ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

Teller, George L., Chicago, Ill.

Page.

132-139

155-

Wagner, T. B., New York City, representing the American Manufacturers' Associa-
tion of Products from Corn__
186, 251, 252, 288, 293, 243-346, 383-385, 445, 446, 462, 463

Wearen, W. H., Stanford, Ky., secretary of the Central Kentucky Millers' Asso-

ciation

359-382

290-303

[blocks in formation]

Boswell, Miss Helen V., New York City, chairman political science committee,
representing the General Federation of Women's Clubs--.

Burns, Jay, Omaha, Nebr., president Jay Burns Baking Co---

Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft, New York City, attorneys for the Biscuit and

Cracker Manufacturers' Association_.

Statements, etc.:

72-77

392-414

Cauble, Miss Laura, New York City, late special investigator of the bureau of

food supply, representing the New York Association for Improving the

Condition of the Poor__

Crocker, William G., Minneapolis, Minn., representing the Minneapolis Millers'
Club
193, 194, 452-454
Denison, Hon. Edward E., of Illinois-
422, 423
Faircloth, E. C., Nashville, Tenn., secretary-treasurer of the American Bread Co. 306-321
Fuller, H. C., of the Institute of Industrial Research, Washington, D. C__
466-472
Genung, J. H., Indianapolis, Ind., representing the American Hominy Co------ 39-48, 61
Gross, Howard H., Chicago, Ill., president of the Tariff Commission League. 303-305
Hamilton, William V., Caledonia, N. Y., representing the New York State Millers'
Association__

62-63
Haskell, Harry L., Toledo, Ohio, representing the National Association of White
Corn Millers_.
60, 61, 148-154, 175, 177, 178, 183
Howard, Burton J., United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, D. C- 285-288
Hunt, A. J., Arkansas City, Kans--.
326-330
Husband, A. P., Chicago, Ill., secretary of the Millers' National Federa-
192, 193, 260-284
245-257
Keith, B. C., Chief of Miscellaneous Division, Internal-Revenue Bureau, Treasury
Department, Washington, D. C..
5-30

tion_
Hutchinson, Hon. E. C., of New Jersey_

Kelly, E. M., Nashville, Tenn., president of the Liberty Mills.
60, 186-196, 205-219

Lannen, T. E., Chicago, Ill., counsel, representing the American Manufacturers'

Association of Products from Corn.
30, 31, 63-72, 109,

111-113, 129, 132, 136, 137, 139, 142, 143, 145, 147, 153, 159, 178, 184, 185,

204, 205, 216-219, 221, 233, 242-245, 250, 256, 259, 260, 264, 268, 269, 284,

288, 290-294, 304, 309, 330, 336, 346, 347, 359, 379-383, 390, 401, 402, 407,

412-422, 426-428, 432, 433, 440-442, 444, 445, 454-460, 462, 463, 472-503

Lind, Hon. John, Minneapolis, Minn., representing the Millers' National
Federation. 37, 38, 49-63, 65, 70, 77, 96, 97, 115, 116, 130, 131, 143-147, 150,
155, 156, 159-161, 163, 190, 193, 195, 196, 205, 220-222, 227, 228, 235,
241-243, 245, 250-252, 259, 260, 266-269, 285, 288, 289, 292, 299, 300,
306, 307, 309, 311, 321, 323-326, 328-330, 336, 337, 344-347, 351, 358,
359, 379, 386–390, 401, 402, 404, 406, 411-413, 421, 422, 426-428, 432,
435, 436, 460-463, 503-556

TO REPEAL THE MIXED-FLOUR LAW.

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS,

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D. C., January 31, 1916:`.

Pursuant to notice, the Committee on Ways and Means met at 10. o'clock a. m., Hon. Claude Kitchin in the chair.

Present: The chairman and Messrs. Rainey, Dixon, Hull, Garner, Collier, Dickinson, Conry, Oldfield, McGillicuddy, Allen, Crisp, Casey, Helvering, Fordney, Moore, Green, Sloan, Hill, and Longworth.

STATEMENT OF MR. B. C. KEITH, CHIEF OF MISCELLANEOUS DIVISION, INTERNAL-REVENUE BUREAU, TREASURY DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D. C.

The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen, we have met to have a hearing on H. R. 9409. Mr. Keith is the first witness. Mr. Keith, just give a statement of what position you hold and whom you represent.

Mr. KEITH. I am chief of the miscellaneous division, Internal-Revenue Bureau, Treasury Department.

The CHAIRMAN. All right, Mr. Keith; just make such statement as you care to make in connection with this bill.

Mr. KEITH. Mr. Chairman, I would prefer to answer any questions the committee desires to ask me.

The CHAIRMAN. As this is Mr. Rainey's bill, I will ask him to question you.

Mr. RAINEY. I wish you would give us the history of the mixedflour law, how long it has been in operation, and what it has accomplished during the period it has been in operation.

Mr. KEITH. The mixed-flour law was originally enacted as a Spanish War revenue bill on June 13, 1898.

Mr. RAINEY. What happened to the rest of the war revenue bill? Mr. KEITH. It has been repealed, I believe.

