than some part of the public have been led to believe with reference to the neutral spirits.

The ruling, whatever it may be with reference to neutral spirits, will unquestionably be applied to all other distilled spirits from grain which have been rectified. If your finding should be that neutral spirits, or a distilled spirits from grain equally refined, is not in fact whisky, even though it has been bought, sold, consumed and regarded by the consuming public as whisky, and was and had been, for years before the passage of the Pure Food Law, called whisky by manufacturers, by the trade and by consumers, an invitation will thus be extended to the Pure Food Department of the Federal Government, as well as to the Pure Food Department of the respective states of the Union and to over-zealous officials everywhere, to submit this question of fact to a jury in the case of each sale or shipment, and they may feel justified, under such a ruling, to take such action; and we may have a jury holding in one section of the United States that a particular article is not whisky, when, in another section of the United States, another jury may hold that the same identical article is a whisky. The result in each case, depending largely upon the financial ability of the individual whose goods are attacked, and his willingness to meet the enormous expenses incident to the presentation of all the necessary facts to the jury.

There can be but one inevitable result of such a ruling, and that is the ultimate destruction of all the property invested in machinery for producing the refined distilled spirit and the final dismantlement of such distilling apparatus.

It is respectfully submitted that no question of public policy, public health or public morals can justify a ruling which would lead to such results, especially in the face of evidence that the most highly refined distilled spirits from grain as commercially produced for beverage purposes have been for many years openly and knowingly manufactured, bought and sold as whisky, and recognized by the consuming public as possessing the distinctive odor and taste of whisky.

Your honor will not forget the Congressional Debates in 1880, when so-called straight whisky was given an allowance for evaporation during storage on the sole ground that the neutral spirits was whisky with which it had to compete and which had received such a similar allowance.

All distilled spirits from grain as commercially produced for beverage purposes of the proper potable alcoholic strength, are, in fact, whisky.

The Solicitor General's constant inquiries to the witnesses produced by Dr. Wiley, where they could draw the line in the degree of distillation of spirits produced from grain, up to which it should be called whisky and beyond which it should cease to be called whisky, never received any answer, and that was because it was impossible to answer it or to draw such a line, as Professor Chandler, the most distinguished of American chemists, whose opinion has been generally accepted as conclusive authority, declared upon the witness stand.

The question to be answered is that propounded as Question Number 1 in the executive order under which this hearing before the Solicitor General is had, and I respectfully submit that it admits of but one answer-not a chemical answer, nor an answer based upon processes or degrees of fermentation or distillation, or time effects, whether in a charred barrel or not, or coloring or flavoring, but simply of an answer to the practical question of fact which the President evidently had in mind in framing Interrogatory 1; What was the article called "whisky" by manufacturers, the trade and consumers at and before the passage of the Pure Food Law? Had the collectors of internal revenue, the whole Ohio Valley, and, in fact, all the people of the United States, except the straight whisky men, been deceiving themselves and deceiving each other when they called spirits distilled from grain and reduced to a potable strength "whisky" and nothing else?

I do not see how, upon the evidence, it is possible to answer this Question Number 1 in any other way than that which we insist upon, for, if you treat it as a question of evidence, the evidence is overwhelming that spirits distilled from grain of potable strength were called whisky by all the parties referred to in the interrogatory.

I earnestly submit that this disposition of this first question will practically settle the whisky controversy which has now 'been raging for more than two years, and will settle it in accordance with truth and justice and the evidence in this case, just as the answer to substantially the same question by the Royal Commission, on evidence substantially the same, appears to have settled the question for all time in England.

I am greatly indebted to you for this opportunity of adding

THE CRIMES OF THE TONGUE.

