FDA History 05

[Guest guest]

http://www.doctoryourself.com/history5.html

 

The Fox Guards the Henhouse: Saccharin's Discoverer

Decides It is Safe to Eat

FDA History 05

Home

 

HISTORY OF A CRIME AGAINST THE FOOD LAW

CHAPTER V: BOARD OF FOOD AND DRUG INSPECTION AND

REFEREE BOARD OF CONSULTING SCIENTIFIC EXPERTS

by Harvey W. Wiley, M.D., the very first commissioner

of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), then known

as the “US Bureau of Chemistry.”

 

PROLOGUE

It has often been said that, to make discoveries,

one must be ignorant.

This opinion, mistaken in itself, nevertheless

conceals a truth. It means that

it is better to know nothing than to keep in mind

fixed ideas based on

theories whose confirmation we constantly seek,

neglecting meanwhile

everything that fails to agree with them. * * *

" Men who have excessive faith in their theories

or ideas are not only ill

prepared for making discoveries; they also make very

poor observations. Of

necessity they observe with a preconceived idea, and

when they devise an

experiment, they can see, in its results, only a

confirmation of their theory.

In this way they distort observation and often

neglect very important facts

because they do not further their aim. This is what

made us say elsewhere that

we must never make experiments to confirm our ideas,

but simply to control

them; which means, in other terms, that one must

accept the results of

experiments as they come, with all their

unexpectedness and irregularity.

" But it happens further quite naturally that men

who believe too firmly in

their theories, do not believe enough in the

theories of others. So the

dominant idea of these despisers of their fellows is

to find others' theories

faulty and to try to contradict them. The

difficulty, for science, is still

the same. They make experiments only to destroy a

theory, instead of to seek

the truth. At the same time, they make poor

observations, because they choose

among the results of their experiments only what

suits their object,

neglecting whatever is unrelated to it, and

carefully setting aside everything

which might tend toward the idea they wish to

combat. By these two opposite

roads, men are thus led to the same result, that is,

to falsify science and

the facts. "

From Experimental Medicine, by Claude Bernard,

pages 37 and 38.

 

PURPOSE OF CREATING BOARDS

In the enactment of the Food Law the Congress

plainly provided the mechanism

of its enforcement. There was no provision in the law

for any additional

machinery. It was evident that the Bureau of Chemistry

was the dominant factor

in bringing offenders of the law before the Courts.

Those who " felt the halter

draw " had " no good opinion of the law " as the poet has

pertinently and wittily

said. The elimination of the Bureau was therefore the

thing of prime importance.

The President of the United States seems to have taken

the initiative in this

matter.

President Roosevelt wrote to the various

universities to secure a chemist,

not to replace me, but to be placed in such a position

as to counteract all my

activities. Accordingly on the recommendation of

President Angell of Ann Arbor

the President issued an order permitting Dr. Frederick

L. Dunlap to be

appointed, without Civil Service examination, as

associate chemist in the Bureau

of Chemistry without being subject to the orders of

the Chief of that Bureau,

but reporting directly to the Secretary. (Moss

Committee, page 921.)

In order to make this point perfectly clear I quote

the following from page

849, Moss Committee:

MR. MOSS: " It is also stated in the record that a

board of food and drug

inspection was organized to advise the Secretary of

Agriculture on matters

concerning which the Pure-food law says he must make a

decision. "

SECRETARY WILSON: " That is substantially correct. "

MR. MOSS: " These two boards were created by

executive order? "

SECRETARY WILSON: " Yes. "

MR. MOSS: " Then the powers and the duties of either

one of the boards were

fixed by executive order and not by statute? "

SECRETARY WILSON: " That is right. I do not think

there was any special order

sent to me to do that, but President Roosevelt

appealed to the presidents of the

big universities to get an additional chemist put on

there and that brought Dr.

Dunlap from Ann Arbor. So I doubt if I had a special

order, although there was a

very clear understanding what was to be done. "

MR. MOSS: " The question I had in mind was that the

Board of Food and Drug

Inspection was not created by statute but was created

by executive order. "

SECRETARY WILSON: " That is what I was doubting. It

was not created by

statute. I created it for the purpose of getting

information and all that, but

of the three gentlemen on the board, two were in the

Department, and in bringing

in Dr. Dunlap, an additional chemist, made the third

one, so technically there

was no general order of the President to do that, but

there was a clear

understanding that it would be done. "

SPECIFIC DUTIES

We should not forget that in the legislation of

Congress specific duties are

often assigned to particular units of administration

of a character which does

not permit of executive interference. I may cite in

this connection the

activities of the Comptroller of the Treasury. To the

Comptroller of the

Treasury is assigned by Congress certain specific

duties. Even the President of

the United States can not legally interfere with the

Comptroller's prerogatives.

The story is told of a case in the Grant

administration where the decision of

the Comptroller was particularly objectionable to

certain citizens. They went to

the President and asked him to rescind the

comptroller's opinion. President

Grant, who believed in obeying the law, replied that

he could not legally alter

a comptroller's decision. He said:

" If I thought it was a very bad decision I might

change comptrollers and

get one who would decide the way I think he should.

In this case there does

not seem to be any exigency demanding any such

action. "

The Bureau of Chemistry had specific duties

assigned to it. Theoretically

these duties could not be repealed by executive order.

Practically in this case

they were, but, of course, illegally. The proper way

was to follow the

suggestion of Grant, and remove the Chief of the

Bureau and put Dunlap in his

place.

Soon after the episode of the whisky conference, on

February 22, 1907, was

ended the Secretary of Agriculture walked into my

office one morning in company

with a young man whom I had never before seen, and

introduced him as Professor

F. L. Dunlap, your associate.

I said:

" Mr. Secretary, my what? "

He said:

" Your associate. I have appointed an associate in

the Bureau of Chemistry

who will be entirely independent of the Chief and

who will report directly to

me. During the absence of the Chief he will be

acting chief of the Bureau. "

I was astounded and dumbfounded at this action. He

handed me at the same time

the letter in which he had established this office and

described the duties of

the officer. Whatever qualification Dr. Dunlap had for

the office to which he

was appointed does not appear. In the first place he

was to take the office of

Acting Chief in my absence, a position which was

filled most ably by Dr. W. A

Bigelow, my principal assistant in the Bureau. Dr.

Bigelow had rare judgment and

discrimination. I depended upon him largely for the

control of the personnel of

the Bureau. He was efficient, firm, just and capable.

He had grown up in the

Bureau from a humble position to be, for several

years, my first assistant.

There was no one else so capable as he to discharge

the duties of Chief in my

absence. This action of the Secretary was a direct

insult to one of the most

able men with whom I have ever worked. At the same

time he put in charge of the

Bureau during the absence of the Chief a person who

knew nothing of its

personnel, nothing of its activities, nothing of its

duties either under the

food law or otherwise, and wholly unskilled and

untrained in the control of a

large Bureau of several hundred members, as was the

Bureau of Chemistry at that

time. This was an astounding action. At the same time

I was informed that the

Secretary had organized a Board of Food and Drug

Inspection. Such a board was

not authorized by law nor by any action of Congress,

nor by any appropriation

made by Congress. Its purpose was to take away from

the Bureau all its power and

activities under the Food Law. This body was composed

of the Chief of the Bureau

as Chairman, with Dr. F. L. Dunlap and Mr. George P.

McCabe as its other two

members. As long as Dr. Dunlap acted with Mr.

McCabe--and that was always--all

decisions in regard to food adulteration, placed by

law in the hands of the

Bureau of Chemistry, were approved or disapproved by

the other two members of

the Board. This was a complete paralysis of the law.

This Board was appointed by

General Order III, on April 25, 1907. The time that

elapsed from February 22d,

when the whisky case was erroneously decided by the

Solicitor, to April 25th,

1907, was only a little over two months. This order

was issued before the final

decision on the whisky question by the

Attorney-General was published. The order

reads as follows:

United States Department of Agriculture,

Office of the Secretary,

Washington, D. C., April 25, 1907.

There is hereby created in the Department of

Agriculture a Board of Food

and Drug Inspection. The members of this board will

be Dr. Harvey W. Wiley,

Chief, Bureau of Chemistry, chairman; Dr. Frederick

L. Dunlap, associate

chemist, Bureau of Chemistry; and Mr. George P.

McCabe, Solicitor of the

Department of Agriculture. The board will consider

all questions arising in

the enforcement of the food and drugs act of June

30, 1906, upon which the

decision of the Secretary of Agriculture is

necessary, and will report its

findings to the Secretary for his consideration and

decision. All

correspondence involving interpretations of the law

and questions arising

under the law not theretofore passed upon by the

Secretary of Agriculture

shall be considered by the board. The board is

directed to hold frequent

meetings, at stated times, in order that findings

may be reported promptly.

" In addition to the above duties, the Board of

Food and Drug Inspection

shall conduct all hearings based upon alleged

violations of the food and drugs

act of June 30, 1906, as provided by regulation 5 of

the rules and regulations

for the enforcement of the food and drugs act

approved October 17, 1906.

(Signed) JAMES WILSON, Secretary of Agriculture.

(Expenditures in Department of Agriculture, Hearings

July-August, 1911, page

429.)

First you will note that this Board was created in

the Department of

Agriculture and not in the Bureau of Chemistry.

The result of the appointment of a board of Food

and Drug Inspection was that

the functions of the Bureau as defined by the law were

entirely paralyzed. The

Solicitor of the Department was made, by General Order

No. 140, the supreme

arbiter in all cases. In all of the decisions which he

rendered, without

exception, the Secretary of Agriculture supported him.

ORIGIN OF THE REMSEN BOARD

Encouraged by the success of the first effort to

evade the provisions of the

law through the appointment of the Board of Food and

Drug Inspection, the time

was propitious to push the matter further. The

services of President Roosevelt

in securing the appointment of a chemist who would

sympathize with the efforts

to defeat the purpose of the law had made that result

possible. There was still

needed some further encouragement to attack the

activities of the Bureau in the

matter of what was injurious to health. Up to this

time the decisions of the

Bureau on these points had been respected. To

eliminate the Bureau completely,

some plan had to be devised to counteract the

decisions reached. A remarkable

incident made it possible to use the President of the

United States in the

accomplishment of this purpose. As an eye and ear

witness of the event about to

be described I am able now to set down exactly what

occurred.

Adulterators of our foods who were using benzoate

of soda particularly in

ketchup, and saccharin particularly in canned corn,

had visited President

Roosevelt and urged him to curb the activities of the

Bureau of Chemistry in its

opposition to these practices. They had spent the

greater part of the day in the

President's office. He promised to take these matters

into consideration the

very next day and asked these protestants to stay

over. He invited the Secretary

of Agriculture and the Chief of the Bureau of

Chemistry to come to his office at

ten o'clock on the day following and listen to the

protests of the gentlemen

mentioned above.

At the appointed hour we all met in the President's

office, or as I recall,

in that part of his office where Cabinet meetings were

usually held. When all

were assembled he asked the protestants to repeat in

the presence of the

Secretary of Agriculture and the Chief of the Bureau

of Chemistry the demands

which they had made upon him the day before. The three

chief protestants were

Curtice Brothers of Rochester, N. Y., Williams

Brothers of Detroit, Michigan,

and Sherman Brothers of New York, represented by James

S. Sherman, M.C., who was

near his election as Vice-President of the United

States in 1908. There were a

number of lawyers and others closely related to the

protestants, making a very

goodly number in all. They were loath to repeat the

charges but Mr. Roosevelt

insisted that they should do so. Whereupon the

representative of the ketchup

industries spoke. He told the well-known " sob " story

of how the business of

putting up ketchup would be utterly destroyed if the

decisions of the Bureau

banning benzoate were carried into effect. It was a

touching and pathetic

recital of the ultimate confiscation of hundreds of

thousands of invested

capital. There was no way in which this disaster could

be diverted except to

overrule the conclusions of the Bureau. The Chief of

the Bureau was dramatically

set forth as a radical, impervious to reason and

determined to destroy

legitimate business. After this recital was completed,

Mr. Roosevelt turned to

Mr. Wilson and said: " What is your opinion about the

propriety and desirability

of enforcing the rulings of your Chief of Bureau? " Mr.

