Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

ourselves. According to the best attainable estimate, two per cent. of this or one hundred million dollars is worthless stuff unsuitable for human food, of which ten per cent. or ten million dollars' worth is poisonous and destructive of life and health. Dr. Lattimore, analyst of the New York State Board of Health said that of 376 articles of diet in common use in every houshold, 255, or more than twothirds, were adulterated. These figures are only approximate, but they are sufficiently accurate to convey to the mind some idea of the enormous waste, the deceit, the fraud, the plunder, and I have said, the murder that are masquerading in this country in the disguise and in the name of commerce in food products, to say nothing of the appalling consequence to the morals of our people.

What I have said of food products is equally applicable to the drugs and medicines whose curative properties are our iast dependence when disease lays us on beds of suffering. In how many draughts and lotions administered by loving hands to bring back to health the smitten of one of the family, death itself lurked, no man knoweth. But we know enough to be on our guard and to make us sometimes reluctant to administer the prescriptions of the best physicians, and almost enough to justify us in believing the statement I read the other day of an occurrence which may serve to illustrate the subject. I disclaim any purpose to reflect upon the doctors for they are both noble and necessary. A doctor ordered some medicine for a sick boy and the father not liking the appearance of it forced it down the cat's throat. When the doctor called and inquired if the powder had cured the boy the father replied: "No, we did not give it to him." "Good heaven," said the doctor, "is the child living?"" "Yes, he is, but the cat ain't; we gave it to her." The doctor retired. (Applause.) This may be only an anecdote but it points the moral of our situation. No class have more at stake in the crusade against the adulterations of food and drugs than the physicians, for in the degree in which we become sensible of the deleterious character of drug adulteration will the profession of medicine be discredited, and unless we can cure this malady which has infected our laboratories as well as our mills, manufactories, and the whole commerce of our country, the profession of medicine will fall into as bad repute as when, in the time recorded in the book of Chronicles, King Asa sickened and died. In his sickness, says the book, he sought not the Lord but the physicians, and Asa slept with his fathers. (Applause.)

Now let me weary you with a few details for the sake of a more distinct view of the nature and extent of the adulterations of which the people complain. In doing so, I borrow from a body of facts with which all who have studied the subject are familiar. I will only give you a few instances as illustrations of many which could easily be produced. Many a housewife if she were a chemist and had the requisite facilities could demonstrate how much of falsehood and deceit are represented in her pantry; wheat flour containing peas, ground rice and soapstone; olive oil made largely of cotton seed. Sago is potato starch. Vermicelli is poor flour whitened with pipe clay. Powdered sugar is glucose, flour, clay and sand. Butter, supposed to be made from the pure nectar of the cow is largely the fat of the cow. The pure refined family lard is quite likely to be tallow and cotton seed oil. Black pepper may be mustard husks, sand, bran and red clay. Allspice contains cracker dust and corn meal. The mustard is flour and cayenne pepper. The latter may be rice flour and red lead. Cream of tartar is strongly tinctured with phosphoric acid, and so on. These are but sample instances but they afford an indication of adulterations, frauds and impositions, which ought to bring the blush of shame to every honest American'face.

Now it is easily seen that this execrable business wrongs the people who are its victims in many ways. It goes without saying that the greater part of this is non-injurious adulteration so far as health is concerned and this I am sure is cause for congratulation, but that affords no palliation for the fraud and imposition upon the people's rights. Every person has a right to know what he is eating and drinking in a sense quite different from that of Artemus Ward when he said, he "liked to eat hash

because then he knew what he was eating.' That it cheapens food is no justification as long as it cheats the consumer. I may well eat corn meal if I wish to, but I am not to be compelled to eat it against my will by having it put surreptitiously into my flour. If a combination of wheat flour and corn meal is marketed under that designation and consumers buy it and eat it with knowledge, there can be no complaint, and so throughout the whole range of manufactured foods. The motive which leads to adulteration is to cheapen commodities so that the producer can undersell his neighbor who produces honest goods. This business motive, however, does not wash the transaction. It is still foul with the odor of fraud. If you make lard out of tallow and cotton seed oil and sell it as compound lard using as a trade mark the picture of a hog's head on every package, it is not honest. An upright purpose would suggest as the least possible homage that the manufacturer could pay to commercial integrity would be the picture of a bull's head and a cotton plant on the packages to indicate the ingredients compounded. To send this compound out on white wings sanctified with the hog's head and christened "Refined Lard," "Pure Refined Lard," "Choice Family Lard," cannot be justified and moreover it shows what gentle shapes deceit will steal to practice under. Little wonder it suggested to a wag in an English police court the conumdrum, "When is lard not lard?" "When it is refined." (Applause.)