Mr. RAINEY. This is the only part of the statute still remaining in force?

Mr. KEITH. This is the only part, so far as I know, that is now on the statute books.

It was amended March 2, 1901, by slight modification of the definition of mixed flour as it was defined originally in section 35 of the Spanish War revenue act. That amendment apparently did not attain the object that was desired to clarify the definition, so it was again amended on April 12, 1902, and it has remained on the statuto books as amended by that last act, to date. As it stands now we

5

speak of it as the act of June 13, 1898, as amended by the acts of March 2, 1901, and April 12, 1902.

Mr. RAINEY H. R. 9409—that is, the bill under considerationdefines mixed flour as it has been defined by the statutes from 1898 down to the present?

Mr. KEITH: Yes, sir. That defines it as it has been defined heretofore.

Mr. RAINEY. I wish you would state how far this mixed-flour bill has succeeded as a revenue-producing agent.

Mr. KEITH. It has been in operation 18 years, and the total collections for the 18 years amounted to only $59,798.71.

Mr. RAINEY. An average of about how much per year?

Mr. KEITH. An average of $3,322.18.

Mr. RAINEY. How do the receipts under the law compare with the expenses of enforcing the law?

Mr. KEITH. That would not pay the cost or the salary of one single revenue agent.

Mr. RAINEY. Then, the only question about this law as a revenue measure is how much of a deficit it produces in the Treasury?

Mr. KEITH. There is no way of estimating the actual cost; but, undoubtedly, taking the time of those officers who are required to see to its enforcement, I should say it does not bring in as much revenue as it costs to enforce it.

Mr. RAINEY. Have you prepared there some statement of the revenues, Mr. Keith?

Mr. KEITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. RAINEY. Just file that with the stenographer and have it inserted in the record.

Mr. KEITH. I will do so.

(The statement referred to is as follows:)

Statement of mixed flour produced and withdrawn, tax-paid, also tares collected under this law, by fiscal years, since the inception of the law.

[blocks in formation]

Statement of mixed flour produced and withdrawn, tax-paid, also taxes collected under this law, by fiscal years, since the inception of the law-Continued.

[blocks in formation]

121,353

1,368, 611

1,014,902

Destroyed in factories, allowed..
Balance in factories, June 30, 1915.

Withdrawn for export free of tax, 1899..
Withdrawn for export free of tax, 1915..
Included in production, 1902, not taxable under amendment Mar. 2, 1901..

758,002

175, 365, 742

49, 987.41

$49,900

363.580

72,414

239,336

208,506

176, 299, 478

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][subsumed][subsumed][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][subsumed][merged small][merged small][subsumed][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][subsumed][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

Mr. RAINEY. Now, in the enforcement of this law as it at present appears on the statute books, I want to call your attention to this label which I have prepared for a package of flour, which reads as follows:

DOE'S BEST
FANCY

PATENT

FLOUR.

49 LBS. NET.

RICHARD DOE & CO.,
MINNEAPOLIS, MINN.

MIXED FLOUR,

WHEAT, AND CORNSTARCH.

If a mixture of that kind was on the market, or placed on the market by this supposed firm, under the law would that marking be sufficient?

Mr. KEITH. Under the law it would. We have attempted, however, by our regulations, to prevent the use of any term in connection with the branding prescribed for mixed flour which might induce the belief that it was pure wheat flour. The question is whether or not the term fancy patent" would come under that prohibition. I would not like to say.

66

Mr. RAINEY. "Mixed flour" would be sufficient, without any percentages of ingredients?

Mr. KEITH. So far as the law is concerned, it would. If they state the percentages they should state the correct ones.

Mr. RAINEY. Now, I have prepared a label here. You have examined the bill we are considering?

Mr. KEITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. RAINEY. I have prepared another label here, which reads as follows:

49 LBS. NET

STAR

BRAND

MIXED FLOUR

CORNSTARCH 20%
WHEAT FLOUR 80%

JOHN DOE & CO.
CHICAGO.

Under the bill we are considering now would that label be sufficient?

Mr. KEITH. Under the definition as given in the bill now before the committee it would.

Mr. RAINEY. With the percentages?

Mr. KEITH. That is according to our interpretation and enforcement of the law under that definition.

Mr. RAINEY. Would type substantially that size in which the words "mixed flour" are printed comply with the law?

Mr. KEITH. It is only required that the letters in the words "mixed flour" be three-quarters of an inch. That is larger than actually required.

Mr. RAINEY. That is the rule you follow?

Mr. KEITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. RAINEY. This label gives to the purchaser much more information about the contents of the package than the label that it is possible to use now under the present law, does it not?

Mr. KEITH. Yes, sir. They do not, under the present law, have to state the percentages of the ingredients. They have to name the ingredients, but they do not have to state the percentages. If they do state them, they are supposed to state them accurately.

Mr. RAINEY. Must they name them in any kind of order, Mr. Keith?

Mr. KEITH. Well, the law does not require that. They can name them in any order.

Mr. RAINEY. With reference to the export packages of mixed flour, would this labeling under the first bill to which I have called your attention be sufficient?

Mr. KEITH. So far as the law is concerned, it would.

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »