pretty well started in the manufacture of baking powder, the Royal Baking Powder Company published a double-column 8-inch advertisement, complaining against his goods, without any signature. Mr. Latchem then went to the newspaper office and wanted to advertise, but was politely told that they could not accept an advertisement; that they were bound by contract not to accept any other advertisement from a baking-powder manufacturer. The Royal Baking Powder Company does not spend a dollar in Indiana, except for one representative, while Mr. Latchem's firm employs 40 people, including 5 men on the road. (Senate committee, 29, 30.) Mr. THOMPSON thinks the Royal Baking Powder Company has done everything it can, fair or unfair, to down its competitors. It pays so much for advertisements and reading matter that it has practically a subsidized press. It publishes not only ordinary advertisements, but reading matter without any signature, for which double rates are paid, and which delude the public into thinking that the newspaper is working for the benefit of the public health. The company also has written letters to ladies who have been using Mr. Thompson's baking powder, stating that it was an alum baking powder. Mr. Thompson says his baking powder is an acid phosphate baking powder, but of course has alum in it. (Senate Committee, 28, 29.) The Richmond Chamber of Commerce expresses the opinion that one of the chief sources of prejudice against alum baking powder is the system of "blind advertising" inaugurated years ago by the Royal Baking Powder Company, by which articles attacking alum baking powder are published as news matter, appearing as the unbiased opinions of the newspaper, while they are in fact paid advertisements. In this connection was submitted the facsimile of a proposed contract between the Royal Baking Powder Company and the Journal-Tribune, of Knoxville, Tenn., providing that articles to be furnished by the Royal Baking Powder Company should be published as pure straight reading-set in the same size and style of type and with the same style of heading as the pure reading adjoining to be surrounded by pure reading and without date, mark, or anything to designate them as paid matter." The Chamber of Commerce states that newspapers are beginning to refuse to make such contracts. (Pamphlet issued by Chamber of Commerce.) 66 The memorial of the American Baking Powder Association declares that the Royal Baking Powder Company, in its efforts to increase its business, has resorted to "gradual and persistent deception of the public by false and libelous statements, covertly inserted as reading matter in newspapers, declaring alum baking powder to be poisonous, detrimental to health, and a wholly unworthy product, and the utilization of the public prejudice which is created by its own false statements to enact legislation prohibiting the manufacture and sale of alum baking powders." It is also asserted that this company inserts clauses in its advertising contracts which prevent papers that have its advertisements from inserting any matter contradictory to its statements or detrimental to its interests. It is asserted that these contracts provide for the publication of pure reading matter. In illustration of the Royal Baking Powder's advertising methods, the memorial presents the following, which is said to represent a type of advertisement that is widely distributed: [From the Commercial-Appeal, Memphis, Tenn., January 2, 1900.] SAID TO BE ALUM POISONING-SERIOUS CASE OF ILLNESS REPORTED FROM THE USE OF IMPURE BAKING POWDER. [Johnstown, Pa., Tribune.] The poisoning of the Thoma family, of Thomas Mill, Somerset County, four members of which were reported to have been made dangerously ill by impure baking powder used in making buckwheat cakes, has been further investigated. The original can, with the remainder of the baking powder left over after mixing the cakes, was secured by Dr. Critchfield. The powder had been bought at a neighboring country store, and was one of the low-priced brands. Dr. Critchfield said that the patients had the symptoms of alum poisoning. As the same kind of baking powder is sold in many city groceries as well as country stores, Dr. Critchfield thought it important that a chemical examination should be made to determine its ingredients. He therefore transferred the package of powder to Dr. Schill, of this city, for analysis. Dr. Schill's report is as follows: "I certify that I have examined chemically the sample of ** * baking powder forwarded to me by Dr. Critchfield. The specimen contained alum. "Dr. FRANCIS SCHILL, Jr., Analyst." Alum is used in the manufacture of the lower-priced baking powders. It is a mineral poison, and for this reason the sale of baking powders containing it is in many cities prohibited. Several quotations from other papers are given in which this case of alleged poisoning by alum baking powder is referred to upon the authority of the Johnstown