Wilson replied:

" The law demands that substances which are added

to foods for any purpose

which are deleterious to health shall be forbidden.

Dr. Wiley made extensive

investigations in feeding benzoated goods to healthy

young men and in every

instance he found that their health was undermined. "

 

The President then asked me what I thought of this

ruling. I replied as

follows:

" Mr. President, I don't think; I know by patient

experiment, that benzoate

of soda or benzoic acid added to human food is

injurious to health. "

On hearing this opinion the President turned to the

protestants, struck the

table in front of him a stunning blow with his fist,

and showing his teeth in

the true Rooseveltian fashion, said to the

protestants:

" This substance that you are using is injurious

to health and you shall not

use it any longer. "

If matters had rested there the crowning blow to

the food law would have been

prevented. Mr. Sherman, however, took the floor and

said:

" Mr. President, there was another matter that we

spoke to you about

yesterday that is not included in what you have just

said about the use of

benzoate. I refer to the use of saccharin in foods.

My firm last year saved

$4,000 by sweetening canned corn with saccharin

instead of sugar. We want a

decision from you on this question. "

Unfortunately I did not wait for the President to

ask the customary

questions. I was entirely too precipitate in the

matter. I addressed the

President without his asking me, which is considered

an offense to royalty or to

a President. In the presence of rulers, we should

always wait until we are

spoken to before joining in the conversation. Had I

followed this precept of

respect the catastrophe which happened might have been

avoided. I immediately

said to the President:

" Every one who ate that sweet corn was deceived.

He thought he was eating

sugar, when in point of fact he was eating a coal

tar product totally devoid

of food value and extremely injurious to health. "

This answer was the basis for the complete

paralysis of the Food Law. Turning

to me in sudden anger the President changed from Dr.

Jekyll to Mr. Hyde, and

said:

" You tell me that saccharin is injurious to

health? " I said, " Yes, Mr.

President, I do tell you that. " He replied, " Dr.

Rixey gives it to me every

day. " I answered, " Mr. President, he probably thinks

you may be threatened

with diabetes. " To this he retorted, " Anybody who

says saccharin is injurious

to health is an idiot. "

This remark of the President broke up the meeting.

Had he only extended his

royal Excalibur I should have arisen as Sir Idiot.

That distinction has not

departed from me to this day. The thing which hurts

most is that in the light of

my long career I fear I deserved it. The next day the

President issued an order

establishing the Referee Board of Consulting

Scientific Experts. In order that

his favorite sweetener might have fair hearing he

asked Dr. Ira Remsen, who held

a medal given him by the Chicago Chemical Society as

the discoverer of

saccharin, to be chairman and to select the other

members. According to the

ordinary conception of a juror Dr. Remsen would not

have been entitled to sit on

the subject of saccharin. Such little matters as

those, however, were not

dominating with the President of the United States. As

Milton describes the

episode in the Garden of Eden--

" Of man's first disobedience and the fruit

Of that forbidden tree whose mortal taste

Brought death into the world and all our woe "

the creation of the Remsen Board of Consulting

Scientific Experts was the cause

of nearly all the woes that subsequently befell the

Pure Food Law. Joined to the

creation of the Board of Food and Drug Inspection

there was little left of the

method prescribed by Congress for its enforcement.

UNIFICATION OF ADULTERATORS

From this time on all the interests seeking to

paralyze the enforcement of

the food and drugs act acted as one body under the

leadership of the Department

of Agriculture. The rectifiers were perhaps the best

organized of the enemies of

the pure food and drugs legislation. The interests

that supported and demanded

the use of benzoate of soda represented only a

minority of the manufacturers of

ketchup. Those who demanded the free use of sulphurous

acid and sulphites were

confined to the manufacturers of cane molasses and of

dried fruits. Those who

demanded the use of saccharin were only a very small

part of the interests

engaged in the canning and preserving of our foods.

The people who were anxious

to use alum, however, represented a great majority of

baking-powders. Those

manufacturers who made baking powder out of phosphates

and tartrates were not so

numerous and did not do so big a business as the

makers of alum powders. The

whole body of adulterators and misbranders of our

foods who were depressed by

the results of the decision of the question of what is

whisky were restored to

optimism and tremendous activity by the appointment

both of the Board of Food

and Drug Inspection and of the Remsen Board. By this

time, however, public

sentiment which had been so unanimously in favor of

food and drug legislation

was awakened to the danger which came from the

betrayal of the cause of pure

foods by these executive proclamations. The daily,

weekly, and monthly press of

the United States were almost solidly opposed to these

illegal activities of the

executive officers in charge of the pure food and

drugs legislation. Not a day

passed without numerous attacks upon this laxity of

administration appearing in

all parts of the country.

I will return to this condition of affairs later

on. The Secretary of

Agriculture was perfectly acquainted with the incident

just described in regard

to the origin of the Remsen Board. Nevertheless, in

the following statements to

the fruit growers of California he ascribed the origin

of the Remsen Board to a

totally different cause. I quote from page 847 of the

Moss Committee on

Expenditures in the Department of Agriculture:

I went out to the Pacific Coast, I think it was

in 1907 to look at the

forests which had just come to our department.

Telegrams began to come all

around me, and finally reached me that something was

seriously the matter at

San Francisco, and I wired back that I would be

there at a certain day, and I

went there. I found the mayor, the bankers, the

business men and the farmers

in a very great commotion. They wanted me to talk. I

said, " I do not know what

to say, I will listen; you talk, gentlemen. " " Well, "

they said, " we have a

$15,000,000 industry here in the growing and drying

of fruits. These dried

fruits are contracted for by the big eastern

merchants. Our people borrow

money from the banks, and when the fruit is sold

everything is straightened

out and things go on, but you people in Washington

say we can only use 350

milligrams of sulphur to the kilo, and the eastern

men who have contracted for

our fruit will not make their contracts good; they

are afraid it will not

keep. "

After listening to these good people all day I

said, " I see the condition

you are in, gentlemen. I do not think the American

Congress in making this law

intended to stop your business. We have not learned

quite enough in Washington

to guide your business without destroying it; we

will know better by and by,

but I will tell you what to do. Just go on as you

used to go on and I will not

take any action to seize your goods or let them be

seized or take any case

into court until we know more about the number of

milligrams to the kilo, and

all of that. In the meanwhile I shall send a chemist

from our Bureau of

Chemistry out here, and I want to get the best

chemist in your state at your

State University at Berkeley, put the two together

and try to get the facts, "

and we did that. They worked that summer; and before

I think they completed

all they would like to have done the Referee Board

came * * * I think that

about answers the question why the Board was

created.

When the chemists made their report, Secretary

Wilson promptly refused to

have it printed because they had found a harmless

substitute for sulphur fumes.

The hearings accorded the users of saccharin, after

the report on saccharin

by the Referee Board had been published, developed the

following curious

incident.

The President selected the alleged discoverer of

saccharin as Chairman of the

new committee to revise the findings of the Bureau of

Chemistry. This committee

entirely reversed President Roosevelt's decision that

benzoate of soda was a

harmful substance. They did not, however, agree with

him entirely in regard to

the harmlessness of saccharin. In their report they

permitted the use of a

sufficient amount of saccharin to sweeten foods, but

they were of the opinion

that if one consumed over 3/10th of a gram of

saccharin at any one time it might

prove injurious and that also as a sweetener it was a

fraud. The manufacturers

of saccharin asked for and secured a hearing on this

point. The hearing was held

before Secretary Wilson and Secretary Nagel.

Addressing the saccharin

manufacturers, Secretary Wilson (Page 908, Moss

Committee) made the following

statement:

I want to say frankly to you gentlemen that the

Referee Board was organized

and put in action for the very purpose of conserving

the interests of the

manufacturers, by insuring them a sane hearing, and,

that being the case, it

is the best the Government can do.

To the users of burning sulphur he promised

complete immunity until the

Remsen Board made its decision. In point of fact, that

came only after many

years. It was never published by the Department of

Agriculture. The indulgence

has continued for twenty-two years and bids fair to go

on forever. Now to the

makers of saccharin he says the Remsen Board was

created to be sure

manufacturers get a " sane hearing. " The plain

inference is that the hearing

specified in the Act is not " sane. "

Of course Secretary Wilson was right in so frankly

stating the purpose for

which the Referee Board was created. Manufacturers of

adulterated goods were

never shut out from a full and fair hearing. That was

always available before

the Courts when they were cited to appear as violators

of the law. The Referee

Board was an effective buffer for all this class of

manufacturers. It prevented

a full and fair hearing of the case before a jury and

a United States Court. It

was the most baleful influence toward the degradation

of the food supply of our

country that ever existed. The Referee Board has

passed away, but the evil

effects of its activities will be felt for all time to

come. Its decisions and

its activities are still regnant in the

mal-administration of the pure-food law.

The only hope of the future lies in the possibility of

some day getting a

Secretary of Agriculture who with one stroke of his

pen will erase forever from

the records of the Department every decision of the

Referee Board and every

regulation made in conformity therewith, and remove

every administrative officer

who willingly carries these decisions and regulations

into effect.

SENSITIVE TO NEWSPAPERS AND MAGAZINES

The officials, paid experts and aides of the

low-grade manufacturers realized

very keenly their unpopularity as reflected in the

notices of their activities

which appeared in the newspapers and magazines. This

sensibility caused Dr.

Remsen at the end of his testimony before the Moss

Committee to express his

feelings which have been recorded in another place.

Prior to this he was keenly

sensitive to what the newspapers were saying about him

and his Board. On Feb.

11th , 1910, in a letter to the Secretary of

Agriculture, (Moss Committee, Page

366) he said:

" A representative of our principal newspaper

brought me yesterday an

inflammatory article which had been sent by the

Washington correspondent. The

object of the article was to discount the reports of

the Referee Board on the

sulphur question. It was venomous and inflammatory

to the last degree. It also

took up the benzoate question with the object of

showing how entirely

unreliable the work of our Board had been. Our

bombastic friend, C. A. L.

Reed* of Cincinnati, was held up as a great and good

man and a high authority.

I presume this attack has been sent all over the

country. I made some comments

on it and the newspaper to which it was sent here

declined to publish it. I

have no doubt as to the source of that article. It

was altogether the worst

thing that I have seen. "

*Eminent surgeon and Past-President of the American

Medical Association. Died in

1928.

The curious thing about all this is that the

Secretary of Agriculture and his

aides, the Remsen Board and their followers were

continually insinuating that

there was some one in Washington who inspired all

these criticisms of the Remsen

Board. They were never bold enough to come out openly

and say who this person

was. It is perfectly plain who was in their minds. The

report of Dr. Bigelow,

who was the chemist sent to California, not by

Secretary Wilson, but by myself,

was refused publication when it was completed and has

never yet seen the light

of day. Dr. Bigelow in this report showed how by

dipping the freshly cut fruits

in a weak solution of common salt and then drying them

a product was produced

equal in color to the sulphured article and far more

palatable, wholesome, and

desirable in every way.

Large quantities of dried fruits made by this

process were shipped to

Washington, submitted to dealers and pronounced a far

superior product in every

way to the ordinary sulphured article. Also attention

should here be called to

the fact that the meat inspection law specifically

denies the use of sulphur

dioxide and sulphites in the preparation of meats on

the ground that a

preservative of this kind is injurious to health. Its

use had been discarded

practically before the regulation forbidding it was

made by reason of the

scandal of embalmed beef which stirred this country

deeply during the Spanish

War. In other words the use of any sulphur dioxide or

sulphites in meat was an

adulteration, but in dried fruits it was necessary to

prevent the destruction of

the dried fruit business, in the eyes of the Secretary

of Agriculture.

