at

SODA FOUNTAIN SYRUPS AND CRUSHED FRUITS WITHOUT PRESEVATIVE.

BY W. P. ANDERSON.

I want to take this opportunity first of thanking you for the great courtesy with which I have always been treated by the members of this convention, both individually and collectively. I assure you that it is appreciated and reciprocated by my firm and other firms as well. I want to say to you that I do not come here in any spirit of controversy; I come here to learn and to be instructed. I have not any formal paper to present to you. I had thought when I came that I would give you the results of some of the experiments which my firm has been making, but that ground has already been thoroughly covered by the paper which Dr. Barnard has presented to you and it might be sufficient perhaps for me to say that the experiments which we have made conform in every way to those made by Dr. Barnard. There is no doubt that the preservative question has been, both sides of it, considerably exaggerated and I hope and I trust the time is coming when there will be more unanimity on the subject. I believe we are coming to that. Josh Billings once said that "truth crushed to earth will rise again but eggs wont," and that is only another way of saying that the truth is bound to prevail and that no question is ever settled until it is settled right, and I think before we get through with the preservative question that it will be settled right and it will be satisfactory to everybody.

The firm with which I am associated formerly and always to some extent have used benzoate of soda in their products. We believed it was not injurious, or at least unobjectionable and there were many reasons why we thought we had a double argument. We have never attempted to put in but the very best fruits in the manufacture of our products, but these goods are subject to such extreme dilution before they are served to the consumer was one reason we thought we

had a double argument. There seemed to be so much prejudice and difference of opinion on the subject that we always said that if we could get along without the use of preservative we would try to do so and we experimented and worked with that purpose in view. It seems that other manufacturers entertained the same views, and as you know one by one during the past two or three years different manufacturers have announced their intention to discontinue the use of preservative. It was generally understood that the report of the Referee Board would be based on independent investigation. But it was evident that some manufacturers, finding that they could get along without it-and then when the reports of your convention at Mackinac Island last year brought the information that you gentlemen charged with the responsibility of maintaining proper standards in food products in your several states had voted to prohibit the use of preservatives in food products, or to oppose its use, decided that they could not consistently oppose an honest effort to bring about better conditions and thought they would take their stand with you and assist in working out the details of this problem. Our decision was absolutely independent and I make this statement here so that my position may be clearly understood. We do not undertake to say whether benzoate of soda is injurious or not. We do not think it is our province, that we have any right to do that. That is a matter for your scientific men to determine and it is for us to abide by your decisions, whatever they may be. We have succeeded in putting up fruits and syrups without preservative, but we realize that there is a great deal of educational work which must be done to popularize such products and make them popular with the trade. The dealers must learn how to handle these goods and how to take care of them. It may be possible to popularize non-preservative goods, even if all objection to the use of benzoate of soda is withdrawn. Whether it would be good business for any manufacturer to do that or not is another question, and while we do not desire or intend to adopt any policy which is not in accord

with the best business ethics, in considering the ethical side, we must not overlook the business side of this question which is of equal importance and the foundation of the whole matter. It is a matter of business and right and not sentiment merely.

I think that a great many of the manufacturers have shared the views of the J. Hungerford-Smith Company and have made honest efforts at all times to manufacture goods which are not only of the highest standard of purity and quality but which would comply with your requirements.

It is, of course, a matter of some regret to all of us that the requirements-that there has not been more uniformity of requirements, more unanimity of opinion on some of these questions, and lack of that has, of course, resulted in some hardship. Nobody has suffered from that more than the manufacturer because he is most vitally interested, and I think I may safely say that the manufacturers have made a larger sacrifice of time and effort and money to solve these problems than perhaps all of the officials and the government put together. There has been an earnest purpose on the part of my firm, and other firms, I believe, to get at the truth and I trust that we are reaching that solution.

So far as we are concerned we shall continue to put up non-preservative goods, but under present conditions we shall reserve the right to furnish goods prepared with benzoate of soda to those who want them, understanding that our purpose will be to comply with the requirements. It is certainly most desirable that the situation should be clarified as speedily as possible and that uniform regulation may be adopted.

I sincerely trust that your deliberations together may accomplish this result and I believe we shall; I am one of those who believe in the majority rule as I have indicated in my remarks and I even wish that it were possible in this convention when you have obtained a majority vote on any question, that it were possible to make that unanimous and that everybody abide by it. Then we would have uniformity. I am not saying that with any thought as to which way the decision might run or on what subject it might be, but it seems to me that if we could get together and could abide by a majority rule in all cases, that we would have more uniform conditions and more satisfactory results all around. Gentlemen, I thank you. (Applause.)