Tribune. All of them are alleged to be paid advertisements of the Royal Baking Powder Company. The following affidavits are offered, together with others of similar nature, in proof of the falsity of the statements made in these advertisements and of the deliberate manufacture of false statements and the procurement of their publication by the agents of the Royal Baking Powder Company: Personally appeared before me J. B. Critchfield, who deposes and says as follows: The statements and advertisements of the Royal Baking Powder Company that I stated that they (the Thomas family) were poisoned by alum in baking powder is false. I never made any such statement. Mr. La Fetra, the agent of the Royal Baking Powder Company, called on me and asked me if I would state that the poisoning was alum poisoning, and I told him I would not. They have in their advertisement misquoted me and have made false statements in regard to the matter, as the symptoms were arsenical poisoning and not alum. APRIL 20, 1900. J. B. CRITCHFIELD. Personally appeared before me Francis Schill, jr., who, being duly sworn, deposes and says: I, Dr. F. Schill, jr., am the physician who examined the baking powder brought to me from Dr. Critchfield by Mr. La Fetra, of the Royal Baking Powder Company, which was said to have caused the poisoning of the Thomas family. At his request I examined it for alum only, which I found it contained. He wished me to sign a statement that in my estimation alum baking powders caused symptoms such as obtained in the Thomas family. This I refused to do. He wished all mention of his name or his companies to be excluded from my statement. Not by direct implication, but by innuendo, they have placed me in a false position, leading the public to infer that I went on record as saying such alum baking powders were injurious to health and had caused the poisoning of the Thomas family. This latter I emphatically deny. Subscribed and sworn to before me this 20th day of April, 1900. [SEAL.] Dr. FRANCIS SCHILL, Jr. EDW. E. LEVERGOOD, Alderman, City of Johnstown, Cambria County, Pa. The memorial also states that Dr. Critchfield and Dr. Schill tried to have a true statement of the facts inserted in the newspapers of Johnstown, "and the papers refused to publish the same, stating that on account of a contract they had with the Royal Baking Powder Company they could publish nothing of this character for them." Among other alleged advertisements, one is taken from the Syracuse PostStandard of March 24, 1900, of which the following is a paragraph: "The Johnstown, Pa., Tribune reports four cases of poisoning near that city from the use of a baking powder which, when analyzed, was found to contain alum. Recently in New York two deaths occurred from poisoning by the use of powders sent to victims in samples." Upon this the Memorial makes the following comment: 66 The only two deaths from poisoning by powder to which this sentence applies are apparently those of Barnett and Mrs. Adams, for which Molineux was convicted. The powders alleged to have been used were kutnow and bromo seltzer. These, of course, are not baking powders." A considerable number of other examples of matter alleged to have been published in various newspapers as reading matter, by procurement of the Royal Baking Powder Company, are given. The Memorial also alludes to a house-to-house campaign against alum baking powders, which the Royal Company is said to have inaugurated. A quotation is made from the Daily Democrat, of Sherman, Tex., dated September 25, 1899, in which it is said that "M. Wemple, of New York City, representative of the National Pure Food Association," with eight women assistants, was in Sherman for the purpose of inspecting baking powders used in Sherman homes. Mr. Wemple is quoted as having made the following statement to a Democrat reporter: "The ladies will call at every house in Sherman, and, with the consent of the lady of the house, will inspect the baking powder used and show which powders contain alum and which are made of cream of tartar. We represent no bakingpowder firm nor do we use or recommend the use of any particular brand of powder. We simply desire to demonstrate which powders are pure and which are not." Affidavits of women are also presented, stating that they have been engaged in this work. One swears that she was employed by "the Pure Food Association of Iowa, or the National Pure Food Association, under the supervision of Senator Mason, of Chicago." Three others, signing one affidavit, say: Mr. Mark Wemple instructed us to use the name of Senator William E. Mason in connection with the Pure Food Commission,' in order to enable us to gain admission to houses while employed by the Royal Baking Powder Company, to condemn the use of all other baking powders.' Mr. WILLIAM T. BIGGS states in an affidavit that he was employed by the Royal Baking Powder Company at $100 a month as "manager of a demonstrating crew. He