Further questioning of the Secretary threw

additional light on this point:

MR. FLOYD: You, personally, as Secretary, were made

responsible, but

President Roosevelt acted in harmony with you in

establishing this referee

board?

SECRETARY WILSON: We have to obey the President of

the United States when he

indicates what he wants.

MR. FLOYD, I understand. The President, sanctioned

this board?

SECRETARY WILSON: Oh, yes. He wrote to the

presidents of the great

universities and got them to recommend men, and when

the men came that he wanted

he ordered me to appoint them, and I appointed them.

MR. HIGGINS: Mr. Secretary, in your observation of

the enforcement of this

law, is it your opinion, based upon that observation,

that it was a wise thing

to have a referee board?

SECRETARY WILSON: It certainly was my judgment that

we should have a referee

board.

MR. HIGGINS: Is that confirmed by your experience

with it?

SECRETARY WILSON: I have no reason to conclude that

it was not wise.

MR. HIGGINS: Are you familiar with the character of

the gentlemen who make up

that board and their scientific attainments?

SECRETARY WILSON: By reputation only; I did not

know them personally, any of

them.

MR. HIGGINS: Have you ever imposed any restrictions

on them as to the methods

of investigation?

SECRETARY WILSON: No. I told them frankly when they

began that nobody had any

business to interfere with them anywhere; that they

were to find us the facts

with regard to what we submitted to them; and I did

not impose any restrictions

and nobody else had any right to, unless it was the

President, and I did not

think he would.

MR. MAYS: Did you have any doubt in your mind as to

the legality of their

appointment at the time?

SECRETARY WILSON: Never.

MR. FLOYD: Now, Mr. Secretary, how many of these

great questions have been

submitted to the referee board?

SECRETARY WILSON: I suppose I could count them on

my fingers.

MR. FLOYD: The chairman tells me that that is in

the record.

SECRETARY WILSON: Very likely it is in the record.

MR. FLOYD: Now, under the pure-food law, as I

understand it, Mr. Secretary,

the work of the Bureau of Chemistry is preliminary to

a prosecution?

SECRETARY WILSON: Oh, surely.

MR. FLOYD: And no prosecution can be instituted

against anyone in a criminal

procedure until the Bureau of Chemistry has made an

adverse finding and you have

so certified to the district attorney?

SECRETARY WILSON: That is the way it is done.

MR, FLOYD: Now, I am going to ask you a question

that I would ask other

witnesses as to the effect of the decision of the

referee board. In case the

Bureau of Chemistry should make a finding adverse to

the use of a certain

commodity on the ground that it was deleterious to

health and that should be

referred to the referee board and the referee board

should make a contrary

decision, is there any way, under the regulations, to

your knowledge, that the

question at issue between the Bureau of Chemistry and

the referee board could be

taken into the courts and be settled by the courts?

SECRETARY WILSON: Of course, I can not state

intelligently with regard to how

a thing might get into the courts, but the department

would enforce the decision

of the referee board. They would do that, I suppose

MR. FLOYD (interposing) : If the decision of the

referee board was adverse to

that of the Bureau of Chemistry the effect of

enforcing the decision of the

referee board would be to prevent the prosecution of

anyone using that

commodity?

SECRETARY WILSON: Well, it would depend on--yes, I

see your point; yes, it

would.

The unanimous decision of the committee

investigating the expenditures of the

Department of Agriculture completely exonerated the

accused officials and

censured their accusers.

 

 

ATTORNEY-GENERAL WICKERSHAM

Who certified to President Taft that Dr. Wiley was

worthy of " condign

punishment. "

 

The activities of two Presidents, three cabinet

officers, and one

Attorney-General in promoting the efforts to exclude

the Bureau of Chemistry

from any efficient steps looking to the enforcement of

the Food and Drugs Act

created a veritable storm of protest, as has already

been indicated, in the

press of the country. This protest was voiced most

effectively by the attitude

of The World's Work under the able editorship of

Walter H. Page. In the issue of

that magazine for September, 1911, the following

editorial comment is found,

under the title, " The Fight on Dr. Wiley and the Pure

Food Law. "

There is no better illustration of the difficulty

of really effective

government than the obstructions that have been put

in the way of Dr. Wiley,

the head of the Bureau of Chemistry at Washington.

So long as the Pure Food

and Drugs Act ran foul of only small violators, it

was easy to enforce it;

but, as soon as it hit the vested interests of the

rich and strong, the most

amazing series of successful. obstructions were put

in the way--so amazing and

so successful that the story will be told with some

fullness in the succeeding

numbers of this magazine.

Here is a man--Dr. Harvey W. Wiley--who has given

his whole working life to

the protection of the people from bad and poisonous

food and drugs. There is

no more unselfish or devoted public servant. He has

time and again declined

offers of lucrative and honorable private work. He

has lived and labored for

this one purpose.

It is to him that we owe the law and the

agitation for its enforcement. It

is to him that we owe the education of the public

which has brought state laws

and municipal ordinances for pure food and drugs. It

is to him that we owe

such an important advance in more careful living and

such a quickening of the

public conscience as we owe to hardly any other

living man; and the whole

people are his debtors. He is the direct cause of a

wider and safer public

knowledge and of more healthful habits of life.

Still the Pure Food and Drugs Act is not yet

enforced against the great

offenders. Dr. Wiley has had his hands tied from the

time of its enactment.

The Board, whose duty it is to report violations of

the law, consists of Dr.

Wiley, Dr. Dunlap, a chemist, and Mr. McCabe, the

solicitor of the Department

of Agriculture. But out of the thousands of cases of

adulteration and fraud

that have been discovered, practically no cases

against the strongest

corporations and groups of law-breakers have been

brought to trial. Dr. Wiley

is a man of scientific distinction, of accuracy, and

of responsibility. Yet

his two associates on this board, men, to say the

most for them, of far less

ability and less distinction, have been permitted to

check almost every move

that he has made. The aged Secretary of Agriculture

has given his confidence

and his support to them and withdrawn it from Dr.

Wiley.

More than this--the Attorney-General, reversing

an opinion prepared by one

of his own subordinates and accepting an opinion by

Mr. McCabe, declared that

the referee board of distinguished chemists (the

Remsen Board) was authorized

by the law--a very dangerous and very doubtful

construction of a plain

statute; and this Board has been used to prevent the

enforcement of the law

against the use of benzoate of soda. This Remsen

Board has never declared that

benzoate of soda is a permissible preservative. It

has never been asked

whether it can be or is extensively used to preserve

rotten food. It was asked

only if it proved injurious to the health of strong

young men when taken for a

time in small quantities. They found that it did

these young men no

appreciable harm. Then this declaration was used to

permit the canners and

packers of rotten fruits and vegetables to continue

to put them up in benzoate

of soda. Even if benzoate of soda does no harm to

health, its use in

disguising rotten food brings it within the proper

prohibition of the law.

This incident is a good illustration of the way

in which Dr. Wiley has been

balked and hindered. Influences, legitimate and

illegitimate, have been used

to prevent the enforcement of the law in its most

important applications.

Inside the Government and outside, the

manufacturers of dangerous and

unwholesome food and drugs have carried on a

continuous and effective campaign

against Dr. Wiley and his work. He has been

practically without power to put

the law into effect against strong offenders. He has

been humiliated by being

overruled by his subordinates. He has suffered from

an inefficient

administration of the Department of which his bureau

is a part; for the

venerable Secretary of Agriculture is too old

vigorously to administer his

great Department. Yet Dr. Wiley, purely for

patriotic reasons, has suffered

this hindrance and humiliation till some change

might come which should

unshackle him.

On the outside the bad food and drug

interests--or some of them--have

maintained a lobby in Washington, have kept

" syndicate " newspaper writers in

their pay to write about the unfairness and the

injustice of the law and the

unreasonableness and " crankiness " of Dr. Wiley. One

such organization--or

pretended organization--some time ago sent a

threatening letter to all the

most important periodicals, saying that large

advertisers would withdraw their

patronage if they published articles favorable to

the law!

There has been an organized fight, therefore,

against the law and the man.

And, although the man's official power has been

curtailed, he has won--won

such a victory for the people as will insure the

continuance, with new vigor,

of the campaign for pure food and drugs, by national

law and by local laws.

The " charge " against Dr. Wiley that provoked this

popular outburst of

approval, is not worth explaining. He made an

arrangement to pay Dr. Rusby, a

distinguished specialist, a higher rate for work per

day than the law

specified for per them payments, but less than the

law permitted as a yearly

salary. By this arrangement the services of Dr.

Rusby to the Government were

secured for less than if the letter of the law had

been followed and he had

been paid the yearly salary that the law

specified--since he gave and was to

give only a small part of his time to the work. This

technical violation of

the letter of the law--if it were a violation of its

real meaning--has long

been customary in many departments of the

Government; for it has common sense

and economy to commend it.

When the Attorney-General wrote that this offence

deserved " condign

punishment, " --the Attorney-General--what shall be

said of him with respect?

Surely it was a narrow and silly recommendation. He

put a greater value on a

microscopic legal technicality than on the

incalculable service of a man whose

work is worth more to the health and happiness of

the people than the work of

many Presidents and Attorneys-General. Dr. Wiley's

" offence " was instantly

forgotten by the public, which has some common sense

if not much legal

knowledge. But the accusation was important for this

reason: it showed the

determination of those who brought it to get rid of

him.

Now, if Dr. Wiley deserves dismissal for any

sufficient reason, it is

proper and it is the duty of somebody to present

such a reason. But to propose

" condign punishment " for saving the public money by

following a common custom

of paying for professional service-that shows a

personal and private purpose

to be rid of him.

The upshot of it all is that Dr. Wiley has been

made a sort of popular

hero. Now popular heroism has decided disadvantages

and even dangers. It is

fair to Dr. Wiley to say that he has not sought such

a place on the stage. He

has his vanities (who hasn't?) and the popular

appreciation of his work is of

course welcomed by him, as it ought to be. But mere

personal popularity and a

personal " fight " are likely to obscure the main

matter at stake. The main

matter is the Pure Food and Drugs Act--not only nor

mainly Dr. Wiley and his

personal vindication, but the firm and permanent

establishment of this fact

and purpose: that no opposition of interested

law-breakers, no personal

jealousies, no departmental feuds, no infirm and

feeble administration of any

Department, no narrow legal technicalities, shall

longer hinder the execution

of the law that guards the health of the people.

This is of far greater

importance than anybody's tenure of office or than

anybody's official " face "

or dignity.

It has been made plain that the administration of

the Agricultural

Department is feeble. Feuds and cliques are not

permitted to obstruct the laws

in well-administered institutions. And it has again

been made plain by the

Attorney-General that this is a " legal "

administration; and, again, that the

President's amiable qualities lead him to patch-up

and smooth-over troubles

that become worse with every patching and smoothing

and can then be removed

only after public discussion and possible scandal.

The incident ought and

seems likely to bring big results in rallying public

opinion to the support of

the law and of its author and zealous and useful

guardian. The investigation

by the Congressional Committee that has the subject

in hand will bring out

facts that are likely to make the law far stronger

than it has ever been.

 

:

Committee on Expenditures in the Department of

Agriculture, 1911, investigating

charges preferred against Dr. H. W. Wiley,

Representative Ralph W. Moss,

presiding. At the right of Mr. Moss are the three of

the Democratic members of

the Committee, namely, Hon. J.C. Floyd, Hon. R.L.