William George Jordan in the Midland Druggist and Pharmaceutical Review discourses on the following subject in interesting and truthful vein :

"The second most deadly instrument of destruction is," he says, "the dynamite gun-the first is the human tongue. The gun merely kills bodies; the tongue kills reputation and, ofttimes, ruins characters. Each gun works alone; each loaded tongue has a hundred accomplices. The havoc of the gun is visible at once. The full evil of the tongue lives through all the years; even the eye of Omniscence might grow tired in tracing it to its finality."

In London they have recently formed an Anti-Scandal League. The members promise to combat in every way in their power the "prevalent custom of talking scandal, the terrible and unending consequences of which are not generally estimated."

For this craze for scandal, sensational newspapers of today are largely responsible. Each newspaper is not one tongue, but a thousand or a million tongues, telling the same foul story to as many pairs of listening ears. The vultures of sensationalism scent the carcass of immorality afar off. From the uttermost parts of the earth they collect the sin, disgrace and folly of humanity, and show them bare to the world. They do not even require facts, for morbid memories and fertile imaginations make even the worst of the world's happenings seem tame when compared with their monstrosities of invention. These stories, and the discussions they excite, develop in readers a cheap, shrewd power to distortion of the acts of all around them.

KANSAS FOOD AUTHORITIES AFTER BAD

BANANAS.

Topeka, Kan., June 26.-There has been considerable complaint having been filed with the Kansas food officials about decayed bananas being placed on the Kansas market and the state board of health secured from Attorney General Jackson the following opinion regarding this infraction of the pure food laws by dealers:

"Answering your oral inquiry concerning the sale of bananas on bunches, a part of the bananas on which bunches is decomposed, permit me to say that section 2 of chapter 134 of the session laws of 1909 defines all vegetable food substances that are in whole or in part, decomposed, tainted, filthy or putrid as adulterated, and their sale is prohibited by section 2 of chapter 266 of the session laws of 1907.

"Bananas on bunches cannot be sold when a part of the bananas are in this condition. If the owner of bananas in this condition desires to sell the bananas on the bunch that are good he must separate the spoiled bananas from those that are good and sell only the good ones; otherwise he commits a crime for which he can be prosecuted."

John Kleinhans, state food insepctor of Kansas, filed at Wichita, Kan., suit in the United States court against an eastern manufacturing firm for violation of the pure food act, as exhibited in a "pure cider vinegar" seizure.

There were seventy-eight casks of this vinegar shipped to a Wichita concern, which was found to be highly adulterated. The Wichita firm refused to accept it, and notice of the affair coming to the attention of the department, an analysis was made and suit filed recently in the office of United States Commissioner J. F. Shearman.

HOT WEATHER DON'TS.

Don't fret-it will only make you warmer.
Don't scold-it will sour your sweetness.

Don't eat too much-you will live longer and it will cost less.

Don't drink ice-cold water-the reaction will make you feel hotter and delay digestion.

Don't buy foodstuffs which have been a roosting or feasting place for flies-you may become infected with a dangerous disease. Kansas Bulletin for June.

This enormous destruction of food shows conclusively that there is no collusion between those in charge of the enforcement of the law and the packers, and that the meat-inspection law is being enforced to the limit.

In the same letter Mr. Harms also made specific charges against the meat-inspection service at East St. Louis, Ill.

On June 13 last Dr. A. D. Melvin, Chief of the Bureau of Animal Industry, and Mr. George P. McCabe, Solicitor of the Department, left for East St. Louis as a committee to investigate these charges.

