The Sedalia weekly bazoo. [volume] (Sedalia, Mo.) 187?-1904, 1884-09-16
ANDREWS
Pearl Baking Powder Co. Makes
Statements as to the Merits
OF Their Goods


sell constituted philsnthropists like the
Royal Baking Powder Co, to make invidi.
Gus comparisons of our competitors goods
through the press, or to pay chemists 10
make them for Us, or TO allude TO them by
name in concealed advertisements in order
TO increase the sale of Andrews Pearl
Baking Powder.
We do not find high minded, first class,
reputable manufacturers in any kind OF
business, like Kingsford, or Duryea's
Starch company, or Rabbits Soap com
pany resorting to this method of seeking
trade, which would bring upon them, as il
always does, the scorn and contempt of
every honest business man in the country.
The Royal Baking Powder company
still persists In publishing that Andrews
Baking Powder contains alum" having
been SO decided, as they say, By DR. Love,
government chemist for the Indian de-
partnent, although We stated through the
press, some time ago, that We made and
sold two kinds OF baking powder, OF differ
emit qualities as the trade might demand
making no presentations when the
goods were sold. But the Royal Baking
Powder company takes this method Of In
iucing he public To infer that the cream
tartar powder sold under our brand OF An
dreg's Pearl, is the one referred 10 under
the ambiguous 10. IN of ANDRE VS. Baking
Powder contains alum" and Is sustained
~ the analysis OF the government chemist
iOr the Indian department, instead of Civ
ing the names Of our brands which are
prominently printed upon our labels.
10 order 10 settle this question perma-
i 4 a
Known, and sold, under the brand OF An
drews' Pearl is meant, We make this public
challenge.
CHALLENGE.
Il COO that Andrews Pc ri Baking Pow.
der Is free from alum; but the principal
ingredient is cream tartar, aud is not in
furious.
Il 900 that biscuits made from An
drews' Pearl Baking Powder are perfectly
healthfuI and free from deterious substan-
ces.
$1,000 that Andrews Pearl Baking
Powder does not, and never did, contain
alum or injurious ingredients.
$1,000 that DR.. Mot neither is nor ever
has been the regularly authorized com
missioned government chemist for the In
dian department, rs stated by the Royal
Beei ING Powder company.
81 900 that DR.. Love neither is nor ever
has been the regularly AUTHORIZED CO ms
stoned government chemist for the Indian
department, SIS stated by the Royal Bakiug
PoNdei company.
$1,000 that there is not, nor ever has
been. any such officer known TO the govern
meEt as a regularly authorized commits
stoned chemist for the Indian department..
This cha.lerge as a whole 10 b. accepted
within ten days from this date July 10,
1882, each party 10 select a chemist, ami
these two third, and he decision Of the
m .iorily TO be 6lsl The analysis 10
Do conducted publicly In Milwaukee,
Wisconsin, before DIR. Martin, health
and the powder to be pur
;hssed by him in open market among the
leading grocers in Milwaukee or Chicago
The unsuccessful party to pay all expenses
If the public test.
We make This challenge in DO boastful
pirit, but TO definitely state our willingness
o test the merits of Andrews Pearl Bak.
ng Powder as to its purity and rising
qualities.
c. E ANDREWS & Co.,
of Andrews Pearl Baking
Powder, Milwaukee and Chicago.
This challenge was not accepted by the
Royal Baking Powder company. Draw
our own inference.