Doughton, Hon. D.H. Mays;

Henry E. Davis and Hon. W.P. Hepburn, attorneys for

Dr. Wiley. On the left of

Mr. Moss are the Hon. Edwin W. Higgins, Hon. Burton L.

French, and the Hon.

Charles H. Sloan, the stenographer and H.W. Wiley.

 

The editor of The World's Work did not have to wait

long to know the

conclusions reached by the committee investigating the

expenses of the

Department of Agriculture. The report was issued early

in 1912. It was a

complete vindication of the Bureau of Chemistry and a

complete reversal of the

penalties which the personnel board had inflicted, or

tried to inflict on the

Chief of the Bureau and his assistants. Before the

committee's report was

published, however, the President of the United

States, who had been asked to

approve the dismissal of the Chief of the Bureau,

wrote the following letter to

the Secretary of Agriculture (Page 2 of the Report):

" The truth is, the limitations upon the bureau

chiefs and heads of

departments to exact per diem compensation for the

employment of experts in

such cases as this is of doubtful legislative

policy. Here is the pure-food

act, which is of the highest importance to enforce

and in respect to which the

interests opposed to its enforcement are likely to

have all the money at their

command needed to secure the most effective expert

evidence. The Government

ought not to be at a disadvantage in this regard,

and one can not withhold

one's sympathy with an earnest effort on the part of

Dr. Wiley to pay proper

compensation and secure expert assistance in the

enforcement of so important a

statute, certainly in the beginning, when questions

arising under it are of

capital importance to the public. "

Other high lights of the report of the committee

are summarized below:

" The committee on expenditures in the Department

of Agriculture beg leave

to submit the following report of the recent

hearings commonly referred to as

the " Wiley Investigation. " This inquiry was

instituted on information that an

alleged conspiracy had been entered into between

certain high officials of the

Bureau of Chemistry and Dr. H. H. Rusby whereby Dr.

Rusby was to be paid a

compensation for his services at a higher rate than

authorized by law. * * *

In the discharge of its duties under the rules of

the House, your committee

made a patient and careful investigation of the

whole controversy. * * * Your

committee regards the " Wiley Investigation, "

so-called, only an incident in

its broader inquiry into the organization and

administrative routine of the

Bureau of Chemistry and the Referee Board. * * * We

failed to find from the

evidence in the whole case that there existed any

secret agreement or that the

terms of compensation or rates to be paid Dr. Rusby

were withheld from the

Secretary designedly or otherwise. * * * We

therefore find from the evidence

adduced that the charges of conspiracy have not been

established, but, on the

contrary, that the accused officials were actuated

throughout solely by desire

to procure for the Bureau of Chemistry an efficient

assistant in the person of

Dr. H. H. Rusby under terms and conditions which

those officials believed to

be in entire accord with the law, regulations, and

practice of the Department

of Agriculture. * * *

" The record shows that three members of the

Referee Board were in

attendance at the trial at Indianapolis, Indiana, in

the capacity of witnesses

at the instance and on behalf of the plaintiffs in

the suit to which Curtice

Brothers and Williams Brothers, who are interested

in the sale of food stuffs

to which soda benzoate has been added as a

preservative, and that the expenses

of these witnesses were paid by the Department of

Agriculture. In the opinion

of your committee the payment of these expenses by

the Department of

Agriculture was wholly without warrant of law. * * *

" Your committee does not question the motives or

the sincerity of the

Secretary of Agriculture, whose long service as the

head of the Department of

Agriculture has been of signal service to the

American people. From the

beginning, however, the honorable Secretary has

apparently assumed that his

duties in the proper enforcement of the pure-food

laws are judicial in

character, whereas in fact they are wholly

administrative and ministerial.

This misconstruction of the law is fundamental and

has resulted in a complex

organization within the Department of Agriculture,

in the creation of offices

and boards to which have been given, through

Executive order, power to

overrule or annul the findings of the Bureau of

Chemistry.

" The statute created the Bureau of Chemistry as

an agency to collect

evidence of violations of the food and drug act and

to submit this evidence

duly verified to the Department of Justice for

judicial action. The Secretary

of Agriculture is the officer whose duty it is to

transmit this evidence from

the Bureau of Chemistry to the Department of

Justice. Added to this simple

duty is the more responsible obligation delegated to

him by the three

Secretaries to review the findings of the Bureau of

Chemistry by granting a

hearing to parties from whom samples were collected

and in the light of these

hearings, of deciding whether or not the findings of

the bureau are free from

error.

" This construction of the law, which, in the

opinion of your committee, is

the correct one, places the judicial determination

of all disputes in the

courts, where the standard of purity in foods must

finally be established. It

also makes it the imperative duty of district

attorneys to proceed against all

violators of the law on receipt of certified record

of cases prepared by the

Bureau of Chemistry; but if we accept this

construction of the law in its full

meaning, it is apparent that at the time of the

taking effect of this law the

prompt prosecution of every infraction, whether of

major or minor importance,

was an impossibility, as such a course would have

utterly congested the

business of the courts. * * *

" Thus the administration of the law began with a

policy of negotiation and

compromise between the Secretary and the purveyors

of our national food

supplies. * * *

" The strength of the statute and the jurisdiction

of the courts cannot be

affected by the executive orders of the Secretary of

Agriculture, though they

be issued in obedience to the suggestion of the

President of the United

States.

These respective duties of the Secretary and

Bureau are enumerated

separately in the statute and whatever other duties

either may be charged with

in the administration of the Act come by virtue of

the rules and regulations

established by the Secretary of Agriculture, the

Secretary of the Treasury,

and the Secretary of Commerce and Labor. * * *

" The Act of Congress approved March 4, 1907,

contains this provision, 'and

hereafter the Secretary of Agriculture is hereby

authorized to make such

appointments, promotions, and changes in salaries,

to be paid out of the lump

sum of the several bureaus, divisions and offices of

the Department as may be

for the best interest of the service.' In view of

these provisions of law your

committee is of the opinion that there may be

authority under the law for the

creation and maintenance of such Board (Referee

Board) to aid the Secretary in

the discharge of any duty enjoined on him in his

official capacity; but raises

the question as to its legality on the sole ground

that the determination of

the general questions submitted by the Secretary to

the Referee Board is not

enjoined upon him under the law.

" We have here presented the very crux of the

controversy which has been

waged over the terms of the pure-food law, and

which, fortunately for your

committee, has been recently discussed (by the

Supreme Court) in a decision of

the United States vs. Morgan, et al. * * * The

weight of this decision clearly

denies to the Department of Agriculture any judicial

authority. * * * We have

thus presented another weighty question to be

considered in this connection as

to the necessity, wisdom, or sound policy of

maintaining such a board at a

heavy expense to the Government when the work done

by it is largely a

duplication of work performed, or which might be

performed by the Bureau of

Chemistry. The functions of this board as at present

constituted are purely

advisory. Their decisions have no legal or binding

effect upon any body. The

Secretary can follow or ignore their recommendations

as he sees fit. * * * The

Honorable Secretary of Agriculture seems to have

regarded the findings of this

board as conclusive in all cases over the opinions

and findings of the Bureau

of Chemistry, the tribunal which by express terms of

statute is vested with

authority to determine the questions of adulteration

and misbranding within

the meaning of the act. In the practice of the

Department, the Bureau of

Chemistry has been restrained from examining any

specimens of foods and drugs

under any general subject which is submitted to the

Referee Board during the

time of examination of such questions by such Board;

and if such general

subject is submitted to the Referee Board before the

Bureau of Chemistry has

made any examination of specimens to determine the

question of adulteration

and misbranding, then the Bureau is not permitted by

the Secretary to make any

such examination until the Board shall have made its

report.

" It has resulted in another remarkable situation,

namely, that under the

practice of the Department the decisions of the

Bureau of Chemistry, if in

opposition to the findings and opinions of the

Referee Board cannot be

referred to the Courts and thus permit a judicial

decision to be made as is

comprehended under the plain provisions of the law.

It would thus happen that

if the Bureau of Chemistry were right and the

Referee Board were in error that

violations of the law would receive protection

through the proposed

enforcement of the law; because the effect of such a

policy is to give this

advisory Board, created by Executive order paramount

authority over the Bureau

of Chemistry and lodges in the personal advisers of

the Secretary the power to

annul the decisions of the Bureau within the

Department of Agriculture which

was created by law. "

These luminous opinions of the committee

investigating the expenditures of

the Department of Agriculture show that not a dollar

of the money expended by

the Referee Board was legally expended. At the time

this investigation took

place the total expenditures made by the Referee Board

of the money appropriated

by Congress to enforce the Food and Drugs Act amounted

to over $175,000. Every

dollar of this money was expended in protecting and

promoting violations of the

law. It seems strange in view of these findings which

were approved by the House

of Representatives that no effort was made to impeach

the Secretary of

Agriculture and the President of the United States who

had thus perverted money

appropriated for a particular use to activities

totally repugnant to the purpose

of the appropriation. The following violations of law

were permitted and

protected by this crime, namely, the use of benzoate

of soda as a preservative

of foods, the use of sulphur dioxide and sulphites as

bleaching agents and food

preservatives, the use of saccharin as a sweetener in

foods up to an amount not

exceeding three-tenths of a gram, and the free and

unrestricted use of alum in

food products. It is a striking comment also on the

attitude of Congress and the

people at large that no steps have ever been taken

from 1911 to 1928 to correct

these outrages on the Americaia people and to attempt

to restore the law to its

power and purpose as enacted. Administration after

administration has come and

gone and these abuses still persist.

THE REFEREE BOARD ALREADY DECLARED ILLEGAL

After considering all the evidence adduced over a

period of six weeks the

House committee on expenditures unanimously declared

the Referee Board to be an

illegal organization. It had a very good reason for

doing so even before the

evidence was considered. The matter had been decided

by an assistant to

Attorney-General Wickersham in a report from the

Department of Justice dated

March 31, 1909. This was fully two years and more

before the decision of the

investigating committee was rendered. This report of

the Department of Justice

was signed by J. A. Fowler, assistant to the

Attorney-General. It is printed in

full in the proceedings of the committee, pages 205

and following.

Attorney-General Fowler called attention to the fact

that at the time the

committees of the House and the Senate met for final

conference on the food and

drugs bill, the House bill contained a provision

authorizing the appointment of

a committee of five experts to consider questions of

deleterious or injurious

substances in foods, and to establish food standards.

The Senate bill did not

contain a provision of this kind but did contain a

statement of the duties of

the Bureau of Chemistry to perform these functions.

The Senate conferees

insisted on the elimination of the House provision for

a special board and this

was acceded to by the conferees from the House. When

the conference report was

presented to the two houses Mr. Mann, manager for the

House made the following

statement in answer to a question by Mr. Pollard:

MR. POLLARD: Was there any change made in the

provision of the House bill

wherein we provided that a board, of five inspectors

should be selected to pass

upon the wholesomeness or deleteriousness of the

foods?

MR. MANN: That provision was in Section 9,

directing the Secretary of

Agriculture to determine standards and the entire

section goes out. As I stated

in the House when the bill was before the House, it is

the courts which must

determine in the end as to the question of the

wholesomeness or the

deleteriousness of preservatives or of any article of

food. * * * The Senate

conferees were unalterably opposed to that provision

and as it was not an

essential provision of the law we gave way on that

provision in order to save

the rest of the bill practically intact as the House

had enacted it. (Record

59th Congress, First Session, Page 9738, Expenditures

in the Department of

Agriculture, page 269.)

MR. FOWLER: " This statute authorizes the

prescribing of such regulations as

are consistent with law, and for the reason above

stated I regard the

appointment of this Board of Referees as inconsistent

with law.

Senator McCumber also commented in the Senate on

this same subject, as

follows:

" Now what have we eliminated from this bill?