On the same day Dr. R. P. Steddom, chief of the Inspection Division of the Bureau of Animal Industry, departed for Fremont, Ohio, to bring Mr. Harms to East St. Louis for the purposes of the investigation. Doctor Steddom carried to Mr. Harms a letter from Acting Secretary Hays. In this letter Mr. Harms was told that the department accepted the proposition made by Mr. Harms in his letter of June 8 addressed to the Secretary of Agriculture, in which he asked for a fair and impartial investigation of his charges. Mr. Harms had stated in this letter that veterinary inspectors, meat inspectors, and inspectors' assistants would corroborate his statements_regarding the condition of the meat-inspection service at East St. Louis. Mr. Harms was further told in this letter that Doctor Steddom would ask for the names of the employes on whom Mr. Harms relied to corroborate his charges, and the assurance was given that no employe at the East St. Louis station would in any way jeopardize his position by stating at the investigation frankly and truly what he knew of the prevailing practices. Doctor Steddom proceeded to Fremont, Ohio, and after waiting for two days met Mr. Harms and secured the list of witnesses on whom Mr. Harms relied for corroboration of his charges. The committee arrived in St. Louis on June 14, and Doctor Steddom arrived with Mr. Harms on June 17. Upon arrival, Mr. Harms went with Doctor Steddom to the Southern Hotel in St. Louis, but immediately excused himself and proceeded to the office of one of the St. Louis newspapers, where he was engaged for some time. Mr. Harms then returned to the Southern Hotel accompanied by a reporter of the paper referred to and reported to Doctor Steddom. Here it should be stated that Mr. Harms's open letter to the secretary was published in the St. Louis paper referred to exclusively two days after the date on which Mr. Harms mailed the letter to the Secretary of Agriculture.

Your committee, accompanied by Doctor Steddom, and Dr. A. E. Behnke, associate chief of the Inspection Division, and Dr. George Detewig, traveling inspector, by Mr. Harms, and by the reporter, then left for East St. Louis and proceeded to the office of the secretary of the Live Stock Exchange, who previously had offered the use of his office for the purposes of the investigation. The committee then informed Mr. Harms that the Secretary of Agriculture had instructed Doctor Melvin and Mr. McCabe to afford Harms an opportunity for the investigation of the alleged conditions at East St. Louis. Mr. Harms was advised, in accordance with the direction of the secretary, that every opportunity would be given him to prove the existence of the conditions described in his letter, and also any other practices in the meat-inspection service which, in his opinion, were not in accordance with the regulations. He was told that it was the desire of the department to conduct a full, fair, and complete investigation and that every opportunity would be given him to produce any witnesses whom he desired to attend. He was also advised that the committee would use every effort to get at the facts. It was then announced that it was not deemed desirable to hold a public meeting and the reporter for the St. Louis paper was requested to retire from the room. Mr. Harms then stated that if the investigation was not to be open to the members of the press he would not participate therein, whereupon he was told that it was contrary to the policy of the department to conduct investigations in a public manner, because it had been found that such a method was not productive of all the facts, the inquiry being similar to a grand jury probe. Mr. Harms was assured that each morning he would be supplied with a complete transcript of the previous day's proceedings. He still persisted in his refusal to participate in any investigation which was not public, and withdrew from the room in company with the reporter. Mr. Harms then went immediately to the establishment of Armour & Co., where he had an interview with Meat Inspector Julius Bischof. This man's connection with the investigation will be disclosed in the course of the report.

The committee then proceeded with the investigation, examining every witness named by Mr. Harms to Doctor Steddom, as likely to substantiate his charges. Also every other employe on the force who is connected with the meat-inspection work was examined, and each and every witness was assured

that the exact truths were wanted, without any bias or any fear; that he would be absolutely protected by the department; and that no true statement would be used against him in any way, no matter whom it hurt or whom it helped.

In all Mr. Harms had named some twenty witnesses. Of these, all but two failed to corroborate his charges in any particular, and the testimony of these two-Meat Inspector Julius Bischof and Veterinary Inspector Leo B. Michael-appeared to corroborate some of Harms's charges in one or two particulars. But upon investigation the testimony of these witnesses was found absolutely false, and the committee recommends the summary dismissal of the two men. Their stories were evidently prompted by personal spite against the inspector in charge, who had had occasion to discipline them both for gross neglect of duty, the circumstances of which are as follows:

In the month of April Julius Bischof was reported to Washington by Doctor Clancy, inspector in charge, upon the complaint of Doctor Meadors, assistant inspector in charge, for allowing dirty fats to be removed from his department. It was owing to the vigilance of another employe of the department that these dirty fats were discovered and prevented from being used in foods. When the complaint against Mr. Bischof was received in Washington the secretary ordered his indefinite furlough without pay. After some seventeen days a letter was received from him promising to do better, and he was restored to the force and was told that any further inattention to duty would result in his dismissal.