was instructed to report to Mr. Mark Wemple. Mr. Wemple told him that they did not wish the public to know that the Royal Baking Powder Company was doing this work, on account of the prejudice against trusts, and that in order to gain admittance to houses we were to have our demonstrators tell the housekeeper that We are not representing any particular brand of baking powder, but are working under the auspices of the National Pure Food Commission, of which Senator William E. Mason is chairman.' Another phase of the activity of the Royal Baking Powder Company is asserted in the Memorial to be procurement of legislation against alum baking powders. A bill was passed in Missouri prohibiting the manufacture or sale of any article that contains alum and is to be used in the prepration of food. The passage of this bill is referred to as clandestine, and it is said that none of the 31 manufacturers of alum baking powders in Missouri was given notice of any hearing, or knew of its passage until they had been legislated out of business. Similar bills were introduced in Georgia, Virginia, Mississippi, New Jersey, and New York, but were defeated as soon their character became known. Under the Missouri law a case was brought against a dealer, and it is asserted by the Memorial that each of the 10 witnesses for the prosecution testified that he appeared at the request of the Royal Baking Powder Company and that hẹ was paid for his appearance; at least two of them at $100 a day and expenses, and at least one at $50 a day and expenses. The case for the prosecution, though nominally conducted by the State, was really conducted by an able attorney of St. Louis, in the employ and pay of the Royal Baking Powder Company. “At this trial the astonishing fact was also elicited that the article on the physiological effects of hydrate of alumina, published in the Chemical News, of London, by Professor Mallet, and which has been supposed to be in every way an independent, disinterested, and purely scientific piece of work, had been undertaken at the suggestion of Mr. Hoagland, of the Royal Baking Powder Company, and paid for by that company." (Memorial, 5-23, 43-45.) The Richmond Chamber of Commerce publishes two letters from lawyers of St. Louis, Stanley Stoner and James A. Seddon, both of whom were engaged in defending the suits brought to enforce the Missouri law against alum baking powders. These letters declare that the law referred to was passed hastily, and without opportunity for opposition by the alum baking powder interests. The bill was introduced and carried by a lobbyist. It associated alum with arsenic, calomel, and bismuth, none of which was ever used in the preparation of food. As first introduced the bill included a prohibition upon the use of potash, but this was struck out in the privacy of the senate committee and ammonia was substituted, the evident reason being that cream of tartar contains potash. The alum baking powder companies arranged to have a test case brought under the law. It was found that the Royal Baking Powder Company employed attorneys to prosecute the case, and that the State was represented, not by its own officers, but by these attorneys. It was further developed that all of the 11 expert witnesses who testified against alum baking powder were paid at the rate of from $50 to $100 per day and expenses by the Royal Baking Powder Company, as they admitted on cross-examination. Two of them admitted also that they were paid when they testified before the senate committee on manufactures. Much evidence was submitted to show that alum baking powder was harmless, and the judge declared in his opinion his belief that it was harmless, but nevertheless felt that under previous decisions of the supreme court of the State the judiciary had no right to interfere with the discretion of the legislative branch of the government, and must accordingly enforce the law. An appeal was taken from this decision to the supreme court, which had not yet been decided at the time of this correspondence. (Letters published by Richmond Chamber of Commerce.) Mr. MORRISON states that the cream of tartar baking powder people succeeded in passing a law in Missouri which would throw 31 alum factories out of business. The bill was passed without the knowledge of the alum baking powder manufacturers. Since that time every legislature which has met has had the bill presented to it, but the American Baking Powder Association has always shown its purpose, a , and has in every case been successful in defeating it. In the Virginia pure food law a provision was inserted that alum baking powder should be excluded from the operation of the law. (Senate committee, 16.) Mr. UDELL says the animus behind every bill introduced into State legislatures, so far as he knows, has been to strike down industries not controlled by the Baking Powder Trust. (Senate committee, 12.) The Memorial of the American Baking Powder Association