Senators will remember that

the House measure provided for the fixing of

standards and it called to the

assistance of the Secretary of Agriculture certain

experts who were to aid him

in determining what the standards should be and also

provided that the

standards so established by them should be for the

guidance of the court. The

Senate has always contended that the power to fix

standards should not be

given to any man and the House conferees receded

from that portion of the

House amendment and it goes out. "

In spite of this clear intention of Congress the

Solicitor of the Department

of Agriculture wrote an opinion to the effect that the

appointment of the

Referee Board was legal and this opinion was adopted

by Attorney-General

Wickersham as a choice between the opinion of the

Solicitor of the Department of

Agriculture and the opinion of his own assistant in

the Department of Justice.

With the promulgation of the opinion of the

Attorney-General, the effacement

of the Bureau of Chemistry from any further

participation in the enforcement of

the food and drugs act was completed. Even the Board

of Food and Drug Inspection

was deprived of its office of confirming or

overturning the decisions of the

Bureau of Chemistry. Under General Order No. 140 the

Solicitor of the Department

was made the sole arbiter of the recommendations which

should go to the

Secretary in regard to whether or not an article was

misbranded or adulterated.

General Order No. 140 is found on page 10 of the

report of the committee. The

committee expressed the following opinion thereon:

" Under the terms of this order all the evidence

in all cases examined in

the Bureau of Chemistry, together with such

summaries as the solicitor may

prescribe is referred to the solicitor to determine

whether or not a prima

facie case has been made. * * * We are at a loss to

understand what favorable

results can come from the preparation of such

summaries in the Bureau of

Chemistry and their further study in the solicitor's

office. "

The committee realized that this was the

consummation of the plan of the

solicitor. It totally disregarded the provisions of

the food law as to the

methods of its execution. It placed the solicitor, not

mentioned nor recognized

in the law, in the place of the Bureau of Chemistry as

the sole arbiter of all

processes looking to the enforcement of the act. With

this final blow at the

vitality of the law its enforcement passed entirely

into the hands of the

enemies of the law. The public which it was intended

to protect was left without

any redress. The result was a wild orgy of

adulteration and misbranding, paid

for by the money of tax-payers appropriated for the

enforcement of the law. The

members of the Referee Board became experts paid by

the Government to protect

the interests of adulterators and misbranders. Their

eff orts in this direction

were put into effect by the Solicitor of the

Department. All the fruits gained

by the victory in the enactment Of the legislation

were thus sacrificed by the

direct negation of the law's demands. The fai-reaching

effects of this crime

against law I have tried to set down in as small a

space as possible to do

justice to the story.

UNCONTROLLED FOOD SUPPLY

If an expert dietitian and physiologist should take

up for study a report on

metabolism made by a scientific authority, he would

expect first of all that the

composition and weight of food ingested should be

accurately stated. Without

knowing the amount of intake, data respecting the

outgo have no significance. In

Bulletin 84, Part 4, Benzoate of Soda, containing the

experimental data of the

Bureau of Chemistry, it will be noticed that careful

analytical examinations

were made of all the foods ingested and the quantities

of each kind of food for

each subject is accurately stated. The data in this

investigation therefore

obtained by the examination and analyses of the feces

and urine have a direct

significance. In the experiments on the same subject

conducted by the Referee

Board no attempt was made to have complete analyseg of

the foods administered

nor the quantities thereof eaten. It was all left to

the experimentees

themselves. This is forcibly brought out by the

statement of Dr. Chittenden on

page 17 of Report No. 88 of the Referee Board. He

says:

First, the subjects were not restricted to a

limited dietary, but on the

contrary were allowed reasonable freedom of choice,

both as to character and

quantity of the daily food. 1n other words, there

was no interference with the

normal desires of the individual but each subject

was allowed full latitude in

the exercise of his personal likes and dislikes. To

be sure each day a

definite menu was arranged for all three meals, but

this was sufficiently

generous in character to admit of choice; further'

after a short time

sufficient knowledge was acquired of the special

tastes of the subjects, so

thdt a daily dietary could easily be provided quite

satisfactory to all. By

this method of procedure there was no violation of

that physiological good

sense so essential in experiments of this character.

 

In the experiments of the Bureau of Chemistry no

such latitude was permitted.

In the fore period in each case sufficient quantities

of the diet prescribed,

which was a thoroughly wholesome and well-balanced

one, were used to establish

an even daily weight of each one. This quantity was

given to the subject each

day, during the experimental administration of the

drug. If during the

administration of the benzoic acid the subject would

not feel like eating his

whole meal, the amount he did not eat was weighed and

deducted. This failure of

appetite, if no other cause could be found for it, was

an indication of the

effects produced by the administered preservative. I

suppose this method of

procedure would be designated by members of the

Referee Board as " physiological "

nonsense.

The records printed in Report No. 88 indicate the

wildest riot in diet ever

recorded in a physiological investigation. Enormous

differences in the amount of

food consumed are recorded in that report. In the

evidence before the court in

the Indiana case, page 33, this matter was brought to

the attention of Dr.

Remsen in the following question:

Now, Doctor, in order to conduct an examination

of that. kind, an

investigation that was of any very great value,

oughtn't every article of food

that was given to the subject to be analyzed, some

part of it, so as to know

what it contained?

A. I suppose there are other ways of getting at

that besides analyzing it.

You can often form generally an opinion of the

character of the food you are

giving or examining without analyzing.

Q. Are there not variations, for instance in

breads?

A. There are variations, undoubtedly.

Q. And they are variations of wide extent, are

they not, doctor?

A. Well, wide--depends on the meaning of the word

wide. That is a technical

question that I should want to refer to the experts

of this Board.

Q. You would not be prepared to say what would be

a normal range in the

quantity of nitrogen that would be found?

A. Not I, no. I could get the information very

readily. One moment--my

impression is that there were analyses of some foods

made--very many.

Some time in the remote future when all personal

matters have passed away and

an expert chemist and physiologist calmly reviews the

data obtained by the

Bureau of Chemistry and the data obtained by the

Referee Board on the same

subject, they will show a comparison of values of the

two investigations which I

am quite content to leave to the judgment of the

unbiased future.

As has been clearly illustrated, the Remsen Board

was appointed to protect

manufacturing interests. The Chief of the Bureau of

Chemistry under his oath was

trying to protect the neglected American consumer. One

would have thought that

in selecting five eminent scientific men that at least

some one of them might

have revolted from the purpose to which he was

assigned. The quotation from

Claude Bernard discloses most emphatically the proper

psychological attitude of

the true investigator when he undertakes his task.

PROFESSOR CARLSON ON THE REMSEN BOARD

The Supreme Court has ruled that the user of a

deleterious product in foods

must justify that use. Prof. A. J. Carlson* sees a

scientific reason therefor:--

Modern chemistry has opened up another avenue of

poisoning the human system

through the field of food preservatives and food

substitutes. We have the

problem of the harmfulness or the harmlessness of

the various baking powders,

of benzoic acid as a permissible food preservative,

of saccharin as a

substitute for sugar, etc. Many of the experiments

purporting to prove the

permissibility or harmlessness of the substance or

preservative, even those

carried out by competent scientists, seem to me

wholly inadequate. I have in

mind, as an example, the experiments and finding of

the Remsen Consulting

Board, on the question of saccharin in foods. Under

the direction of this

board, composed of leading biochemists and chemists,

varying quantities of

saccharin were fed to a small number of healthy

young men, daily, for periods

up to nine months. The board concluded that the

daily ingestion of this food

substitute below a certain quantity (0.3 gram per

day) is without injurious

effects; above this saccharin produces injury. This

conclusion became guide to

federal legislation and regulation. Was the above

conclusion warranted by the

experiments performed? We think not. All the

experiments proved was that the

substance (saccharin) when taken by healthy young

men over this period did not

produce any injury that the commission could detect

by the tests used. Society

is composed of individuals other than healthy young

men, and nine months is a

short period in the span of human life. There are

many deviations of

physiological processes that can not be detected by

body weight, food intake,

or the chemical examination of the urine. Most of

the organs in the body can

be injured a great deal before we become actually

sick. It would seem a safer

principle for governments and society to insist that

the burden of proof of

harmlessness falls on the manufacturer or the

introducer of the new food

substitutes rather than on society, and the test of

the harmfulness or

harmlessness should involve all phyidological

processes of man.

*Prof. A. J. Carlson, Science, April 6, 1928, page

358.

POLITICS AND PURE FOOD

One of the most remarkable episodes in the

activities of the Remsen Board was

in connection with the Convention of State, Dairy and

Food Officials in their

annual meeting in Denver, in 1909. The previous

meeting of this official body

was held at Mackinac Island in 1908. At this meeting

vigorous protests against

the mutilation of the food law by the creation of the

Remsen Board were voiced

in the resolutions adopted by the convention. These

resolutions reflected

severely upon the attitude of the Secretary of

Agriculture and other officials

of the Department in accepting the decisions of this

Board which were held to be

contrary to law. The Secretary of Agriculture was

indignant at this feature of

the meeting in 1908. It is evident that he did not

want a repetition of it to

occur in 1909. Previous to the date of the meeting

George P. MeCabe, Solicitor,

made an official trip to the Central West, which,

according to the testimony

given, was for the purpose of interviewing prospective

delegates to Denver and

urging them to vote to support the policies of the

Department of Agriculture. As

related in the testimony in the Moss Committee on the

expenditures of the

Department of Agriculture, Mr. McCabe was somewhat

hazy as to the purposes of

this trip and as to exactly when it was made. Only two

years had passed, but

they seemed to have had a remarkable effect upon his

memory. Under the urgent

questioning of members of the Committee and in a burst

of loyalty to his chief

he finally told the whole story.

To strengthen still further the administration

lines in the forthcoming

convention, the Secretary of Agriculture requested the

members of the Referee

Board also to attend this convention. In addition to

this urgent request of the

Secretary, the President of the forthcoming

convention, the Hon. J. Q. Emery,

Food and Drug Commissioner of Wisconsin, invited the

members of the Referee

Board to attend the convention and justify, if they

could, the conclusions

already reached in the benzoate of soda question. It

was particularly desirable,

also, to hear their opinions on the saccharin

question, inasmuch as that was the

chief motive of the appointment of the Remsen Board.

The attitude of Dr. Remsen,

the Chairman of that Board, and the part played by it

in the Denver convention

are luminously set forth in the testimony of the Moss

committee which follows.

The memory of Mr. McCabe, as I have said, was somewhat

short, andthis seemed to

be the case with the memory of Dr. Dunlap. He was

specially sent by the

Secretary of Agriculture to acquaint Dr. Remsen with

his plans for controlling

the Denver convention. Dr. Dunlap's memory in regard

to the plan which he

discussed with Dr. Remsen was quite as hazy as was Mr.

McCabe's memory in regard

to his trip to interview the delegates to the Denver

convention. One of the most

striking features in connection with this event was

the fact that special

commissions were issued to the members of the Remsen

Board to cover their

expenses in connection with this trip. It was shown by

the questioning of the

committee that there was cloubt as to the legality of

these expenses under the

general proclamation establishing the Remsen Board.

That no question might arise

with the disbursing officers, this special

dispensation was given. The reading

of the testimony will be sufficient to illustrate the

other points in regard to

the appearance of the Remsen Board at Denver.

Following this are quotations from

the Denver press at the time the meeting was in

session. The pages of the

testimony are given in each selection.

 

 

HON. J. Q. EMERY

 

EXCERPTS FROM TESTIMONY BEFORE MOSS COMMITTEE

Dr. Remsen's Testimony

Page 257.

MR. FLOYD: What is saccharin, Doctor?

DR. REMSEN: I can explain that if you want a

scientific lecture. I happen to

be the discoverer of that substance. I could not

explain it in a few words very

well.

MR. FLOYD: Did you say you were the inventor of

saccharin?