Veterinary Inspector Michael had been late in reporting for duty several times during the course of his employment. He had at one time absented himself from his post before the work of the day was concluded and at another time he had absented himself from his duty for a period of seventeen days without any notice to his superiors that he would be absent or the cause therefor. Upon each of these occasions he had been reprimanded either by the inspector in charge or by his assistant, and he is evidently very much prejudiced against these men. In addition to the foregoing facts, Meat Inspector Bischof, while engaged in the meat business in Belleville, Ill., prior to his government employment, had incurred a comparatively large indebtedness to Swift & Co. and to Armour & Co. for meat furnished on account.

These bills were unpaid at the time Mr. Bischof entered the government service and the firms named pressed him for payment for months, finally appealing to the inspector in charge to compel Mr. Bischof to settle his bills. Several small payments from month to month were made by Mr. Bischof, and finally, in January, after months of urging upon the part of the packers and broken promises on the part of Bischof, the bills were settled in full. Mr. Bischof appeared to feel very much aggrieved because he had been made to pay these debts, and in the opinion of your committee this animus against certain packers, coupled with his recent suspension for neglect of duty and his friendship for Harms, explain the false and exaggerated testimony which he gave.

Mr. Bischof testified that upon one occasion he had seen a carload of spoiled pork trimmings used for sausage. This charge was shown to be false. He also testified regarding the condition of some cured pork, and the testimony showed that he had grossly exaggerated.

The reasons which prompted Harms to file his false charges are not difficult of explanation. The record of his previous employment, given by himself to the Civil Service Commission at the time he took the examination for the position of meat inspector, shows that of late years Mr. Harms has been of a roving and unsettled disposition, which prevents him from working long in any one position or locality. At the time of writing the letter he had been employed at East St. Louis for about eighteen months and shortly theretofore had applied for a transfer to Cleveland, Ohio, near his old home in Fremont, Ohio. This request was refused. Some erratic, nonsensical recommendations to his superiors had been disapproved, and he was plainly growing weary of the hard work which his superiors demanded of him, for he had asked the managers of the packing house to supply him with an armchair in which he might sit during the day. With this request the management of the packing house promptly complied and the armchair was provided. The inspector in charge at East St. Louis does not approve of government employes in packing houses performing their duties in armchairs, and upon making his objections known to Mr. Harms the inspector in charge was informed that Mr. Harms considered he could perform his duties well and faithfully from the chair. The inspector in charge could not see the wisdom of this course and immediately made arrangements to transfer

Mr. Harms from the important department in which he was employed to another department, where he could be kept under supervision. Mr. Harms then resigned and either wrote or caused to be written the letter which he signed and sent to the Secretary of Agriculture and of which he gave a copy to the St. Louis newspaper which published it exclusively on June 10.

A review of the testimony on the specific charges made by Harms is given later in this report and it shows conclusively that not one of his charges has any basis in fact. In some cases he selected incidents which actually happened and by gross exaggeration and false statements built upon these actual happenings until he had the stories given in his charges to the Secretary.

In the opinion of the committee, Mr. Harms, at the time he wrote the letter, did so because he was tired of the hard work of the service; he had been urged on by Mr. Bischof, who had a grudge against certain packers because they had compelled him to pay his honest debts and also a grudge against Doctors Clancy and Meadors, his official superiors, because, through them, he had been suspended for neglect of duty; further, Harms had secured employment from a collection agency in St. Louis, whose principal employe has been convicted of postal frauds in a federal court. Finally, Mr. Harms desired to vent his spleen and to injure the meatinspection service because of the refusal of the Washington authorities to transfer him to Cleveland.

