production of loaves of uniform weight, has prevented the price being advanced in the old-fashioned way by reduction of the weight without the knowledge of consumers, and has otherwise been a potent force in keeping the price within reasonable limits.

Yours respectfully,

༣་

GEO. M. ROBERTS,

Superintendent Weights, Measures, and Markets, District of Columbia.

[Telegrams]

COLUMBUS, OHIO, May 26, 1926

CHARLES BRAND,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.:

Eight and nine cents for 16-ounce loaf. Twelve cents for 24-ounce are prevailing prices. CHAS. V. TRUAX, Director of Agriculture.

BUREAU OF STANDARDS,

Washington, D. C.:

NEW YORK CITY, May 28, 1926.

Average price average 13-ounce now 9 cents. Average price average 20ounce now 12 cents.

Jos. P. MCKAY,

Commissioner Mayor's Bureau Weights and Measures, New York City. STATEMENT OF ELWOOD M. RABENOLD, REPRESENTING THE PUBLIC RELATIONS COMMITTEE OF THE AMERICAN BAKERS ASSOCIATION

Mr. RABENOLD. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, my name is Elwood M. Rabenold, and I am appearing here on behalf of the public relations committee of the American Bakers' Association. The president of that association, Mr. L. J. Shoemaker, of Philadelphia, is with me in the room.

Mr. RUBEY. Is that an association of the bakers themselves? It does not belong to any public organization, does it?

Mr. RABENOLD. It is a committee of the national association known as the American Bakers' Association, which includes in its membership, I dare say, most of the large distributors of bread, and they are the only people who are at all affected by any interstate commerce regulation, such as is proposed here.

Mr. ASWELL. Was it your people who offered to make Mr. Brand Governor of Ohio?

Mr. RABENOLD. I had to smile a bit at that, but my answer is no. This is the first I ever heard of it. It might have been a little tempting to us, possibly to do it, if we had had the power, because we would have avoided the introduction of this bill that is before you.

Mr. ASWELL. Do they have enough control in Ohio to make any man governor?

Mr. RABENOLD. I should not think so. Mr. Brand said something about the opponents of this bill being the big bakers, and that, I dare say, would include me. It certainly tempts me to read an editorial from the Lorain (Ohio) Journal, of Tuesday, March 9, 1926, which is entitled," Brand, Bread and Bunk."

Mr. ASWELL. Read it.

Mr. RABENOLD. It would take up time that I would rather give to a review of the sumptuary character of this proposed legislation. Mr. TINCHER. Can you insert it in the record, or will you insert it in the record?

Mr. RABENOLD. Yes, sir. The title, I think, is more pungent than the thought expressed in the editorial. It is a review of the Ohio situation in this bread-weight legislation.

The CHAIRMAN. What is it about? Is it an attack on somebody? Mr. RABENOLD. It attacks the theory of government that would interpose itself in a way to increase the cost of a staple of life. Mr. RUBEY. What is the date of it?

Mr. RABENOLD. March 9, 1926.

Mr. THOMPSON. I would prefer to have it read.

Mr. AswELL. I ask unanimous consent that it be put in the record. Mr. FULMER. I object.

Mr. ASWELL. Go ahead, and I will not bother you again.

Mr. FULMER. If it is an attack on somebody by some newspaper, I think it should not go into the record.

Mr. KINCHELOE. As I understand it, it deals with this proposed legislation.

Mr. RABENOLD. I would not refer to it if it were a personal attack. It attacks the principle of government that would impose a tax in the form of this kind of legislation.

Mr. ANDRESEN. You do not consider this a tax, do you?

Mr. RABENOLD. It is in the form of a tax on consumers, and I will try to demonstrate that proposition very quickly. The arguments that have been adduced here possibly give me sufficient ground to place before you just the basic considerations. I am fully conscious of the fact that I was one of the witnesses at the so-called large hearings, and I do not wish to repeat at any length considerations that we have already stressed before the committee; but it is possible that new things have come out in the discussion here by members of this committee. Mr. Brand, being pressed, as you will recall, by one of the members as to what the affirmative reason could be for legislation of this kind, finally said that he thought that 16 ounces of bread could be given to the consumer for the same price that was being paid to-day for 14 ounces.