That people can do such things and look into their neighbor's countenances without a downcast eye and a shamed face shows the virulency of the moral poison and the extent of its diffusion in the commercial community. But this is only one illustration. There are hundreds of others, among which may be mentioned the pious merchant who called downstairs to his clerk to hurry up and sand the sugar and come to prayers. Still another comes to my mind given by Prof. Perry in his political economy. The Professor said to a cotton manufacturer, "What are running now?" "Oh, these knit goods," he replied. "I thought you worked cotton," said the Professor. "I do," said the thrifty manufacturer."But", said the Professor, "are not knit goods woolen?" "Oh", said the good man, "we put the figure of a sheep on every piece we make, but every fibre of it is cotton."

you

Then the vicious practice is contagious. One man does it because others do, for the rivalries of business must be conducted on a common level. Many would rather not do it but are under compulsion to do it or quit business. They are praying for law to rescue them from a situaion which is abhorrent to their sense of commercial integrity. They would like to do better, but cannot afford to lose money in business. Their moral standard is as high as that of the Presidential candidate who said he would like to have the Lord on his side, but he must have the State of Kentucky. (Applause.)

They would relieve themselves if they could, but they are in the situation of the barbers in Baltimore some time back. They did not wish to shave on Sunday, but some would and others had to, so they raised a fund of $700 to secure an ordinance compelling themselves to do what they wished themselves to do, but could not without the compulsion of the law. But there is a consideration which makes this wrong seem more flagitious than it otherwise would. The fraud bears most heavily upon the poor working people whose necessities compel them to buy cheap food and who are without the means or knowledge which would enable them to protect themselves to some extent. Then to what extent our export trade has suffered from the discredit cast upon our food products, no man can know. Prosecutions in Europe of tradesmen for selling adulterated American products cannot fail to cast suspicion upon every American product subject at all to adulteration.

Another class who can ill-afford it these times are injured. I refer to the farming classes. Any fraud that lessens the profits of the farmer is a greater fraud on that account. Adulteration of food products results in the cheapening of the products of the farm and every farmer should be engaged in this crusade against a system of commercial piracy which thus robs both producer and consumer and may well be denominated the common enemy of all mankind, the scourge of all.

Tow it is believed, and there is every warrant for the belief that the only remedy for these ills lies in federal legislation. Many of the states have striven to mitigate the evil through state laws and in a measure have been successful, but as a remedy commensurate with the evil these fugitive efforts have been abortive because of the condition of federal law relating to interstate commerce.

We propose a federal law whose remedial effect will be commensurate with the evil. The bill which will com before this Congress for consideration is a rough draft of what we deem necessary to meet the situation. You will no doubt find amendments necessary to perfect the measure so as to conform to the views of the best informed on the subject. We will be glad to have you thoroughly overhaul it and make it what it ought to be. It is not my purpose to discuss at this time any of the legal or constitutional questions which the bill may suggest. Any criticism on that line will be met when they are made. It is your purpose I have no doubt-I know it is your duty-to make the measure as satisfactory to diverse views as you can, and to lend your presence here and your exertions when you return to your homes to the creation of a body of sentiment in the United States which will uphold the effort which will be made in Congress to enact into law this much needed measure.

Now my friends, in conclusion, let me ask you what public question surpasses this one in importance to the American people? I am very sure if we could know the magnitude of this piratical business, the extent to which we are plundered by these commercial frauds, and how they undermine the health and corrupt the commercial morals of the American people we would rise as one man and with united acclaim demand of Congress legislation for our common protection. This is a duty which lies before us and commands us. We must cleanse our dwelling and remove the filth from our premises lest infection steal upon us and take away our children. There is no time to be lost, yet how many are indifferent. They are waiting for others to do the work. They are like the philosopher who when told that his house was on fire calmly replied, "Go tell my wife. I never meddle with domestic affairs." It is our work, my friends, it is the work of all. (Applause.)