says: "Professor Prescott stated, under oath, in The State of Missouri v. Whitney Layton, that he was asked to testify before Senator Mason's committee by Dr. McMurtrie, chemist of the Royal Baking Powder Company, and he could not afford to leave his duties unless he received his compensation of $100 a day and expenses. Senator Mason, however, states (p. 195) that he sent for Professor Prescott because he heard that he was in the city. He also admitted that for appearing as an expert witness for the prosecution in The State of Missouri v. Whitney Layton he was paid $100 a day and expenses by the Royal Baking Powder Company. And further, that he had not himself made any experiments or conducted any experimental work on bread made with alum baking powder." Prof. Victor C. Vaughan, who testified before Senator Mason's Pure Food Committee, also stated, under oath, in The State of Missouri v. Whitney Layton, he was told by Professor Prescott that Dr. McMurtrie (chemist of the Royal Baking Powder Company) wanted him to testify before that committee, and that his compensation ($100 a day) and expenses were paid in the same manner as Professor Prescott's (i. e., by the Royal Baking Powder Company). Professor Vaughan also admitted that he received $100 a day and expenses from the Royal Baking Powder Company for giving expert testimony for the prosecution in The State of Missouri v. Whitney Layton." "Prof. J. W. Mallet (p. 549) testified at great length and introduces in full an article published in the Chemical News, of London. Professor Mallet admitted, under oath, in the Missouri case that a part of the work included in this article was done at the request of Mr. Hoagland, of the Royal Baking Powder Company, and paid for by him. He also stated that he was paid by the Royal Baking Powder Company for testifying on the side of the prosecution in the St. Louis case $50 a day expenses and $250 for special work. Professor Mallet also stated, under oath, before the Mason committee (p. 550) that in appearing before that committee he did not represent any manufacturer whatever. Professor Mallet swore in the St. Louis case that he had not done any experimental work on the physiological effects of alum baking powder residues since 1888, so that his testimony given before the Mason committee is practically a reiteration of the work paid for by Mr. Hoagland, of the Royal Baking Powder Company, and published in the Chemical News, of London. This article is printed in full in the Mason report (p. 557). No allusion, however, is made to the connection between this article and the Royal Baking Powder Company, which is natural enough, in view of Professor Mallet's statement that he did not represent any manufacturer, nor was he interested in the manufacture or sale of any baking powder." (Memorial, 43-46.) The Richmond Chamber of Commerce, after its investigation of alum baking powder, declares its opinion that the conclusions of the Senate Committee on Manufactures as regards baking powder were based on ex parte testimony, chiefly delivered by chemists in the pay of the Royal Baking Powder Company, as proved by evidence before the courts of Missouri in State of Missouri v. Layton. The fact that Senator Mason stated on the floor of the Senate that he could recall no testimony showing that cream of tartar baking powder left Rochelle salts in bread is evidence, in the opinion of the chamber of commerce, that the investigation was one-sided, since this effect of alum baking powder is well known. Over against these conclusions the committee puts the opinion of Judge Clark in the above case, based upon a full hearing of both sides of the question, that alum baking powder is harmless. (Pamphlet issued by chamber of commerce.) E. Alum baking powder not controlled by a trust.-Mr. A. C. MORRISON, secretary and treasurer of the American Baking Powder Association, says that this association was formed as a result of the attack on the alum baking powder industry, which awakened manufacturers to the necessity of uniting. The association is not formed for controlling prices or competition, but for defense against the attacks of a single well-equipped organization. It consists of 61 members, who manufacture 75,000,000 pounds of baking powder, or 75 per cent of all the alum baking powder sold. (Senate committee, 16.) Mr. DAVIS states that the American Baking Powder Association represents 75 per cent of the output of alum and alum phosphate baking powders; that there is no combination in effect or contemplated as to prices, and that the association would not be in existence except for the aggressive and, as some of the members think, disreputable methods of their chief competitor in the cream of tartar baking powder business. (Senate committee, 26.) Mr. J. J. HIGGINS, president of the American Baking Powder Association, confirms the statement that this association, which is composed of alum baking powder manufacturers, is organized not for the regulation of prices or of trade, but for defense against the aggressive attacks of an antagonistic interest. (Senate committee, 18.) II. PHYSIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF BAKING POWDERS. A. Alum baking powder not injurious.