The open letter and the exclusive publication in the St. Louis newspaper were the result. What motive actuated Mr. Harms in giving this St. Louis paper an exclusive story the committee was not able to learn.

In brief, it is the opinion of the committee, and it is so reported to you, that the charges made by Mr. Harms are without foundation in fact and are untrue. They represent simply the spite of dissatisfied, disgruntled employes. Our investigation discloses beyond a doubt that the service at East St. Louis is in good shape; that the men are competent; that the packing houses are clean and sanitary; and that no meat receives the mark of government inspection which is not sound, healthful, wholesome, and fit for human food. This is what "U. S. Inspected and Passed" means at East St. Louis and what it means at all other hundreds of places where the federal meat-inspection service is maintained. During the past three years the Bureau of Animal Industry has found it necessary, for the good of the service, to discharge over 100 men for incompetency and for other causes. It has also been found necessary to discipline many more men for less serious faults, and it is not unreasonable to expect that some of these men will have charges against the service from which they have been incontinently expelled because of unworthiness.

As for Mr. Harms, he is a thoroughly discredited man, and we do not believe that the department should pay the slightest attention to any further charges made by him. He had his opportunity for investigation at East St. Louis, and he refused it. The investigation proceeded in his absence, and 18 of the 20 witnesses named by him to corroborate his charges utterly failed to do so, and the two who did corroborate him in part were biased, disgruntled employes, whose stories were proven by the testimony taken before the committee to be false. In the face of these facts a further investigation of charges made by Mr. Harms would be frivolous and unnecessary, especially in view of the fact that the committee has taken the testimony of each and every employe on the force, and even by the testimony of his own witnesses Mr. Harms is proven to be unreliable, disingenuous, and untruthful.

The committee recommends that the resignation of Mr. Harms be not accepted, and that he be discharged for cause.

CHARGES MADE BY MR. HARMS AND THE FACTS IN RELATION THERETO AS DISCLOSED BY THE TESIMONY TAKEN BY DOCTOR MELVIN AND MR. MCCABE.

GENERAL CHARGES.

(1) The government inspectors in charge of departments are actually working overtime in the packers' interests. The packers control the inspectors in charge of the departments, who are giving to the packers animals that are unsound, unhealthful, unwholesome, and otherwise unfit for human food, including many that show tuberculosis, emaciation, or advanced pregnancy, and many that are in a dying condition.

The committee found absolutely no evidence to support this charge. The only employes who are in a position to pass

for food animals affected with the diseases mentioned are the veterinary inspectors. Every veterinary inspector on the force was examined by the committee and all, with the exception of Doctor Michael, testified that the regulations were strictly adhered to and that no animals unfit for human food from any cause were given to the packers, but that all such unfit animals were condemned and destroyed for food purposes under government supervision. Doctor Michael testified that upon one occasion over eighteen months ago his attention had been called to two animals in the gangway immediately outside the killing floor. He went out and examined the animals, according to his testimony, and found that they were dead but still warm. He returned to the killing floor and was asked by the killing boss for permission to bring the carcasses of the animals on to the killing floor in order to get at the tank where they were to be destroyed for food purposes. He testified that he gave this permission, that the animals were brought upon the killing floor, and that as they were being skinned, preparatory to placing them in the condemned tank, Doctor Meadors, the assistant inspector in charge, appeared on the floor; whereupon Doctor Michael told Doctor Meadors about finding the two dead animals and that he had been given permission for them to be brought upon the killing floor for the purpose above stated.