In the name of honesty, honor and health is it not time this nation was doing something to put commercial piracy under the ban of the law, something to suppress dishonest traffic, something to protect honest trade from commercial brigands and secure our population from the perils of adulterated and poisoned food and drink.

I know the American people if they had an opportunity would give an affirmative answer to this inquiry with spontaneous, enthusiastic and united acclaim; for they believe that every act of legislation that strikes down a wrong, every law that stabs to the heart a rooted vice, or overthrows a seated iniquity which tarnishes the fair name and dims the glory of our people visibly advances the national millenium in which we will be liveried in the white and seamless robe of commercial integrity and national honor. (Applause.)

A vote of thanks was tendered Mr. Brosius for his able and interestin address.

The chairman announced that a letter had been received from Hon. Wm. P. Hepburn, of lowa, saying that he had an engagement to go with his Committee to Philadelphia, which prevented his attendance.

Chairman Brigham then introduced Hon. Aaron Jones, of Indiana, Master of the National Grange, who spoke as follows:

MR. JONES' ADDRESS.

Mr. Chairman, and Gentlemen of the Convention: It is not my purpose to detain you with any extended remarks. I appear before you representing the agricultural interests of the United States as represented by our National Organization. I deem it entirely unnecessary for a body of men so thoroughly versed in the purpose of this Convention that any argument should be made as to why you are here. The necessity of leg

islation looking to the purification of our focds and medicines is the reason for our having come all the way from the Hoosier State. We were aware that we were being greatly imposed upon by the food adulterators of this country. What I came here for was to start an influence that would stiffen the backbone of the weak members of Congress when a measure like this came up for them to vote upon. I want them to understand that the farmers of the United States of America demand of their servants, the members of Congress, that protection to which they have a right, so that when they go into the grocery, or when they buy anything and pay money for it, it shall be what it is represented to be. We have been unable so far to accomplish anything in the way of legislation. Of the 30,000,000 farmers of the United States, 29,999,985 of them are in favor of the pure food bill, the other 15 do not know exactly what they do want. They are practically unanimous. What I am here to say to the members of this Congress is, that I am ready to join with you in helping to create a sentiment throughout this country that will sustain the National Congress in the passage of the pure food measure, That is what I came down here to tell you. I came here with the purpose of formulating a plan to secure this legislation, and then I shall go home and do the hard work that is necessary to popularize the idea and so create a sentiment that the American Congress cannot do otherwise then pass this bill. Bless your dear souls, these Congressmen have got to face their constituents next November, and we will call them to account if they do not do what is right in the way of giving us some pure food legislation and protecting the interests of the people of this country, and the honest farmer in the products of his farm. If the members of Congress cannot find time to do something for us in this connection, why we have not got time to cast our votes. I do not think it is necessary to make a long argument here, because we are all friends, but I want the member who represents me in the Congress of the United States, I want him, when the opportunity comes, to vote to help increase the value of the few acres of land that I have in Indiana, so that I can come down to Washington and stop at the National Hotel, and enjoy a good meal once in a while. That is why I voted for him. We farmers want the articles to come back to us just as pure as when they went from our farms, and we must have some legislation along this line that will do this. That is why we are here. It is absolutely unnecessary for me to go into an argument of this kind. I am not going to do it. I simply want to tell you, on behalf of the farmers of the United States of America, that we are going to have some legislation that will give us pure food. If we do not succeed now, we will elect a Congress that will give us a law that will provide that whatever we buy shall be pure and what it is represented to he, whether it be in the medicine shop or elsewhere in the open market.

The Chairman then announced Mr. J. Fannin O'Reilly, as the next speaker, and the Secretary stated that Mr. O'Reilly had been unable to attend, but sent a paper which, on motion, was ordered to be printed with the proceedings. (This paper will be found in Appendix.)

Mr. D. W. Wilson, secretary of Elgin Board of Trade was the next speaker on the program, but the following telegram was read:

“Business engagement prevents my attendance. Express to convention my sympathy with movement."

It was decided that the state delegations confer and name to the Secretary une person from each state to serve on each of the following committees: Credentials, Order of Business, and Permanent Organization. After a short intermission, the Committees were announced as follows.

COMMITTEE ON CREDENTIALS.