That is his argument, and he claims that about $100,000,000 is being extracted somehow from the public by pinching off the weight of bread. Of course, the whole thing is based upon an economic fallacy, which, I dare say, is quite obvious. Nobody in this world has ever in the end gotten anything for nothing. If anyone, whether in legislative circles or industrial circles, believes that 16 ounces of bread, in the last analysis, in Ohio or anywhere else, can be purchased over any period of time for the same price that is paid for 14 ounces, I know, and I am sure that every member of this committee knows, that it just is not so. The laws of demand and supply and of economics are inexorable, and they do not work that way. I did not expect to spend any time on that, except to comment on the fact that that is the only argument, fallacious as it is, that can be adduced in support of legislation of this kind, because, after all, what is it that is involved here? Here is an industry, and a basic industry.

This is the baking industry of this country, which has been here since human beings have been here. It is larger and growing larger on the commercial side, because of the multiplication of the population, and the necessity of relieving the housewife from the drudgery of home baking. The moment she could find a palatable loaf that she felt could compete at all with the home product of her kitchen, the development of this industry was inevitable. Here is an industry that has had to keep pace with the demands for the emancipation of the housewife from the drudgery and toil of home baking. One of the largest social contributions that could be made to-day would be to transfer the housewife from the ordinary humdrum and drudgery of the household and give her a little more chance to attend to the education of her children, and to provide nutritious food for the family, as well as to give her an enlarged opportunity for intellectual development to meet the responsibilities of citizenship, now that she does take part in the administration of the government and public affairs through suffrage. Now, the baker has done that; but he could not have done that without meeting the competition of the housewife in producing something that could compete with the product of the kitchen. That is something that they had to keep always in the forefront.

Now, was that done by giving the largest possible quantity of bread for a given price? Not at all. That was accomplished by giving the housewife the highest possible quality of bread. Now, I have emphasized this before; but I say it again because we regard this as an essential thing: This legislation has a distinct objection in that it tends to pull down the quality of the loaf by insistence upon an artificial unit of quantity. There can not be any affirmative reason for emphasizing quantity, when quantity is but one of the smaller ingredients in determining price. A small loaf of bread, of good nutritional quality, is vastly cheaper than a larger loaf of bread of poor quality. The housewife to-day does not buy quantity, but she buys quality. She does not buy a loaf of bread as a mere cubical content unit. She buys nutrition. She buys something that, in her opinion, is going to feed the family. It is simply a matter of gorging their stomachs, when quantity alone is considered; but the important matter is to build up their nerves, tissue, muscle, and bone structure. The housewife is insisting upon nutrition. Now, those who urge legislation of this kind are emphasizing quantity upon some false idea that that is going to give the purchaser more for his money. In that you are detracting from, or losing sight of, the essential thing to be remembered, namely, what is it, and not how much. The important thing is, what is it that you are selling, and not merely how much. I myself would urge that, instead of legislating like this, we should lay more stress upon the pure food and drugs act, which to-day requires representation as to weight. Beyond that, there should be required representation of contents of nutritive value. There should be a representation of what is in the loaf of bread and not simply of how much it weighs.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you contend that the short-weight loaf is more palatable?

Mr. RABENOLD. I do not recognize such a thing as a short-weight loaf.

The CHAIRMAN. My understanding is that this bill requires a standard weight for a loaf of bread. Now, with reference to the price of bread, tell us what the fluctuations have been in the price of bread during the last few years.

Mr. RABENOLD. The fluctuations have been very violent in some sections of the country.

The CHAIRMAN. About what has it been?

Mr. RABENOLD. In some sections they run to 2 cents. That is a wide fluctuation.

Mr. ADKINS. Since January 1?

Mr. RABENOLD. Not since January 1. I think the price has not changed much since then.

The CHAIRMAN. What is the price of a pound loaf of bread to the consumer?

Mr. RABENOLD. From 10 to 12 cents.

The CHAIRMAN. It fluctuates as much as 2 cents?

Mr. RABENOLD. Yes, sir; in different sections of the country. That is largely a matter of transportation, and it is largely a matter of the custom of the trade with respect to quantity, because a 12-cent loaf may be a pound loaf and a 10-cent loaf may be a 14-ounce loaf.

The CHAIRMAN. A 2-cent fluctuation in a pound of bread is not comparable at all to the fluctuations in the price of the wheat that enters into it.