-The Memorial of the American Baking Powder Association presents a series of medical and scientific opinions to the effect that bread prepared with alum baking powder is an entirely wholesome food. Extracts are given from the testimony of Prof. Austin Flint and Dr. Ernest E. Smith in the Missouri baking-powder case. This testimony was based upon an elaborate series of experiments. Opinions of the character referred to are quoted from Dr. Charles B. Parker, professor of physiology in the medical department of the Western Reserve University, from Dr. J. B. Sawyer, professor in the medical department of the Western Reserve University, from Dr. Henry W. Rogers, professor of materia medica and therapeutics in the Western Reserve University, and from Dr. Tuckerman and Dr. J. R. Smith, of Cleveland. The following sentence is quoted from the decision of the presiding judge in the Norfolk, England, baking-powder case: "After the evidence we have just heard, I do not think bread made from this baking powder becomes an article of food injurious to health." Hon. Levi Wells, State dairy and pure-food commissioner of Pennsylvania, is quoted as saying: "I do not hesitate to express my belief that, so far as healthfulness is concerned, the cheaper alum and alum-phosphate powders are no more objectionable than are the cream of tartar powders." From the annual report of the Pennsylvania department of agriculture, 1896, similar statements are quoted. This report says: "A careful study of the question leads to the conclusion that a properly compounded alum powder will perform all the desired requirements and is no more harmful than the powders costing four or five times as much." From "a report of elaborate experiments on digestion" by Prof. R. Ogden Doremus, professor of chemistry and toxicology in the Bellevue Hospital Medical College, New York, and Prof. Charles A. Doremus, professor of chemistry and toxicology in the University of Buffalo (medical department) these statements are taken: "Alum and hydrate of alumina produce scarcely any more retarding effect on the digestion than common salt, and by no means as great a retarding action as did the Rochelle salts (from a cream of tartar baking powder). "Further experiments on human subjects, by feeding large quantities of hydrate and phosphate of alumina at meal times, prove no ill effects. powders leave residues in the bread. * * * * * "As to quantities, alum baking powder leaves the least. * * * * * * All baking * Baking powders (cream of tartar) which leave residues of potash, according to a prevailing sentiment among medical men, are more objectionable, leaving a double tartrate of potash and soda or Rochelle salts. One of the best physiological proofs that the residues of alum powders are not injurious is that many intelligent families, aware of the composition of these powders, have used them for many years without injurious effect. Even the salt of alumina is in constant use as a domestic medicine; it is largely employed in the arts without toxic effect resulting, and the alum springs of Virginia, also of Europe, are favorite resorts for hygienic purposes." * * * The following is from an article in the Scientific American Supplement, No. 185, by Prof. G. E. Patrick, professor of chemistry in the University of Kansas, detailing a series of experiments which Professor Patrick had carried on during the preceding two months: "It seems to me established, as well by experiment as by reason, that a properly made alum baking powder, used in making bread or biscuits, is perfectly harmless to the human system. * * In closing, allow * me to say, in order to prevent all suspicion, that this investigation was undertaken for the sole purpose of finding out the facts in this matter-one of so great importance to us all; that no party or parties interested in the sale or manufacture of baking powder had any knowledge of the investigation, and that I have received no remuneration for it or for this article." George Holland, M. D., is quoted as saying in the Pharmaceutical Record, April 1, 1887, that the experiments of Francis Sutton, one of the most skillful analysts of the day, in connection with the Norfolk, England, baking-powder case, and of Professor Patrick," furnish positive proof that the very small amount of hydrate of alumina left in the bread by the use of alum baking-powder is not dissolved by the gastric juice in the stomach of living animals, and is, therefore, harmless." An article by C. V. Petraeus in the Pharmaceutical Record of June 1, 1888, is quoted, as follows: “An alum baking powder does not deteriorate in a package like a cream of tartar powder-its keeping ability is far above the latter. |