Doctor Michael testified that Doctor Meadors then examined the animals, and remarked that they had bled out well and that they should be passed for food. Doctor Meadors then instructed Doctor Michael, so the latter testifies, to pass the animals for food, and this was done. When confronted with this testimony, Doctor Meadors positively denied any such occurrence, and it was necessary to seek other testimony to get at the truth of the matter. Doctor Michael was asked to name some persons who could corroborate his testimony, and he named the killing boss and one government inspector to whom he said he had told of the occurrence about a year after it happened. The killing boss absolutely denied all knowledge of the occurrence, and the government inspector to whom Doctor Michael testified he had told of the occurrence stated that he had never heard of it. This alleged occurrence was first brought to the attention of the committee by Mr. Bischof, who said he had been told of it by Doctor Michael.

On examination, Doctor Michael stated that he had told Mr. Bischof of the occurrence some time after the committee had arrived in St. Louis to undertake the investigation. The committee visited the killing floor and gangway where the incident is alleged to have occurred and discovered that, on account of a steep incline over which it was necessary to drag the animals, it would be necessary to employ 15 or 20 men to drag the carcasses onto the killing floor. A careful examination of employes on the killing force disclosed that no such incident had ever occurred, and the committee is satisfied that Doctor Michael manufactured his story out of whole cloth in a desire to injure Doctor Meadors, who had upon several occasions reprimanded him for inattention to and neglect of duty. There was no veterinary inspector on the force who had ever been told of the occurrence, and even the one inspector whom Doctor Michael testificd he had told of it denied positively that such was the fact. If the incident had occurred, Doctor Michael would have been seriously at fault for not reporting to the inspector in charge, Doctor Clancy, the alleged action of Doctor Meadors in passing the carcasses of dead animals for food. No such report was ever made. (2) Meat inspection is rotten.

All of the employes examined testified that the meat inspection is most rigorous and thorough, and that no meat is marked "U. S. Inspected and Passed" which is not sound, healthful, wholesome, and fit for human food.

(3) The inspectors in charge have made agreements with the packers to ease up on the inspection.

It is needless to state that the only way in which the inspectors in charge could carry out such an agreement would be by instructions to the veterinary inspectors, in whose hands lie the disposition of animals. Each and every veterinary inspector and meat inspector on the force was examined on this point, and all testified that they had received no instructions to ease up on the inspection in violation of the regulations, but, on the contrary, that they had all been told time and again to adhere strictly to the regulations in making dispositions of animals.

(4) Inspectors in charge have made special arrangements with the packers to dispose of certain animals contrary to the regulations governing meat inspection.

There was absolutely no testimony to support this charge,

except the testimony of Doctor Michael on the incident discussed under charge 1. Every other inspector testified that no special arrangements had been made to dispose of animals contrary to the regulations, but, on the contrary, each animal was disposed of strictly in accordance with the regulations.

(5) Word was passed from the inspector in charge to the inspectors doing the work on the floors that too many animals were being condemned and to change the grading.

The testimony of all the inspectors was a unit on this point. Not one of them had ever received word to change his grading and none of them had ever been told that too many animals were being condemned.

(6) The packers are getting at the present time from 70 to 80 per cent of what ought to be condemned and destroyed.

Every employe examined testified that the packers are getting nothing at the present time and have not since the meatinspection service was inaugurated got any product which, under the regulations, is required to be condemned and destroyed.

(7) Men holding good positions with the packers see and know of the wrong practices and acknowledge that they are wrong.

With one exception, every employe examined testified that he knew of no case where men holding positions with the packers had discussed with them, or in their hearing, any alleged wrong practices under the regulations. The exception was Meat Inspector Julius Bischof, who related two alleged conversations with employes of the packers concerning certain pork trimmings which Mr. Bischof claimed were spoiled and were allowed to be used. Both of these employes were examined in Mr. Bischof's presence and each stated absolutely that no such conversation had ever occurred and that they had never known of any spoiled pork trimmings being used. (8) Many of the regulations are violated daily. With the exception of Mr. Bischof, all of the employes testified that they knew of no regulations which were violated daily, generally, or even occasionally. Most of them seemed to feel that it was their duty to see that the regulations were not violated. They testified that they were doing their duty and they seemed to be proud of it.