Mr. RABENOLD. Not if that were the only cost factor entering into the loaf.

The CHAIRMAN. Another factor is transportation.

Mr. RABENOLD. Yes, sir. At Scranton and Wilkes-Barre, for instance, they have a labor condition that enters very largely into the cost of the loaf, which compels them to charge a higher price for the same quantity of bread and the same quality of bread. They have a higher price than obtains in New York City and Philadelphia. The CHAIRMAN. Is it your contention that a loaf of bread of full weight is less in quality than a short-weight loaf?

Mr. RABENOLD. Weight does not determine quality.

The CHAIRMAN. That is something I want to get cleared up. Mr. RABENOLD. As I said, simply to illustrate the artificial character of weight as a factor, the smaller loaf may be the cheaper loaf. The CHAIRMAN. The question of weight is not an artificial one. That should be a question of complying with the law.

Mr. RABENOLD. If that were the law, it would be a question of compliance with the law, but we are talking about a new law that would fix the weight at 16 ounces.

The CHAIRMAN. Of course, they should not advertise to sell a pound loaf and sell a loaf containing only 14 ounces.

Mr. RABENOLD. No, sir; not at all; and there is not a State in this country that does not have honest weight laws; so that if a baker represents the weight of his loaf as 16 ounces, he can not sell that loaf if it weighs only 14 ounces without violating the law. There is not a State in the Union that does not label that as criminal.

Mr. TINCHER. Is it the purpose of the bill to protect the purchaser from purchasing something that he does not get, or does the bill compel the baker to bake bread in loaves of certain sizes if he puts the bread into interstate commerce?

Mr. RABENOLD. Yes, sir. It really compels the consumer to buy a loaf of bread that he may not want, because in many sections of the country, or in the larger metropolitan sections of the country, the consumer does not want a pound loaf. I say that only after investigation. The apartment house dwellers say that a pound or a pound and a half loaf is a larger unit of bread than they will consume at any one meal or even at two meals. We found in New York City, if I may use this as an illustration, that a large part of the population during the war, when there was a requirement of the pound loaf, agitated for a 14-ounce and even for a 12-ounce loaf, simply because the pound loaf was a larger unit than could be readily disposed of within the short time that they say a loaf remains fresh. Therefore, this is a sumptuary provision which would compel by law not only the manner of manufacture but of the consumption of bread, or the purchase and consumption of bread in larger units than most people to-day are, in fact, buying it. That is something that is determined, I should say, by custom and by living conditions, which throughout this country vary as widely as individual appetites. We can not quite see, or we can not quite grasp, the theory of government that would go to the extent of pressing standardization, or the fetish of standardization, to the extent of revolutionizing, as would be the case in most sections of the country, of processes that have gone on for centuries in creating the type and unit of weight of bread in conformity with the popular desire. It would be revolutionizing, or attempting to revolutionize, those processes upon some theory that the public, as Mr. Brand says, should want a 16-ounce loaf of bread.

Mr. JONES. I believe the bill provides for a half-pound loaf.

Mr. RABENOLD. Nobody wants a half-pound loaf. There is no such thing to-day. There is not anywhere in this country a halfpound loaf of bread baked, and there never will be, we think.

Mr. JONES. Do you have trouble in places where they have a law similar to this, with reference to the size of the loaf?

Mr. RABENOLD. I can only say that there are reports that come to me personally from the so-called small bakers to the effect that this law was put over by the big bakers that Mr. Brand has been excoriating. Of course, Mr. Brand will have testimony on the other side, and there you are. We would not get anywhere, because he could call on certain bakers, and, I dare say, I could call on others. Mr. BRAND. May I answer that?

Mr. ASWELL. I do not think you should

Mr. KINCHELOE (interposing). You should not take it out of his time.

Mr. RABENOLD. There is quite a protest in some circles, and our point is that this question should not be determined by what the bakers want or by what the bakers do not want. I think that your committee should determine this; first, with some regard to the proper theory of governmental interposition not only in the business of production but in consumption. Then, second, assuming that the Federal Government should extend its regulatory arm into a field of this kind, where it never has yet intruded, what affirmative reasons are there for it? They can hardly be stated. I have named the only one that has been expressed here. Now, is that a sound reason? Is