and the Chicago Commercial Exchange; John M. Glenn, representing the wholesale grocers' division of the Illinois Manufacturers' Association, as its secretary; and Jay D. Miller, representing Sprague, Warner & Co. and the Commercial Exchange of Chicago.

[In re House bill No. 12348, introduced by Mr. Corliss.]

This bill seeks to prevent transportation of deleterious food and drink between the States, and has no other purpose. Section 1 provides for the creation of a food bureau within the Department of Agriculture and the appointment by the President of a food commissioner.

Section 2 says that the food commissioner shall have charge of the enforcement of the act, and that he shall, with the approval of the Secretary of Agriculture, appoint a chief chemist. The food commissioner is authorized to employ such other chemists, inspectors, clerks, and laborers as may be deemed necessary. He is also authorized to make analyses of articles of food and drink and compounds intended to be used in the preparation of food and drink offered for sale in the District of Columbia or the Territories of the United States or found in any State other than that in which they shall have been manufactured or produced or imported from a foreign country or intended for export to a foreign country.

Section 3 provides that an article of food or drink or any article or compound intended to become an ingredient in a composition or preparation for food or drink, containing any substance or substances which are in the quantity used or intended to be used deleterious to health and has been transported from one State to another and remains in original packages or is being transported from one State to another for sale, or if it be sold or offered for sale in the District of Columbia or any of the

never gone before a committee of any State legislature in this country. They have relied upon the good judgment of the members of the legislatures.

But it appears that the people who have, through our State legislatures, secured these laws were not familiar, as a rule, with the actual business conditions. Therefore we have a lot of State food laws which are wholly crude and impracticable, which are giving and will continue to give general dissatisfaction.

I was advised yesterday that the retail grocers of Chicago have held a mass meeting protesting against certain features in our Illinois food law. It is simply because these laws have been framed without a proper knowledge of the business. If we were seeking

Mr. RICHARDSON. You mean to say by that that there is too much law on this subject?

Mr. MILLER. It is not the right kind of law. Yes, sir; that is it.
Mr. RICHARDSON. It goes into the minutia too much?
Mr. MILLER. Yes, sir.

Mr. RICHARDSON. The best governed people are those that are least governed?

Mr. MILLER. Yes; that is a pretty safe rule. The trouble is this: The disposition in the States is, and it is a growing disposition, for government to take charge of everything, from an ingrowing toenail to a declaration of war. Now, we have never sought to defeat any purefood legislation, and we do not appear here for the purpose of defeating any pure-food legislation, and I do not care what kind of an act you pass so that you pass one which will secure pure food and let it end there without placing the rights of innocent persons in jeopardy.

In coming before Congress in a matter of this kind we are under the suspicion, as I am well aware, that we have a private interest to support, and our words may not be received with the same credence that the words of disinterested parties may receive; but I want to say that there is no suggestion which they can make to secure pure food that is practicable on which we are not with them. But that is where we draw the line.

Mr. RICHARDSON. Is it not a fact that the definition of what is called pure food is continually changing? One man will pronounce something pure and another will not. is not that so?

Mr. MILLER. Yes, sir.

Mr. ADAMSON. Do you think there are many people who appear here who are not prompted by some private interest?

Mr. MILLER. That may be, Congressman, but I have never appeared before Congress to argue any question on behalf of any interest.

Mr. ADAMSON. I think you are with the majority if you are actuated by some special interest.

Mr. MILLER. I want to refer now to the question of the police power. I advise the members of this committee carefully to investigate the question of police powers of this Government. In my judgment the bills that are pending here to regulate commerce in pure food when it is admitted to be healthful are wholly unconstitutional. We have the power to prevent the transportation of deleterious articles, because the Supreme Court says that they are not properly subjects of commerce; but when an article is admitted to be wholesome this Government has no police power over it. That has never been delegated by the States, in my judgment, to the National Government.

Mr. MANN. I would suggest that the jurisdiction of Congress on this subject does not depend upon the police power at all. The jurisdiction as claimed relates simply to the question of regulating com

merce between the States.

Mr. COOMBS. Do you not think the Federal police power is exercised in the execution of the revenue laws of the Government?

Mr. MILLER. Yes, sir; but it can not be done directly, hence they do it indirectly. I would refer the committee to the case of Leisy . Hardy, which went from Iowa to the Supreme Court the Original Package Decision. I do not care, however, to discuss the decision, because my time is too limited.

Mr. RICHARDSON. I am disposed to believe that we ought not to have too much legislation on a subject of this kind. You are going to prevent under this bill the sale of obnoxious articles; do you think the mere labeling of them and condemnation by the Government will stop it without any punishment or prohibition? How do you explain that? Mr. MILLER. Upon that question I say this: This bill prevents the transportation of deleterious articles. The penalty for it is the confiscation of the merchandise. When a carload of goods is taken charge of by United States inspectors the press at once announces it. I say that there is no penalty that you can apply that is more damaging to a business reputation than that announcement.

Mr. RICHARDSON. Let me tell you what my observation about that is. In my section of the country we have moonshiners, and they make illicit whisky. Those men are frequently caught by the Government officers. The fact of arresting them and punishing them does not stop them; they believe as long as corn is planted and grown they have a right to convert that into liquid, just as they have a right to use their potatoes and other products. Those moonshiners are frequently punished, but the mere fact of punishing them does not stop that business. Would it not operate the same in your case?

Mr. MILLER. I think not.

Mr. RICHARDSON. Why not? I want to prohibit the sale of deleterious foods.

Mr. ADAMSON. Do you not think that the best thing the Federal Government could do would be to confine its efforts to an investigation; that any bureau it might establish having to do with this question should operate in an advisory or educational capacity, making it purely instructory, and leave the more stringent applications and regulations, of those things to local authorities?

Mr. MILLER. I probably had better take the questions in order.
In answer to the question of Congressman Richardson I say this:
That the persons to whom he refers are probably a lot of fellows in
the mountains who have no reputation to protect.

Mr. ADAMSON. Their output is better than the regular article
Mr. MANN. They have no business reputation.

Mr. RICHARDSON. No; you are mistaken about that. Some of them are good men, and they think it is an inalienable right that they have to convert their corn into liquid, and instead of carrying a wagonload of corn 20 miles to the railroad they will convert it into whisky, about 20 loads of corn to the barrel; and I am in sympathy with them. Mr. MILLER. Yes; they have the defense that their article is pure. The revenue tax is the thing which induces the fraud. I would repeal it. Mr. RICHARDSON. There is no doubt about that.