SOME IMPORTANT FACTS WORTHY OF CONSIDERATION.

BY A. F. MFRRELL PRESIDENT OF THE OYSTER GROW-
ERS AND DEALERS ASSOCIATION OF
NORTH AMERICAN,

Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Commission:

I wish to thank you for your courtesy and for the privilege of addressing you on a subject which, to my mind, is of the deepest interest to all the American people. A food product so important to the physical comfort of our entire country, as the oyster, might well be discussed by the able men engaged in the study of food values. The results of their labor will be sure to redound to the benefit of the consumer in added health, and pleasure, and to the grower and dealer in placing the oyster beyond all criticism in respect to its absolute purity as a food.

My purpose in addressing you is not to take issue with any scientific conclusions which may have been reached in your investigations but to present certain facts which years of experience have placed in my possession.

I am an oysterman, professing a knowledge of no other business. My boyhood was spent under my father's instructions in the growing and planting of oysters in which business he was engaged. I have been steadily working in the same field ever since and feel that all these years of actual contact with the oyster and its conditions warrant me in placing before you facts which I am sure will strongly appeal to your serious consideration.

In the early days of the industry, and before the great light of science was shed upon us, we thought any living edible fish fresh from its native element was good food. We are now informed that this is not so. Certain conditions said to be conducive to its purity and healthfulness must be met and complied with before its unquestioned value as a food will be even considered. We also assumed, with experience as a guide, that pure clean ice in contact with oysters used in transportation was a method above criticism. We are now confronted with scientific authority to the effect that the practice is deleterious and detracts from their food value; that oysters in transportation must be in a separate receptacle, entirely free from contact with ice. With the utmost good

grace, the shippers have accepted this conclusion and at a great cost are prepared to ship in this way. The oyster planters and dealers stand ready to co-operate with the Food Commissioners and are a unit in declaring their readiness to comply with any just requirements that the National, State or Municipal authorities may impose. On their own initiative, the New York State Association had prepared and, was largely interested in having passed, a bill providing for certain sanitary measures, which they thought were necessary to insure the production of pure oysters to the consumers of the country.

Dr. Wiley's representatives and assistants, in their investigations, have met with every courtesy that we could possibly extend. Confident that our grounds must be found uncontaminated and our shipping facilities sanitary and wholesome, men and boats were placed at their disposal and our time was given ungrudgingly to assist them in making a searching and complete inquiry. The suggestions made by these officials have been acted upon and the sanitary precautions adopted in all the shucking houses, show the good faith and conscientious co-operation of the shipper. Hot water plants have been installed for the cleaning of tubs and receptacles and porcelain utensils are among the suggested improvements which have been cheerfully adopted. The interior of the shucking houses and the clothing of the men engaged in opening oysters have undergone a very great change and in point of absolute cleanliness the oyster industry, considering the character of its work, compares favorably with that of any other food product.

My belief that the Food Commissioners of the different States, in enforcing certain restrictions in connection with all opened oysters entering their territory, were actuated solely by a desire to conserve the health of their people, is shared by every responsible shipper. We feel, however, that in their zeal to perform their duties conscientiously, they have overlooked some facts, and have not given sufficient consideration to others. It is difficult to debate important matters at long range and my sole purpose in addressing you is to reach an amicable understanding which can be brought about only by a personal discussion of these important points.

The first and most important, it occurs to me, is the question of the condition of the oyster on its arrival at point of destination. We concede the oyster should be sweet, wholesome, come from pure waters, and be in a water tight receptacle, free from contact with ice or any other preservative. It is our understanding that oysters have been condemned because they contained too much water, in proportion to salts. What is the maximum amount of water that may be found in oysters fit for food, and at what point does the shipper's responsibility as to this condition cease? It is our contention that the amount of water contained varies with the climatic conditions existing about the time the oyster was caught. For instance, after a heavy easterly wind from the ocean and high tides, the oyster will diminish in solidity and absorb water freely. On the other hand, with high westerly winds and low tides, the oyster retains or increases its solidity, absorbing little water. In the first instance more water will be given off in transit and more will be found at the end of a journey than would be possible under the second condition. These results are shown in oysters coming from the same bed but caught under different wind and tide conditions. In view of this absolutely proven fact, 20 per cent water would be a fair margin and we ask you to make us this concession.