DR. REMSEN: No; I would not say I was the inventor.

The substance was

discovered in the laboratory under my direction in an

investigation carried out

way back, over 30 years ago. A young man was

associated with me in the work, and

his name is generally connected with " saccharin. " That

man is Mr. Fahlberg.

MR. FLOYD: Is it a patent?

DR. REMSEN: He patented it. I did not. Incidentally

he made a good deal of

money out of it. I did not.

MR. FLOYD: For what reason, if to your knowledge,

was saccharin referred to

your board for investigation?

DR. REMSEN: I have no idea why it was referred

except the general idea that

in every case it was desired to know whether the

substance mentioned in the

reference is or is not harmful That is the main point.

MR. FLOYD: When used in food?

DR. REMSEN: When used in food; yes.

MR. FLOYD: Is saccharin a food within itself or is

it a preservative used in

foods? I do not want you to go into a long scientific

explanation, of course.

DR. REMSEN: It is not a food; it is to a slight

extent a preservative. But

the purpose for which it is used is as a sweetening

agent. It is about 500 times

sweeter than ordinary sugar and can be made at a rate

which renders sweetness

per unit very much cheaper than ordinary sugar.

MR. MAYS: Is it harmful?

DR. REMSEN: That was the question.

MR. MAYS: And have you decided it?

DR. REMSEN: Yes; we have made our report.

MR. FLOYD: Their opinion is printed in the record.

DR. REMSEN: I may say also that it is used as a

medicine in diabetes. I

believe it is very useful in that disease, as diabetic

patients cannot take

sugar, but can take saccharin and thrive under it.

MR. FLOYD: Do you know whether any members of the

board selected by you

previous to their appointment had taken any special

interest in or expressed any

opinion of chemical preservatives of food?

DR. REMSEN: I can not answer that question fully,

but I can give an answer to

the best of my knowledge. They had all been interested

in the general problem of

the use of preservatives. Two of them--possibly only

one; I know Dr. Chittenden

was interested in the effect of saltpeter on meat and

was engaged in an

investigation on that subject until quite recently. He

also, I believe, although

I am not sure about that--I have seen this in the

newspapers and have not

followed it in detail otherwise--was interested at one

time in the investigation

of the effects of borax* or boracic acid as a

preservative. I think Dr. Long was

on that same committee that investigated saltpeter. I

am not sure.

*Dr. Chittenden appeared before a legislative

committee and declared borax a

harmless preservative.

MR. FLOYD: Did you attend the convention of State

and National dairy and food

departments at Denver, in 1909?

DR. REMSEN: Yes, sir; on the way back from

California I stopped there.

Page 262-263.

MR. FLOYD: Did you attend on your own volition, or

were you directed by the

department to attend?

DR. REMSEN: I was not directed; I was requested.

MR. FLOYD: You were requested to attend?

DR. REMSEN: Yes.

MR. FLOYD: How long did you remain at Denver during

that convention?

DR. REMSEN: Two or three days; I am not sure just

exactly how long.

MR. FLOYD: What was the purpose of that convention,

and what were the

questions discussed there? Did they relate to pure

foods?

DR. REMSEN: Well, I do not know much about the

association. I do know that I

was asked by the president of the association to give

an address on the subject

of the work of the referee board, I think, or, at

least it had reference to the

benzoate question, and after finding I could stop

there conveniently on the way

from California and that the other members of the

board could do the same, I

accepted the invitation. The association discussed all

sorts of questions

pertaining to things of which I have no knowledge, but

I do know that they took

up this benzoate question in rather an active way, and

I suppose it was felt by

the Secretary that it was desirable to have some one

there to explain what it

all meant. They seemed to be going on the wrong track,

so far as we could

gather. They got some wrong impressions of the thing

and the nature of the work,

or what we were appointed for, or what we were doing,

and it did seem wise not

to let them go too far that way without some

explanation from us, which we gave

in a dignifled way, I think I can safely say.

MR. FLOYD: And the expenses of yourself and the

other members of the board

for this trip to California and this trip to the

convention in Denver were paid

by the department?

DR. REMSEN: Yes. Of course, the trip to the

convention amounted to very

little. That was simply stopping over.

MR. FLOYD: You state that you addressed the

convention yourself. Did any of

the other members of the board address the convention,

and if so, who?

DR. REMSEN: Dr. Chittenden, Dr. Long and Dr. Herter

all addressed the

convention, at the request of the president of the

association, Mr. Emery.

MR. FLOYD: I will ask you to state if in the

address you made before the

convention on the question of benzoate of soda you

made a defense of the use of

benzoate of soda?

DR. REMSEN: No, sir.

MR. FLOYD: You just discussed the findings?

DR.. REMSEN: I discussed the general method of

procedure which we had

followed. I have nothing to do with the use of

benzoate of soda. We were not

asked to decide whether it was,a good thing to use or

not, and we have never

expressed ourselves upon that point.

THE CHAIRMAN: Your expenses at Denver were also

paid by the Department of

Agriculture?

DR. REMSEN: We went, as I said yesterday, to

California for an important

purpose, looking into the sulphuring process, and on

our way back we stopped

there. We did make a little effort to time our trip

back so that we could attend

the meeting, because we had been asked to give

addresses. We were asked by the

president of the association. We stayed there possibly

three days. I am not sure

whether it was two or three, but not more than three.

The slight expense of the

board during that period in the way of traveling

expenses was paid by the--

THE CHAIRMAN (interposing): You gave an address

there?

DR. REMSEN: Yes.

THE CHAIRMAN: And the purpose of that address was

to explain and defend the

report you had made to the Secretary of Agriculture?

DR. REMSEN: I did not defend the work. I didn't

think that was my business.

The report had been made. But I did do this: I

explained, somewhat as I have

explained to this committee, how the board came into

existence, and very little

else. I don't think that the address was ever

published. Then, I may say, that

after that the work of the board was attacked very

violently by Dr. Reed, of

Cincinnati, which was most astonishing to me. After

that attack I felt it my

duty to respond, which I did in measured manner, and I

didn't say anything I

would not repeat. I will add that to what I said

yesterday, because I made

really two addresses there. The other members of the

board I think did not

answer the attack. I think they were satisfied with my

answer.

THE CHAIRMAN: In making either one of those

addresses did you go beyond the

official work of your board and defend the use of

benzoate of soda as a

preservative of food?

DR. REMSEN: No, Sir.

Dr. Reed's address was solely in the interest of

public health. The criticism

he made of the Remsen Board was for its open support

of adding benzoate of soda

and saccharin to foods. If it was " violent " it was

because of Dr. Reed's

indignation that a law passed, as the Supreme Court

has said, for the protection

of public health, was so flagrantly flouted by the

Remsen Board in the two cases

then decided, namely, benzoate of soda and saccharin.

 

 

DR. C. A. L. REED

Who led the fight against the Remsen Board at the

Denver Convention

 

DR. REMSEN'S AVERSION TO NEWSPAPERS

Page 292-293.

MR. HIGGINS: Did you desire to make any other

statement that has not been

covered by the questions that have been asked?

DR. REMSEN: There is just one point that I should

like to refer to, that has

not been brought out in the examination. This board

has been aware for some time

that there is some influence at work to undermine it

and discredit it. We do not

pretend to know and have not discovered what the

source of that influence is;

but it is perfectly clear that that influence is at

work.

MR. HIGGIN: How does it manifest itself?

DR. REMSEN: Newspaper articles. So far as I know

the newspapers almost

without exception are opposed to the Remsen Board.

Why, I am sure I don't know.

The Remsen Board is an innocent board and does not

quite like to be considered

guilty before it has been tried, at all events. I have

noticed that within the

last month nearly every reference to the Remsen Board

that has appeared in the

papers has put the board in a bad light, and anybody

reading those articles day

after day would get the impression that Remsen and his

whole tribe ought to

disappear from the face of the earth. Sometimes

friends of mine come up to me

with long faces and say, " Remsen, it is too bad about

this matter. " I say,

" What's the matter? " They say, " Haven't you seen that

article about your board? "

I say, " Oh, no, and don't show it to me; I have seen

enough. " Now, those

articles would not appear day after day, at least I

can not imagine they would

appear, without there being some influence at work to

inspire them. I merely

make this statement to show my state of mind. I am

getting, as I have confessed,

somewhat thicker skinned, and I rather rejoice that I

have been through this

experience because I think on the whole a thick skin

is worth something.

The attack upon the Remsen Board by the public

press was nation-wide. The

only people who were pleased with it, aside from the

high officials of the

Government, were the adulterators and misbranders of

our foods. At the hotel in

Denver I saw a most remarkable phenomenon. There was

gathered at Danver a strong

lobby of the supporters of the Remsen Board. At the

head of this lobby, which

apparently numbered 100 at least, was Warwick M.

Hough, chief attorney for the

rectifiers. There seemed to be little enthusiasm among

the people of Denver for

the Secretary of Agriculture, his solicitor, and the

members of the Remsen

Board. There was, however, tremendous enthusiasm of

the lobby above referred to

for all of these individuals. After adjournment of the

afternoon session I saw

this lobby gathered around the members. of the Remsen

Board and Warwick M.

Hough's arm was lovingly encircling the shoulders of

Dr. Ira M. Remsen, eminent

chemist and president of Johns Hopkins University, and

according to his own

statement, discoverer of saccharin. Although each

member of the Remsen Board was

personally known to me except Dr. Alonzo Taylor and

Dr. C. A. Herter, not one of

them spoke to me during the three or four days they

were in Denver except Dr.

Herter. He came up and introduced himself to me and

attempted to make some

apology for his part in the activities of the Remsen

Board. He realized very

keenly the condition they were in, in espousing the

cause of adulteration,

becoming the paid agents of the adulterators, and

incurring the universal

condemnation of the press and the people of the

country. Dr. Herter was then a

very sick man. In a few months from that date he died.

I have often wondered

with what misgivings he approached his end and what

feelings the other members

of the Board must have had when they realized the

universal condemnation which

was heaped upon them. I doubt if any reference is ever

made in the biographies

of these men, as they pass away one by one and their

deeds while living are

recorded, to the service they rendered their country

as members of this Board.

Page 293-294.

THE CHAIRMAN: Might not the fact that you gave

certain testimony and the fact

that you appeared at the Denver convention making

speeches there be at the

bottom of some of this influence that you are speaking

about as being inimical

to the Remsen Board?

DR. REMSEN: I am sure I don't know, but I can say

that it was found that the

influence, whatever it was, was at work long before

the Denver meeting.

THE CHAIRMAN: When the Remsen Board was appointed

of course no one expected

that it was going to do anything more than give advice

to the Secretary of

Agriculture in his official duties, and yet, according

to your testimony, the

Department of Agriculture has suggested to different

members to appear in court

and give testimony, has paid their expenses at that

trial, when the effect would

be to affect the decision of the courts in the State

of Indiana.

DR. REMSEN: Well, it might affect the decision of

the court in so far as it

would enable them better to get at the truth, which I

suppose was the object of

the court.

THE CHAIRMAN: That may be the object of the court,

but it surely was not the

object of the creation of this referee board, was it?

DR. REMSEN: Of course the referee board was never

defined exactly--exactly

what it should do.

THE CHAIRMAN: Well, let us define it. Do you

understand it now to be part of

the purpose of the referee board to in fluence the

decisions of the courts of

this country?

DR. REMSEN: Why, no; in no sense, except--

MR. HIGGINS: Except so far as the truth is

concerned?

DR. REMSEN: Except so far as the truth is concerned

by telling the facts, and

if I am asked to do so I should do so, so far as it

would influence the action

of the court I should think it would be proper for the

board to do so.

THE CHAIRMAN: However, I believe you admit that

your official report is not

evidence?

DR. REMSEN: Yes, sir.

THE CHAIRMAN: And it is voluntary with you whether

you should appear and give

this testimony?

