STATEMENT OF MR. ORVILLE D. LA DOW, NEW YORK CITY, N. Y. Mr. LA Dow. I have but one word to say. It seems to me that this whole thing resolves itself into three parts: First, the good intent of the manufacturers; second, phraseology of the proposed act; and, third, the continuance of the sanity that now rules in the Chemical Bureau and Department of Agriculture. I want to say just one word on behalf of the Calumet Baking Powder Co., of Chicago, in explanation of the statement made yesterday by Mr. Newman, in which he referred to automatic machinery, because my explanation may help you to so adjust the language of the bill so as to protect the interests of the commercial producers. The CHAIRMAN. That is the object of the bill, absolutely. That is what we want to do. Mr. LA Dow. Baking powder consists of three classes; some is more granular than others. All baking powder companies-large companies, of course-use automatic machinery in filling their cans. Every can is filled just as full as it can possibly hold, by machinery; but in the case of baking powder of a granular character, it will, of course, occupy more bulk when in a light and fluffy condition, because, on account of the granulations, there are larger voids between the particles than in baking powders of a different class. Now, then; that, of course, relates to and affects the bulk of the powder. We put, just as much powder into our cans as possible. In the shipment, however, of that can of baking powder from Chicago to Texas it is shaken down, so that when it gets to Texas it doesn't appear to have as much powder in it as before, and yet not one particle has been removed, and there is just as large a quantity when it reaches Texas as when it was originally filled, only it has been packed down by reason of transit conditions; and I would like to have that feature considered when you finally draft the bill. The CHAIRMAN. Have you any suggestion as to how to overcome that? Mr. LA Dow. It is my opinion that Mr. Lannen's suggestion. bringing into issue the good intent of the manufacturer, is all that is necessary. We are with you, body and soul, in the purpose of this bill-to prevent fraud. We are down on every type of deception. That is all I have to say. Mr. HORIGAN. Mr. Chairman. I understood you to say that we would have the department's permission to present the legal views of the department with regard to the element of intent introduced by Mr. Lannen's amendment. I anticipated yesterday that Mr. Lannen would introduce that, and I took it up with the solicitor and he was of the opinion that it would practically nullify the law, and he asked me to submit these views to the committee-his opinion on specific intent. The CHAIRMAN. What would be a satisfactory time to discuss the matter before the committee? Mr. LANNEN. Mr. Chairman. I am busy to-morrow. I will be here until Thursday. The CHAIRMAN. Would it be convenient to meet this afternoon? Mr. LANNEN. I would have to fall back on what is in my head. I haven't given the subject any study. Whereupon, at 113) ecock a r., the conamittee adjourned, to PROCTERE at 14 o'cock a. m. Thavay morning, October 30, 2929.) |