In view of the variation of the amount of water that may be contained, we ask for as liberal and wide a latitude in this connection as the absolute truth of the facts responsible for its presence would warrant. Any other view of this phase of the matter must appeal to you gentlemen as unjust, uncharitable, and contrary to the conscientious evidence of the most intelligent and expert oystermen of this country. I ask your forebearance if I have put this too emphatically but its importance to the shippers of this country is too great to allow this opportunity to pass without appealing to your fairmindedness on this point.

Does not the shipper's responsibility cease when, having complied with all sanitary requirements, the oysters arrive at their destination pure, wholesome and unadulterated and are delivered to the local dealer? Must he be at the mercy of the greed of an unscrupulous retailer who in order to increase his profits, sells water for oysters and does not hesitate to cast the odium on the shipper when caught in his nefarious practice? Put the burden of shipping pure oysters into your territory upon us if you will. We cheerfully accept the responsibility, but in all fairness you should not demand that we guarantee these oysters and become responsible for their condition when they pass out of our hands into those of people we do not know and for whose business principles it

would be impossible for us to vouch. Our earnest co-operation you may depend on and in return we ask for a ruling on these points which will protect us and encourage the shippers of this country to assist you in your good work. Every sentiment of unjust discrimination would be swept away by your favorable attitude in this direction and it is not too much to say that you would have in every oyster shipper a coworker and an enthusiastic supporter. I firmly believe that the benefits which would accrue from such action on your part must be apparent to you. You will see the justice of our very reasonable request that we get a clean bill of health when our shipments arrive at their destination and are found to be up to the standard required by your local ordinances or the rulings of your Food Commissioners, and that the amount of water which may be found in oysters on arriving in your territory, be liberally estimated, and a sufficient margin allowed to provide for the wide variation which climatic conditions cause.

DISCUSSION OF THE OYSTER QUESTION.

BY W. D. BIGELOW, DR. S. J. CRUMBINE AND COMMISSIONER H. R. WRIGHT.

Dr. W. D. Bigelow: Mr. President, ladies and gentlemen. Much experiment work has been done during the past two years in connection with the preparation, shipment and sale of oysters. After the bureau of chemistry had given considerable attention to the subject we were requested by a committee from the Association of Oyster Growers and Shippers, of which Mr. Merrell, who has just spoken, was president, to undertake a more extensive investigation connected with commercial shipments. This work was undertaken, and we were assisted greatly by this committee which I have spoken of, headed by Mr. Merrell, and including Mr. Merrell, who was also present. Our plan was to have some of our men go out to the oyster beds, see the oysters taken up, take them to the oyster house, see them shucked, and have them packed according to different methods, with ice in contact and in separate receptacles. I may say that in these receptacles we did not use any patented packages, but used ordinary tin cans with the close-fitting caps. These cans were sealed. Shipments were made from New Haven, from Patchogue, on the south shore of Long Island, from Norfolk and from Mississippi (?); they were made to our own laboratories in Chicago and Omaha. Here, in the presence of the representatives of the oyster dealers and shippers, the packages were opened, re-iced and shipped again to our laboratory in Washington. Here they were opened, inspected by ourselves and by the committee of the association I have mentioned, samples of the oysters being placed on plates indicated merely by number and their quality compared. Samples were also taken for a chemical examination, such examination as would be made. As might be expected, the oysters that were not shucked at all, that were shipped merely in bulk, in a barrel, in the shell, without ice, carried best, and if practicable that would certainly be the way to ship them. The oysters shipped to Chicago or Omaha and back to Washington, simulating a shipment of more than half way across the country, were practically as good as when they were gathered from the bed. This method of shipment, however, is evidently not commercially practicable. The expense is great, and oysters shipped in that way could not be handled in the smaller towns where oyster shuckers are not found.

Next to this we found that the oysters shipped with slight washing and without ice in contact were far superior in flavor to those that had been washed for a longer time or soaked before washing or which were shipped with ice in contact. And I was very much interested in this to see the attitude of the committee, and I think Mr. Merrell will agree with me that the opinion of the committee changed during the course of this year's work, and that the committee was unanimously of the opinion when the work was over that the oysters shipped without ice in contact were superior in all respects, and I was very much interested in Mr. Merrell's paper, where he assumes that that will be the way that will be adopted, following the lead of those states that have already adopted oyster regulations.