DR. REMSEN: I think I could have been subpoenaed. I

am not sure.

THE CHAIRMAN: And you referred the matter to your

superior and it was upon

his advice that you gave this testimony?

DR. REMSEN: Yes.

THE CHAIRMAN: That is the point I wanted to get at,

and that you advised Dr.

Chittenden also to give his testimony?

DR. REMSEN: Yes; I did the second time.

THE CHAIRMAN: Yes; and that Dr. Chittenden's

expenew were paid by the

Department of Agriculture?

DR. REMSEN: I believe so. I am not entirely clear

about that.

MR. HIGGINS: And the Indiana courts had the benefit

of the decision which

your board had reached as the result of its scientific

investigations as to the

effect of benzoate of soda?

DR. REMSEN: That was the effect of our appearance,

that is all. We did not

argue the case, of course.

Page 858.

To Secretary Wilson:

THE CHAIRMAN: You are speaking there about the

Board of Food and Drug

Inspection; you are referring to some advice to be

given to Dr. Taylor about

some testimony to be given at Indianapolis, Ind., and

you state there: " I shall

consult with our people on the Board of Food and Drug

Inspection (that is,

Dunlap and McCabe). " What meaning do you attach to

that language--if you dare to

attach any?

SECRETARY WILSON: There is no hesitation in my mind

in telling you all that

was in my mind there.

THE CHARMAN: I recognize the fact that you need not

answer unless you wish.

SECRETARY WILSON: Oh, I am going to answer it, My

answer is this: You are

pretty well aware that there was friction between

those men, there. You have got

that pretty much every bit in your testimony. It would

have been an insult to

Dr. Wiley to have consulted him in regard to anything

concerning benzoate of

soda.

THE CHAIRMAN: Why?

SECRETARY WILSON: Because he despised it, and

everything connected with it,

and believed that a big mistake had been made, and a

big mistake had been made

by ever getting the Referee Board; that is why. I do

not gratuitously offer

insults to any of my people.

 

INVESTIGATIONS OF THE BUREAU OF CHEMISTRY

REFUSED PUBLICATION BY SECRETARY WILSON

Page 868-869.

THE CHAIRMAN: I understand also, Mr. Secretary,

that you have referred the

report of the Bureau of Chemistry on the copper

question to the Referee Board

without publication?

SECRETARY WILSON: Oh, yes; I remember now. I had

two bureaus considering the

sulphate of copper, and there was a man in the Plant

Industry named Woods who

had done a most remarkable lot of work with sulphate

of copper. He found by

taking a little bag of sulphate of copper and going

into a large reservoir that

had green scum over it, if he would sail around for an

hour and drag that bag

after him he would kill every single particle of that

green scum there; and he

went to a number of States in the country, and he went

to Panama and cleaned up

every one of the reservoirs they had. He and the

doctor did not come within

gunshot of agreeing on sulphate of copper. In a case

of that kind, Mr. Chairman,

one must go slow when they have two scientists in two

different lines and they

do not quite agree. It is not best to bring any

arbitrary rulings in there, but

wait and see if we can not get more light.

THE CHAIRMAN: It is a matter of fact, however, the

Bureau of Chemistry did

make a report upon copper, and it has not been

published?

SECRETARY WILSON: Yes; and that is the reason, Mr.

Chairman; that is the

reason.

THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Secretary, will you be willing to

have prepared and

inserted in the record at this point a complete list

of the investigations of

the Bureau of Chemistry which you have refused or have

failed for any reason to

have published?

SECRETARY WILSON: I could do that; yes; I could do

that.

(Manuscripts relating to subjects involved in the

enforcement of the food and

drugs act, approved June 30, 1906, submitted for

publication by the Bureau of

Chemistry, but not published:)

Corn Sirup as a Synonym for Glucose. Submitted as

Food Inspection Decision

83, November, 1907.

Investigations of a Substitute (weak brine) for

Sulphur Dioxide in Drying

Fruits, by W. D. Bigelow.

Sanitary Conditions of Canneries, Based on the

Results of Inspection. By A.

W. Bitting, February, 1908.

Influence of Food Preservatives and Artificial

Colors on Digestion and

Health:

VI. Sulphate of Copper. By H. W. Wiley and

others, April, 1908.

VII. Potassium Nitrate. By H. W. Wiley and

others. April, 1908.

The Bleaching of Flour. By H. W. Wiley, February,

1909.

Influence of Food Preservatives and Artificial

Colors on Digestion and

Health:

IV. Benzoic Acid and Benzoates. By H. W. Wiley

and others. Submitted for

reprint, June, 1909.

Medicated Soft Drinks. By L. F. Kebler and others.

July, 1909.

Drug Legislation in the United States:

II. Indexed Digest of Drug Legislation. By C. H.

Greathouse. October, 1909.

Food Legislation During the Year Ended June 30,

1909. January, 1910.

Estimation of Glycerin in Meat Preparations. By C.

R Cook. March, 1910.

Technical Drug Studies. By L. F. Kebler and others.

April, 1910.

Experiments on the Spoilage of Tomato Ketchup. By

A. W. Bitting. January,

1911.

The Influence of Environment on the Sugar Content

of Cantaloupes. By M. N.

Straughn and C. G. Church. May, 1911.

A Bacteriological Study of Eggs in the Shell and of

Frozen and Desiccated

Eggs. By G. W. Stiles. May, 1911.

The Arsenic Content of Shellac. June, 1911.

THE CHAIRMAN: Is it the policy of the Department of

Agriture, Mr. Secretary,

to suppress or refuse publication of the reports which

the Bureau of Chemistry

may make to you on any questions which are referred to

the Referee Board, until,

after the board has made its final report?

SECRETARY WILSON: I may have done that. I think

probably there is

justification for having anything which treats with

benzoate of soda handled in

that way. I believe that is the question, is it?

Benzoate of soda is a question

that was referred to the Referee Board. I think I

would not favor printing

anything in the department until we heard from them.

THE CHAIRMAN: As a matter of fact, whether the

findings of the Referee Board

govern your action, or whether the findings of the

Bureau of Chemistry govern

your action, is a question which you yourself decide

within your own diseretion,

is it not?

SECRETARY WILSON: Surely. You have to have a

secretary there who must decide.

THE CHAIRMAN: In other words, the decisions of the

Referee Board have no

value whatever until approved by you? I am speaking

now legally, and as to its

influence upon the administration of the pure food

law.

Page 865-866.

THE CHAIRMAN: It is true, is it not, Mr. Secretary,

that money which you

allot to the Referee Board is drawn from money

appropriated for the Bureau of

Chemistry, and that this allotment is anticipated in

the estimates which you

make?

SECRETARY WILSON: Yes; anticipated and understood

by the Committee on

Agriculture when they appropriate the money.

THE CHAIRMAN: And for that reason you do not

consult with the chief of bureau

in regard to making that particular allotment? Is that

true?

SECRETARY WILSON: The chiefs of the bureaus are

always consulted. Dr. Wiley,

the chief of that bureau, is a little touchy on

anything of that kind, and one

has to bethink himself quite often about getting along

smoothly in this world,

you know.

THE CHAIRMAN: Has Dr. Wiley ever recommended that

any money be allotted to

the Referee Board from the appropriation under his

department?

SECRETARY WILSON: I think I would not want to hurt

his feelings by ever

mentioning it at all.

We had a referee board, and I think a pretty

expensive referee board, you

will confess. We had gone after big men, and it was

costing a good deal of

money, and those people met there at Mackinac Island

and got themselves outside

of sympathy with the department along those lines,

attacked me personally,

misrepresented things, and I thought the amount of

effort the United States was

making and the amount of money it was expending to get

facts from the greatest

chemists in the land made it worthwhile for us to get

those big men there before

that class of men and let them see them and let them

hear them. I did not think

they comprehended the difference there was between a

small chemist and a big

one. That was the one thing in my mind. They were in

California studying the

drying of foods with sulphur, and the arrangement was

that they should stop over

at Denver on the way back. I was going to the forests,

and I arranged and it was

my plan to stop there on my way to the forests. I went

into the forests from

Denver and stayed a month. Those were the plans. There

is nothing I care to

conceal here, noththing. Those were the plans and we

talked them over, and

everyone of them addressed that convention, everyone

of them, and I think those

people got new light from those men.

THE CHAIRMAN: I wish to refer to you page 338 of

the hearings of August 3, to

correspondence between yourself and Dr. Remsen. Dr.

Remsen says, in this letter:

" It is clear from the newspaper reports that there is

'pernicious activity'

somewhere. " In your reply you say: " The pernicious

activity you speak of is

quite evident. " Will you kindly tell the committee

what you referred to as

" pernicious activity " ?

SECRETARY WILSON: Yes. The activity of people

attacking that Remsen Board.

That is just what it was.

THE CHAIRMAN: It was correspondence between you and

the chairman of the

board. Of course, if this " pernicious activity " is

without the Department of

Agriculture it would not be proper for us to go into

it. But if it is within the

Department of Agriculture, it would seem to me proper

for us to know what you

referred to as " pernicious activity. "

SECRETARY WILSON: If you have been watching the

public press you have

discovered that there has been a good deal of

criticism. If you have been

watching the proceedings of Congress you will no doubt

have seen there has been

a desperate effort made there for the purpose of

destroying the Remsen Board,

and things of that kind. That is what I had reference

to.

THE CHAIRMAN: In your letter of April 19, 1909, you

say further: " Things will

come to a head before a great while, I think, along

this line. " Would you care

to explain what that means?

SECRETARY WILSON: I thought the work of that board,

as it was being done and

reported, would settle all those questions.

THE CHAIRMAN: Do you consider, or did you consider

at the time, that the

attendance of members of the Remsen Board and

Solicitor McCabe at this Denver

convention, which we were speaking about heretofore,

was in line with their

official duties?

SECRETARY WILSON: Yes; it was a kind of public

trial we were having, really,

of the Remsen Board.

THE CHAIRMAN: Their attendance being in the line of

their official duty, will

you explain why you issued to each one of them a

special authorization for

traveling expenses to attend this particular

convention, when each one of them

had an annual authorization for travel anywhere in the

United States upon

official business?

SECRETARY WILSON: If you have evidence of that

special authorization, you had

better call my attention to it.

THE CHAIRMAN: Very well, I will be glad to do that.

(Reads letter from Secretary Wilson to Dr. Remsen,

dated August 6, 1909,

wherein it is stated that authorization No. 1163 is

amended so as to permit Dr.

Remsen and his assistants to attend the Denver

convention.)

SECRETARY WILSON: I guess that is correct. What do

you want to know about it?

THE CHAIRMAN: I want to know, if this attendance

was in line with their

official duties, as stated here, why it was necessary

they should have special

authorization when they had a regular authorization?

SECRETARY WILSON: I 'Presume they had some doubts

about stopping off at

Denver being in their original authorization. If they

had, then I gave them all

the authorization they would need.

THE CHAIRMAN: If there were any doubt it would be

doubt as to whether or not

that came within their official duties?

SECRETARY WILSON: Precisely.

THE CHAIRMAN: Do you hold that you have executive

authority to add to the

official duties of the Remsen Board other than that

prescribed in the order

creating them?

SECRETARY WILSON: To this extent, yes.

THE CHAIRMAN: To that extent you have?

SECRETARY WILSON: Yes.

One of the most detestable features of the

persecution of those delegates to

the Denver Convention of 1909 who opposed the decision

of the Remsen Board was

the dismissal of Floyd Robison. This action was

investigated by the Moss

Committee. Mr. Robison was one of a group of state

chemists who were

occasionally requested to cooperate with the officials

of the Bureau of

Chemistry in enforcing the Food Law. (Pages 522-524.)

 

 

MR. FLOYD ROBISON

MR. Moss: Were there any charges filed against you?