Connecticut, John B. Noble, Dairy Commissioner; District of Columbia, Matthew Trimble; Iowa, Eugene Secor; Illinois, H. L. Hampton; Indiana, W. J. Banks; Kentucky, Dr. R. W. Taylor; Massachusetts, George Close; Michigan, John R. Bennett: Missouri, C. C. Bell; Maryland, Jordan Stabler; North Carolina, J. C. L. Harris; New Jersey, Franklin Dye; New

York, Dr. Wm. McMurtrie; New Hampshire, William J. Reed; Ohio, Orrin Thacker; Pennsylvania, Leonard Rhone; South Carolina, A. C. Latimer; Tennessee, J. T. Essary; Virginia, Dr. M. E. Church; West Virginia, John H. Grimm; Wisconsin, Jesse Birmingham.

COMMITTEE ON ORDER OF BUSINESS.

Connecticut, Henry M. Bishop; California, E. M. Wardell; District of Columbia, Dr. A. C. True; Florida, J. W. Trammel; Georgia, E. W. Allen; Illinois, H. H. Green; Indiana, J. H. Holmes; Kentucky, R. B. Gilbert; Massachusetts, Henry E. Alvord; Michigan, H. W. Campbell; Missouri, C. C. Bell; Maryland, I. B. Ager; North Carolina, W. A. Withers; New Jersey, Prof. E. B. Voorhees; New York, Dr. E. A. Day; New Hampshire, George T. Underhill; Ohio, J. E. Blackburn; Pennsylvania, Henry C. Porter; South Carolina, A. C. Latimer; Tennessee, Chas. Hite Smith; Virginia, Prof. Miller; West Virginia, L. L. Loar; Wisconsin, Win. Larsen. COMMITTEE ON ORGANIZATION.

Connecticut, Robert O. Eaton; California, C. A. Barlow; District of Columbia, W. S. Thompson; Florida, J. W. Trammell; Iowa, Eugene Secor; Illinois, Dr. T. N. Jamieson; Indiana, Aaron Jones; Massachusetts, Henry D. Perky: Michigan, Elliot O. Grosvenor; Missouri, Emerson T. Abbott: Maryland, A. E. Thompson; North Carolina, Col. A. Q. Holliday; New Jersey, Franklin Dye; New York, Geo. F. Flanders; New Ilampshire, N. J. Batchelder; Ohio, Fred. Herbst; Pennsylvania, Thos. J. Edge; South Carolina, J. C. Latimer; Tennessee, S. J. Camp; Virginia, Prof. Mallet; West Virginia, John L. Ruhl; Wisconsin, A. H. Hollister.

The Congress then adjourned its business session until 10 o'clock Thursday morning, the evening being given up to a joint meeting with the Washington Chemical Society, at which session, Prof. J. W. Bigelow, retiring president of the Washington Chemical Society, delivered an interesting address which can be found in the appendix.

SECOND DAY, THURSDAY, MARCH 3d, 1898, MORNING SESSION. President Blackburn announced that the Congress would be addressed by D. H. W. Wiley, Chemist of the Department of Agriculture.

Dr. Wiley spoke as follows:

ADDRESS OF DR. H. W. WILEY.

Mr. President, and Gentlemen: I am sure you are very much more anxious to complete the organization of this body than to listen to any more addresses. I think the gentleman in the audience voiced the sentiment of the body yesterday in objecting to any further speeches. I will not, therefore, occupy a great deal of your time on this occasion. I think, however, that it is due to the bill which is to be discussed here, and to the people who have come from so great a distance, to place before you another aspect of the food adulteration question. You heard yesterday the expressions of the legislator and of the Master of the National Grange, and of others from their point of view. It will be my object, this morning, to express the sentiments or attitude of those who look at this question from a purely scientific point of view. What I shall have to say to you in relation to this subject will be not from a technical, but a chemical point of view. Right at the start I may say there is an exaggerated idea in regard to food adulteration. We heard it stated that perhaps almost every article in the pantry, every article of food that goes to our table is adulterated. That is true in one sense. There is scarcely any article of food or drug which has not been adulterated, but if you gather from that that every single article of food you live upon is adulterated, it is erroneous. If you look over the reports of the chemists in regard to the adulteration of food, you will find in most instances that of the whole number of substances examined, 25 to 30 % are adulterated. It is not fair to assume that 25 or 30 % of all the substances are adulterated. It is only in the doubtful ones examined that this large percentage of food adulteration is found. Take, for example, ordinary wheat flour. There

« ForrigeFortsett »