Now, there are three or four points to which Mr. Merrell did not refer, which are exceedingly important. In the first place, the pollution of the oyster beds resulting from the pollution of the oysters. That is a matter that has received very little attention in this country until recently. Lately the New York legislature has enacted a law forbidding the use of food of oysters from contaminated beds. No other

state as yet, as far as I am aware, has followed this law, few other states, of course, having a necessity for it, but other states already have bills in course of preparation and will follow.

This question is much more important when applied to the clam industry. We find clams are being taken from beds that are greatly polluted, and shipped. This is not true to the same extent in the case of oysters, and as far as I am aware the oyster trade is studying the question very carefully and is shipping oysters now only from beds which they believe are free from pollution. Great progress is being made in that

way.

Another matter in which progress is being made is to give up the practice of floating oysters before shucking. It is only a short time since it was a prevalent practice for oysters, after being taken from the bed, to be dropped into the mouth or near the mouth of a brakish stream. They had enormous floats. And I was very much interested last spring when I went to the meeting of the association of shellfish commissioners on one of Mr. Merrell's launches, around Staten Island, and looked at the oyster beds there, to see dozens and dozens, I don't know but hundreds, of floats drawn up on the shore and discarded, floats that only a year or two ago were used, but they have been discarded. These floats were left, large rafts, just sunk below the surface, left in brakish water where the oysters were thrown for twentyfour hours, or, say, a couple of changes of the tide, and allowed to drink water, and thus, by process of inflation, the oyster was increased in size, or, as the trade was accustomed to say, fattened, and the trade demanded that, not knowing what this inflation meant. As I say, I was very much encouraged with seeing the evidence of the abandonment of this practice, the evidence that was manifested by these discarded floats. This practice is still followed to a very slight extent, scarcely at all in the New York market, and is not usual throughout the country.

I think that these questions are the ones that are to be considered. In the first place, as to the pollution of the oyster beds, I consider that a bacteriological examination should be made; in the second place, the question of floating oysters before their shipment or soaking them before they are shucked or soaking them after they are shucked; and in the third place, the character of packages in which they are shipped, whether with ice in contact or in separate receptacles, separated from the ice and the ice packed around them. I am glad to see the progress that has been made, and especially glad to see the attitude of the oyster growers and shippers of the country as evidenced by the committee of which Mr. Merrell is the head in this matter. And of course, as Mr. Merrell has said, it should be borne in mind that after the oysters are once shipped and are in the hands of the retail dealer then a large amount of objectionable practices occurs, and there is where the state officers are the only ones who can enforce the law. If water is to be added by the retail grocer the precautions that are taken by the shipper are of no value. This water is fully as likely to be polluted, more likely to be polluted, than the water of the oyster bed. This can readily be determined. It can be determined by the amount of liquor in the oysters. This should not only be given attention to by the inspectors, but I believe it is of the utmost importance that consumers should be informed of the amount of liquor they may expect to find in oysters. Consumers everywhere, even on the coast, and increasingly so as we leave the coast, find often a few oysters floating in a large amount of water. This practice will stop as the consumer is informed of the amount of liquor which he should expect of the relative amount of oysters which he is entitled to obtain.

I thank you. (Applause.)

Mr. Cannon. Are you prepared to advise the commissioners as to the maximum amount of water that should or should not be found?

Dr. Bigelow. My own impression is that it should not exceed 15 per cent of free water that may be separated out by means of a colander. In few cases will it exceed 10 per cent. I have never seen a case myself where it exceeded 15 per cent. I believe Mr. Wright of Iowa mentioned a case where it exceeded 15 per cent.

Mr. Cannon. How long would you allow it to drain?

Dr. Bigelow. Five minutes, I think, stirring it with an espatcher so that the oysters will not stop up the

colander. I have seen a great many oysters where the straining was carefully done before shipping that had scarcely any liquor that could be separated. But that don't very often occur. One shipment we made from Biloxi had about 5 per cent and one from Norfolk about 12 per cent. As Mr. Merrell has said, the amount of water will depend upon the course of the wind. In our Biloxi shipment, at the time we took our shipment there was a strong shore wind, which at that region carried the fresh water out to a considerable extent over the oysters, inflating the oysters, and there was more liquor given off. If they are allowed to remain, as they should be, in the oyster house for a short time and the water separates out, then if they are carefully drained over the colander, the amount will be very much less than otherwise, and I think 15 per cent will be safe.