DR. ROBISON: None.

MR. Moss: Have you the letter of dismissal with

you?

DR. ROBISON: I have.

MR. Moss: Please read it to the committee.

(I will quote only last line of this letter.)

DR. ROBISON (reading): " He is removed from the

department for the good of the

service. James Wilson, Secretary of Agriculture. "

Dr. Robison appealed to the Secretary of

Agriculture for reasons which led to

such drastic action. The Secretary, in his reply,

under date of July 25, 1911,

says:

" * * * At the meeting of the Association of State

and National Food and

Dairy Departments at Denver, in July, 1909, you

attracted attention by taking

a strong and public position against the policies of

the department and of the

administration. You appeared in the Federal court in

Indianapolis in

opposition to the policies of the administration

with regard to the reports of

the Referee Board on benzoate of soda and the report

of the three secretaries

with regard to it. * * * I have approved your

dismissal for the good of the

service. There are no charges against you; we make

none. I recognize the fact

that you have a perfect right to occupy any position

you see fit. with regard

to the policies of the administration or of the

department, but I do not think

you should draw salary while you are taking this

stand. "

Question by MR. MOSS: Were you a delegate to the

Denver convention?

DR. ROBISON: I was.

MR. MOSS: Whom did you represent?

DR. ROBISON: The State of Michigan.

MR. MOSS: Who paid your expenses for attending that

convention?

DR. ROBISON: The State of Michigan.

MR. MOSS: Were you drawing any salary from the

Government at that time?

DR. ROBISON: I was not.

MR. MOSS: Did you draw any money, either directly

or in. directly, from the

National Government for your attendance at the

convention or for your expenses?

DR. ROBISON: I did not.

MR. MOSS: What position did you hold at the Denver

convention?

DR. ROBISON: I held the position of chairman of the

committee of eleven State

food chemists appointed by the president of the

Association of State and

National Food and Dairy Departments.

MR. MOSS: Did you make any report?

DR. ROBISON: As chairman of the committee, I did.

MR. MOSS: Will you read into the record that

report?

DR. ROBISON: I will read the final recommendation:

" 'Your committee therefore respectfully suggests

to this association the

wisdom of asking the President of the United States

and the honorable

Secretary of Agriculture to institute investigations

along some such broader

lines as indicated above. "

MR. MOSS: Did you make any address to the Denver

convention in which you

referred to the Remsen Board one way or the other?

DR. ROBISON: I did not.

MR. MOSS: Did you receive any information from

Secretary Wilson or any person

representing him as to the policy of the Department of

Agriculture?

DR. ROBISON: I received none.

MR. MOSS: Did you make any address to the

convention advocating or opposing

the use of benzoate of soda?

DR. ROBISON: I did not.

MR. MOSS: In your capacity as delegate did you cast

a vote for president of

that association?

DR. ROBISON: I did. I voted for Mr. Bird, the

commissioner of the State of

Michigan.

MR. MOSS: Did Mr. Bird receive the support of the

Department of Agriculture?

DR. ROBISON: He did not.

MR. MOSS: So far as you know, then, did you appear

in opposition to the

Department of Agriculture in any other manner except

casting your personal vote

for the president of the association?

DR. ROBISON: I did not.

MR. MOSS: At whose request did you appear at

Indianapolis to give testimony

at that trial?

DR. ROBISON: At the request of the Board of Health

of the State of Indiana.

MR. MOSS: Were you paid any fee?

DR. ROBISON: I received no fee.

MR. MOSS: In your testimony, did you give your

original work as a chemist?

DR. ROBISON: I testified according to the truth as,

I understood it to be and

had found it from my own investigations, and according

to my oath, and without

any regard in any capacity to any other policy.

MR. MOSS: Were you warned in any way by the

Department of Agriculture not to

do this?

DR. ROBISON: I was not.

 

EXTRACTS FROM THE DENVER PRESS, AUGUST 25-28, 1909

WILSON'S HOT REPLY

Replying to President Emery, Secretary Wilson

said:

" I came out here to listen, and I glean from the

address of your president

that the Department of Agriculture, which I thought

had been doing much, has

been doing nothing. Now let me tell you some of the

things that it has done

within the last year.or so. "

The Secretary then enumerated some of the

achievements of the department.

" Now with regard to a few preservatives, there

is, a difference of opinion

among the chemists of the world. One of these

questions is benzoate of soda.

" The manufacturers of the United States went to

the President when the use

of this was prohibited and asked for fair play.

Finally he concluded to ask

the presidents of the great universities to appoint

some men to conduct an

investigation who were competent to do the work.

Under his authority I

appointed five such gentlemen, who, I believe, are

the best chemists in the

United States, if not in the whole world.

" President Emery has attacked their report. Now I

have but one request. You

have arranged a place upon your program to have the

Referee Board here on

Thursday to be heard. All I ask is that the hearing

be a full and fair one. "

With representatives of interests aggregating

more than $500,000,000

present to enter protest against a tentative " model "

food law bill, which will

probably be presented to the pure food convention

for endorsement, the

committee which drafted.the bill met last night at

the Brown and gave the

manufacturers' side a hearing.

(The Daily News, Denver, Colo., Aug. 25,

1909.)

The morning session was quite as pungent,

although in another way. The

convention was called to order at 10 o'clock and

Gov. John F. Shafroth made an

address of welcome. He complimented both Secretary

Wilson and Dr. H. W. Wiley,

Chief of the Bureau of Chemistry at Washington, upon

the work they have done

for the country. He termed Secretary Wilson " the

greatest Secretary of

Agriculture the country has ever known, " and the

remark was greeted with

enthusiastic cheers. He favored a uniformity in the

state and national food

laws and finished with an eulogy of Colorado's

growth and development.

PRESIDENT EMERY:

" We held that if the National Government should

indorse benzoic acid it

would thus license one of the preservatives which

encourages the same

conditions in fruit and vegetable manufacture as

were abolished in the

meat-packing establishments by the national meat

inspection law.

In view of this position we appealed to President

Roosevelt in the latter

part of his term to appoint another committee to

investigate the findings of

the Remsen Board. This request was referred by

President Roosevelt to

Secretary of Agriculture Wilson, who reported back

to the President against

granting that request.

Secretary Wilson's remarks were greeted with

cheers, yet before he had

stepped from the platform President Emery angrily

said: " This Referee Board

was asked to come to this convention by the

executive committee, and the

insinuation that it is not to be given fair play

comes with poor grace. The

report went to the Secretary of Agriculture and he

sent it back without

comment. We took it that it did not meet his

approval.

Secretary Wilson asked a moment to answer, and

said dryly:

" You gentlemen up Mackinac way took it upon

yourselves to condemn us down

at Washington unheard, and so we figured you were

not the material from which

judges of the Supreme Court can be made. "

R. W. Dunlap, of Ohio, is the only commissioner

in the United States who is

elected by the people instead of being, appointed.

Commissioner Dunlap was

elected by 12,000 majority, and is one of the most

popular officials in Ohio.

(From Denver Republican, Aug. 25, 1909.)

After apparently having been whipped upon every

question brought up during

the pure food convention until there was no further

fight left in them, the

opposers of Secretary of Agriculture James Wilson's

policies developed a

remarkable strength in the battle for the electiort

of the association's

officers and put up one of the hottest contests ever

seen during a convention

meeting in this city. George L. Flanders, of New

York, was elected president.

New Orleans was chosen as the next place of meeting.

The thirteenth annual convention of the National

Association of State Food

and Dairy Departments developed at its termination

yesterday afternoon into a

political struggle for the officers for next year,

in which the Wilson, or

administration, crowd won the presidency by three

votes and lost all but one

of the other officers. Had not Secretary Wilson been

in Denver on the spot the

administration would have been badly defeated not

only on the election of the

president but on many other questions as well. It

was his political power and

prestige as a member of the President's Cabinet and

his experience in

political campaigns that won the support of the

convention for the

administration. He seconded the nomination of

Flanders. Supporters of

President J. Q. Emery and Dr. Charles Reed, of

Cincinnati, the opponents of

benzoate of soda and of the administration, were

quite free to call Secretary

Wilson's crowd apolitical " ring " and a " clique. "

Certainlyitwas largely by a

political trick that. the election of George L.

Flanders, of New York, was

secured and the defeat of A. C. Bird, of Michigan,

was encompassed. George P.

McCabe, Solicitor of the Department of Agriculture,

and director of the battle

for Secretary Wilson, was very busy just before the

vote was taken and the

votes upon the other officers looked as if he had

made some advantageous

trades for Flanders. This did not prevent Mr.

McCabe's defeat for the office

of executive committeeman, A. N. Cook, of South

Dakota, winning against him.

 

 

GROUP AT SECOND DENVER CONVENTION IN 1925

Left to right: Dr. W. D. Bigelow, my first assistant

in the Bureau of Chemistry;

Dr. Harry E. Barnard, formerly Food Commissioner of

Indiana; Dr. Harvey W.

Wiley, former Chief of the Bureau of Chemistry; Mr. I.

L. Miller, present Food

Commissioner of Indiana; Dr. Robert M. Allen, former

Food Commissioner of Ken.

tucky; Mr. W. C. Geagley, Sec.-Treas. Association of

Dairy, Food and Drug

Officials of the United States

 

Field Marshal McCabe became busy in his travels

about the convention room,

and when the vote was finally taken it was 57 to 54

in favor of Flanders, or

the Wilson administration had only one state the

best of the argument. The

fact that the Secretary took the floor to second

Flanders' nomination

personally operated greatly for the latter's

benefit, it is said.

When the vote was taken on the other officers the

Wilson slate was broken

so badly that the pieces could not be found.

(Denver Republican, Aug. 28, 1909.)

After one of the stormiest sessions any

convention of any kind ever had in

Colorado, in which a great national organization at

times took the aspect of a

bitter political ward meeting, and in which politics

was played every moment

of the time, Dr. George L. Flanders, of New York,

Secretary Wilson's

candidate, yesterday was elected president of the

Association of State and

National Food and Dairy Departments, adding another

point to the Secretary's

sweeping victory in the benzoate of soda battle.

 

A. C. BIRD

State Dairy and Food Commissioner of Michigan

The Secretary of Agriculture led the fray in

person. Flanders defeated A.

C. Bird, State Dairy and Food Commissioner of

Michigan, Wiley's candidate, by

a vote of 57 to 54. Thirty-six states voted, each

state having three votes.

The vote by states was: Flanders 18, Bird 18, but

the Department of

Agriculture had three votes, and these three votes

went to Flanders.

The votes by states on the presidency was as

follows: Flanders--Arizona,

California, Colorado, District of Columbia, Georgia,

Idaho, Illinois, Iowa,

Louisiana, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nebraska,

Nevada, New York, Oklahoma,

Department of Agriculture, Utah, Washington and

Wyoming, three votes each,

total 19; total votes, 57.

Bird--Connecticut, Florida, Indiana, Kansas,

Kentucky, Maine, Michigan,

Minnesota, New Jersey, North Carolina, North Dakota,

Ohio, South Dakota,

Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Wisconsin,

total 18; total votes,

54.

(The Daily News, Denver, Colo., Aug. 28,

1909.)

 

 

J. S. ABBOTT

Food Commissioner of Texas, in attendance at Denver

Convention

Thus ended that most turbulent exhibition of

disreputable politics ever

witnessed in a so-called scientific convention in any

country. It was the vote

of the Department of Agriculture that elected Mr.

Flanders. The Bureau of

Chemistry took no part in this discreditable affair.

The Health Office of the

District of Columbia through Dr. Woodward cast its

three votes in favor of the

candidate of the food adulterators. The eminent

members of the Referee Board

must have been amazed at the character of their

enthusiastic admirers. It was an

astounding apotheosis of the Unholy.