(9) It is the general practice in sausage departments to use bladders for casing without thoroughly washing and cleaning: to use filthy tripe in sausage; to use slimy hog stomachs for casings or containers; to use meats that have fallen on the floor without pretense of cleaning. All these practices are permitted by the inspectors in charge and if an inspector calls the attention of those in charge to these practices he is not encouraged.

No testimony was adduced to prove any of these charges. On the contrary, all the testimony was to the effect that none of these practices are tolerated or allowed. With the exception of Mr. Bischof, every man examined testified that he is encouraged to see that the regulations are strictly complied with by the packers, and a few inspectors testified that they had been reprimanded for not being more severe in the enforcement of the regulations.

SPECIFIC CHARGES

(1) On April 1, 1909, Doctors Graham and Stingley retained and condemned 11 beef carcasses for emaciation. On April 2 Doctors Clancy and Meadors released 6 of said carcasses to the packers, and the other 5 were tanked and destroyed. One carcass was no better than another in this lot. This happened at Swift's establishment, No. 3C. On the morning of April 2 Mr. Brady, superintendent of Swift's beef department, said to Mr. Harms, in speaking of the 11 carcasses, "Yes; they are a bad lot and had I been on the floor last evening I would not have let them come down, but would have sent them to the tank."

Doctors Graham and Stingley were examined on this charge and each testified to the following facts:

On the day mentioned, during the process of the killing, Doctors Graham and Stingley caused 11 beef carcasses to be retained for further examination, for emaciation. There were no lesions of disease in any of the carcasses, the only question being whether the carcasses would furnish nutritious food. It is a regular practice of the inspectors, in accordance with the regulations, if any carcass is suspected for any reason to cause it to be retained in order that after the kill is over the inspectors may have time to make a leisurely, complete. and thorough examination. On the morning of April 2, Doctor

Graham examined the retained carcasses. He was in doubt as to what disposition should be made and he called upon Doctor Meadors, the assistant inspector in charge, for a conference.

Doctor Meadors and Doctor Graham agreed that 4 of the animals should be passed and 4 of the animals should be destroyed for food purposes, and they were unable to agree as to the disposition of 3 carcasses. They then called in Doctor Clancy, the inspector in charge, for a final decision, and Doctor Clancy decided that 5 of the carcasses should be passed and 6 should be condemned. This action was taken. The 5 carcasses were marked "U. S. Inspected and Passed" and the 6 carcasses were destroyed for food purposes, as shown by the official records of the station. Doctors Graham, Stingley, Meadors, and Clancy were all agreed as to the final disposition of the animals, and there was no conflict of opinion in

HON. GEO. P. M'CABE,
Solicitor Department of Agriculture.

regard thereto. Mr. Brady, the superintendent of Swift's beef department, when asked if he had a conference with Mr. Harms regarding these 11 carcasses, replied that he had never had any conversation on this or any allied subject with Mr. Harms, and when told of Mr. Harms's statement of the alleged conversation with him he absolutely denied it.

(2) Mr. Harms saw from 1,200 to 1,500 pounds of lard spilled on the floor, which ran down into an open sewer in the floor, the sewer outlet being quickly blocked and the lard taken up from the floor and out of the sewer, both of which were unclean and insanitary from constant use, from walking over, and from sputum and filth which naturally find their way into any sewer. Doctors Clancy and Meadors passed this lard to the packers over the protest of the inspector on that floor, and it went out to the public marked "U. S. Inspected and Passed." This is an involved falsehood. It is a fact that upon one occasion in the oleo room about 1,200 pounds of lard spilled on the floor. The lard was in a semiliquid condition and part of it ran into the floor gutter, part of it onto a portion of the floor which had been walked upon, and part of it upon a portion of the floor which is and was as clean as any (Continued on Page 24)