Mr. Cannon. May I ask what percentage you found in the adulterated oysters in the open market?

Dr. Bigelow. Oh, we found all the way up to 75 per cent of water. And that is not the fault of the oyster shippers. I have gone into retail stores there. for oysters where they would dip up from the colander and put in all the liquor you would let them. The receptacle might be one-third or one-fourth liquor. Now, it wouldn't be a bad idea if consumers carried a milk jar or something of that sort and got their oysters in that, and then the liquor they would get in an ordinary quart milk jar ought not to be more than an inch deep at the outside or perhaps half an inch, the oysters settling to the bottom with not more than an inch of liquor. Isn't that safe, Mr. Merrell ?

Mr. Merrell. The retailer is not supposed to sell that liquor at all. That is supposed to be poured off. He only pays for the solid oysters sent to him by the shipper.

Dr. Bigelow. Even where the shippers put the oysters in liquor, the consumer gets not only the increase in the volume of the solid oyster itself, owing to its expansion, but the water that is also added, and I think the work of the commissioners in this respect will almost solve itself if care is taken to educate the consumer as to the amount of liquor that he should get above those oysters. There should not be an inch of water over the oysters in a quart jar.

Mr. Cannon. In cases of prosecutions in any of these states-I take it for granted we can get this data from you, but what other states have engaged in this work?

Dr. Bigelow. Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky and other states have made regulations, but I don't know as to whether or not they have enforced them.

Mr. Cannon. We shall have to make some prosecur tions in this state undoubtedly, and I want to get the best data I can on the subject.

Dr. Bigelow. In the four states mentioned we have had a good deal of experience. I believe it was done in Kansas three years ago, if I remember rightly.

President Emery. We will now hear from Dr. Crumbine,

Dr. Crumbine: Mr. President, ladies and gentlemen. I feel that owing to the lateness of the hour what I may say should be very brief indeed. I just want to speak of our experience in Kansas. I believe Kansas has the distinction of being the first state to establish standards on oysters. That was two and a half years ago, and we were amazed and astonished with the ease in which the dealers complied, and we have the universal experience among dealers and consumers too that the keeping quality as well as the flavor of the oyster has been very greatly increased and bettered. I think

perhaps the department never did anything that did not receive the commendation of the public. The consuming public has approved our campaign on the watered oyster. The standard established by Kansas is 10 per cent total solids-I mean 10 per cent of the fattened oyster. By extensive experiments it was found that that was a minimum standard, well within the reasonable limits of any oyster that is grown. We took samples from all the oyster beds throughout the United States. These standards will, in effect, exclude the addition of ice to the oysters, and in that way there was no special rule made on that matter of shipment, but the very fact that the standard was 10 per cent excluded the old method of shipping, the tub method, with the melting ice. I want to say how we got the matter in operation quickly in our state, and that is, we took it up with the express companies. Having about five companies to deal with, it was an easy matter to see the local managers of the express companies, and you will find in the small towns that the express companies are really the sellers. Oysters are sent to the express companies to be sold to the retail trade, and thus they are guilty of violation of the law if they sell these oysters, and by calling on the express companies and laying the matter before them we had their approval of the proposition at once, a proposition that would have been very difficult to enforce, and as a matter of fact we found it very easy to enforce, and it is highly satisfactory.

