Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1880-12-24


which I have now here (showing bottlel;
that 10 potash alum which came out OF the
alum baking powder that was In that can.
Plaintiffs counsel offers said can Of
Dooley's Baking Powder In evidence.
Q. Now. sir. have you made any expert.
ment In the bread made from Baking
Powder. to see whether there wss any SOL
uble alumina In the bread itself?
A. / have; I took . portion OF this pow
der and mixed it with flour In the direct.
ed proportions, aud baked q small loaf
with 1t; then I soaked this loaf-the int.
riOr part OF it-in cold water. aud made
an extract. in which I readily detected, by
the usual tests, alum-that 10 alumina In
. soluble condition.
Q. Does any Baking Powder In which
any alumina salts enter. contain alumins,
in your opinion. which can be absorbed in
the process OF digestion-ars not such OBJ.
j%ectionable g?
A. Very decidedly Objectionable. in my
opinion.
Q. Why do you say-from what system
OF reasoning do you make It out-thst be-
cause alum is injurious. alumina 10 inju-
riousf
A. Because the injurious effects Of slu.
nina, when II gets into the stomach and
reacts on the organs. arc the same this
hydrate OF slumina meets In the stomach
the gastric juices. and reacts with them
the same 40 alum would Informs, In fact,
q kind Of alum In tho stomach with those
acids. and whatever alum would do, 1t
would do.
Dr.. SAMUEL w. JOHNSON. Professor Of
Chemistry In the Scientific School,
Yale College. being duly sworn. testi.
fed a. follows:
Q. You have had much to do In the ex-
animation Of substances that enter into
food. aud the adultsration Of food?
A. More or less; yes. sir.
Q. After the use OF alum with soda, In
. baking powder, In your opinion, IL there
any injurious substance leftf
A. In my opinion. there Is an injurious
substance left.
Q. What. sir. two years sgo. Wal the
prevailing opinion among scientific men
40 to the effect Of the use Of alum In Bak.
Ing Powders2
A. As far as my acquaintance with sci.
entiHc men 10 concerned, my personal
opinion 10 derived from my investigation
and from reading; I should think the
opinion was that alum, or any compound
OF alumina. would be decidedly injurious.
Q. Do / understand you to say that any
baking powder in which there arc alumni.
Gus salts, or any resultant from alum
which could DO absorbed In digestion, Is
Objectionable and injurious?
A. Extremely so.
PROF. JOSEPH H. RAYMOND called, sworn
and testified a. follows:
O. Would you DO good enough to state
your profession
A. I sm . physician, sir. and = Professor
OF Physiology.
@. You also were. aud have been for
some time. Sanitary Superintendent In
Brooklyn-is not that SOP
A. Ihave. sir.
q. Now, sir, I will ask you your opin'
ion. from this experience. whether tho uss
Of alum with soda. In . baki ,g powder. l,
injurious or not. in It's physiological Of
fects2
A. I consider II TO be dangerous
Q. You examined this question for the
Board Of Health In Brooklyn, some year.
ago. did you noti
A. Two years ago, sir. in December.
BY The Court:
Q. What was the result OF your investi
CATION as 10 tho use Of alum In Baklnl
Powder
A. The result Of my investigation at tina
time was this: That the changes which
took place between the time that alum
baking powder was put In the bread, ant
the tims the bread was eaten. tho chtmioa
changes were &c little understood by chem
lists, that as 3 physician aud Psychologist
! considered II . dangerous experiment.
DR.. Mott, the Government chemist. IL
his review Of the subject In the Scientif,
American. makes special mention Of having
analysed the Royal Baking Powder, snt
found 1t composed Of pure and wholesom,
materials. He also advises the public Il
avoid purchasing baking powders a. sol.
loose or In bulk. as he found by analyses
Of many samples that the worst sdultsra
tons are prscticed in this form. The lsbe
and trade mark Of = well known and re
sponsiblo manufacturer. he adds. 10 tn
best protection the public can have.