Mr. Wright: Mr. Chairman, the experience we have had with oysters in Iowa, of course, is at the end of the route. We know nothing about the methods of handling them on the seacoast except that we derive some small knowledge from the food papers and other literature, and we have proceeded on the theory that we ought to have some sort of standard that would give us some practical results pending some further information which might be derived from the experiments which Dr. Bigelow and the national department are making. We investigated the subject and found that when oysters came on the market, either at wholesale or retail, they had all the way from 8 to 10 per cent free liquid up to 45 or 50 per cent, and we found a greater percentage than that; so we undertook some prosecutions of people on the theory that 10 or 12 or 15 per cent was about all that was permissible, and while we did not fail in any case to secure a conviction we did have considerable trouble. The large oyster dealers, some of them, in our state, fought us, and while we convicted them in the justice court they appealed to the district court, and so forth, and intended to keep up the fight. So that when our legislature convened we thought it wise to ask them to enact a standard on oysters, and they have done so, and the argument we use now is this: If we have now a standard of free liquid anyone can determine, with reasonable accuracy, at any rate, whether the oysters come inside of the standard or do not, so that the wholesale dealer and the jobber and the retailer and the consumer alike would be able to take a given quantity of oysters and determine with reasonable precision whether they were probably adulterated with water or not. So we gave the committee our figures on what we had discovered. We had shipments direct to ourselves from the coast, and of course we had to take the statement of the oyster shipper as to what those were as far as washing and adulteration were concerned. We had their shipment, they came in in the regular course of business, and we found all the way from 8 or 9 per cent of free liquid up to 16 2-3 per cent, usually about 121⁄2 per cent, and we put that up to the committee and asked them to establish a standard on oysters, that they must be free from ice, and that they might not have more than 16% per cent of free liquid, to be determined by a straining process as suggested by Dr. Bigelow. That is the standard in Iowa, and we think it is fair. We would establish it still smaller if we were establishing a definition on oysters, but standards, with us at any rate, are established for purposes of prosecution, for purposes of evidence in a sense, so that the court may have something to go by, and all the evidence we need to offer is that the material does not come within that percentage. I think the standard of 16% is sufficiently high, but at the same time I am suggesting further that our experience and information are very limited; it comes wholly at this end of the route and the figures I quote are figures on oysters that were shipped into the state and not oysters we had control of from the time they came out of the water as in the case mentioned by Dr. Bigelow. It is a practical, workable standard. Any housewife who buys a quart or gallon of oysters can tell with very reasonable approximation whether it comes within the standard or not, and if it does not I think she is warranted in believing that somewhere along the route ice or water, amounting to the same thing, has been added. (Applause.)

THE FOURTH ANNUAL CONVENTION OF THE AMERICAN MEAT PACKERS' ASSOCIATION,

The American Meat Packers' Association held their 4th annual convention at the new Hotel La Salle, Chicago, Ill., on Oct. 18th, 19th and 20th. The convention was the largest and most successful yet held. We herewith present to our readers the most important events of the convention.

Portion of the Report of the Executive Committee of the American Meat Packers' Association.

We give our unqualified approval to the meat inspection and pure food laws. We believe these laws have come to stay, that they are in line with the progressiveness of the age and are calculated to elevate our commercial standard, to give an added moral tone to business, to promote honesty and fair dealing and to greatly conserve the public welfare.

As is generally the case with legislation which abolished old customs and usages, the primary enforcements of the meat inspection and pure food laws have been attended with some severity, and, perhaps, unintended injustice. It has been the function of your committee to point out to the officials in a respectful, moderate, but firm way, regulations which were unjust, impracticable of enforcement and of no benefit to the public. Our representatives were met in a spirit of fairness by the officials and several of the most unnecessary regulations were eliminated.

Your committee desires to thank you for the unfailing support you have accorded it throughout the year, and bespeaks for its successors the same loyal consideration.

(Signed) THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE.

Excerpt from President Michael Ryan's Address Before the
American Meat Packers' Association.
Injustice of Condemnation Losses.

But, gentlemen, there is one thing, and this is the time and place when it should be brought up for discussion: We should certainly take action here today by making the most emphatic protest on the injustice done to the packers in compelling them to suffer the loss on condemned animals after post-mortem inspection. (Applause.) We buy our hogs, cattle and sheep in the open market, in that spirit of publicity which our friend Mr. Bunnell refers to, open and above board.

We pay the prevailing prices for these animals; we buy them as good, sound, healthy stock, and yet when they are taken to our packinghouses and slaughtered we have to stand to one side and see the Government inspectors seize a valuable carcass which cost us our good money and condemn that property of ours without a cent of remuneration to the packer. I say fearlessly that that is an injustice not in keeping with the equal rights given by the Constitution to all citizens of this country, and the rights of property also.

This is done to preserve the public health. Our Government has a right to take drastic measures to safeguard the public, but no government has the right to do that at the expense of private individuals. (Applause.) If it is a good thing for the people to condemn these animals, if it is a benefit on sanitary grounds, then by all means let the public and not the packers pay for it. (Applause.)

We ask the Government to do one of two things: Inspect the animals in the stock yards or before they are slaughtered and reject the suspicious stock. If that is impossible or impracticable, then make provision to pay the packers for the condemned animals after they are slaughtered. (Cries of "Hear, hear," and applause.)

Gentlemen, that is in the line of justice, it is in the line of common honesty and a square deal, and no other.

RESOLUTIONS ADOPTED BY A. M. P. A. Demand Indemnity for Condemnation Losses. Whereas, An experience of three years has demonstrated the fact that the meat packers of this country have accepted the Meat Inspection Law in good faith, and have honorably and conscientiously conformed to its provisions without faltering or evasion; and that they have patiently and uncomplainingly obeyed the severe and drastic requirements of the law imposed upon them, and

Whereas, They have withdrawn from their working capital or have been compelled to extend their indebtedness by more than $20,000,000, for the purpose of reconstructing and improving their plants so as to bring them into conformity with the conditions and standards required by law, and

Whereas, They have also borne the loss on post-mortein condemnations of animals, purchased in the open market and paid for as sound, healthy stock at the highest prevailing

market prices; the losses thus sustained by the meat packers have amounted to not less than $15,000,000 in the three years, and

Whereas, They have been compelled to look on helplessly while their property was seized and taken possession of by Government officials, and confiscated and condemned, without recourse or indemnity, and

Whereas, The only justification for this seizure of private property is that it is done to preserve public health, and this under a government founded on the principle of "Equal Rights to All, Special Privileges to None"; and

Whereas, Though meat packers are the only class of people required by law to suffer a private loss through the operation of a law for the benefit of all the people, no attempt has ever been made by the Government to reimburse the meat packers for the loss of their property, thereby placing the burden upon the whole people, who receive the benefit from it; be it

Resolved, That Congress is respectfully petitioned to pass the necessary laws reimbursing meat packers for animals and foodstuffs condemned and confiscated for the public health and benefit.

And the committee moves the adoption of this resolution. The Secretary:

Favor Action to Wipe Out Animal Disease. Whereas, There is an economic loss to the United States every year conservatively estimated at from $10,000,000 to $15,000,000 because of live stock diseases, and

Whereas, The loss of this amount of what would otherwise be healthy food seriously affects the selling prices of the remaining food products, and

Whereas, This loss is almost entirely preventable if proper measures are taken to eradicate disease in live stock, be it

Resolved, That the United States Department of Agriculture be requested to take such practical and active steps as will cause the ultimate reduction of live stock disease, and with the least possible loss of time; and be it further

Resolved, That it is the sense of this meeting that this is one of the most important questions confronting the Government of this country, and that its importance is worthy of the immediate attention of our highest officials, owing to the rapidly increasing diseases which are threatening our meat supply.

And the committee moves the adoption of this resolution. Asks President Taft to Act.

Whereas, The Meat Inspection Law, under the guidance of Secretary Wilson and his competent Bureau Officials, is now being efficiently administered, and

Whereas, It is highly important that the people of all foreign countries should know of the very rigid inspection regulations which are enforced under this law, and

Whereas, These regulations and inspections are an absolute guarantee to all the world that American meat food products are sound, healthful, wholesome and fit in every way for human food, be it

Resolved, That this association, representing the largest and most important industry in the country, in convention duly assembled, respectfully requests the President of the United States to include in his annual message to Congress a special paragraph, emphasizing the statements contained in the foregoing preamble. And the committee moves its adoption. Proper Investigation of Food Qnestions.

Whereas, The Bureau of Chemistry of the United States Department of Agriculture has rendered many decisions seriously affecting food interests, and

Whereas, Some of the most important of these have been proved by more competent authorities to have been passed upon erroneous premises, and

Whereas, Owing to the congested populations of presentday life, and the changed conditions necessary for furnishing non-producers of food stuffs with the necessities of life, it is essential to know all of the exact facts with regard to the proper method of handling and transporting such food stuffs, and that advantage should be taken of every means of getting such food stuffs to consumers in the most hygienic, as well as sanitary condition, be it

Resolved, That we urgently and seriously request the United States Government, through its proper officers, to refer to a competent commission all questions of importance which have been passed upon by the Bureau of Chemistry, and which have not been investigated by more competent authorities, in order that all of these important questions may be finally and decisively settled. And it is understood in this resolution that we especially refer to decisions made by the Bureau of Chemistry restricting the uses of modern methods of preservation, and we especially ask the United States Government, through a competent commission, to investigate all the so-called modern preservatives, except those which have