The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1888-08-01
Gen. S. 81. HURST, Columbus, o.,

Ctutc Dduy ana FOOU commissioners
DEAR SIR-We have read with pleasure your
letter to the Columbus, o., State Journal, criti-
clsing the use made of your official circular No.
6 upon the composition OF baking powders
sold in Ohio. The service you have in this let
ter rendered to the public in exposing the dis
honest methods employed by divers baking
powder makers, who by habit falsify facts for
advertising purposes is only second in lmpor-
lance TO that rendered by you and Prof. Weber
in your most complete and valuable exposures
of the inferiority and impurities of the baking
powders which these same manufacturers
make
Your report was very severe document
against the majority of the baking powders,
because il so fearleSsly showed up their adul-
terations. You lay emphasis upon the fact
that the baking powder with efficient strength
and least residuum of least hurtful character Is
the best baking powder, and very properly so.
We have been making baking powder tor
twenty-five years and have employed many or
the most renowned chemists In the land, be-
sides spending large amounts OF money In the
effort to make an article that shall be the best
OF its kind, perfectly pure, wholesome, OF the
highest strength and that shall leave the small
est possible residuum in the food. The fact
that we haye succeeded well that you ind
the Royal greatly purer than any other powder
in the country is exceedingly gratifying to us,
and we thank you sincerely for so impartially
stating it.
We have referred to these portions of your re-
port in order to make more clear to you the
extent to which it has been garbled and falsi-
fed by the manufacturers of those powders
which the facts YOU give have so severely con-
demned.
Your report seems to have been grossly
garbled by the manufacturer of Dr. Prices
baking powder. He publishes boldly, in quo
taton marks, as from your report, q whole par
agraph, not a word of which was yours. He
says that you report zone of the baking pow
derS contains q powerful and unelean gas-pro
ducing substance originally derived from ami
mai excrement," which you did not; that you
report his baking powder free from said drug,
and recommended by government chemists,
food analysis, etc, as the strongest and most
healthful, B" which you likewise did not and could
not, because it is not recommended by any gov
eminent chemist nor used by the government.
You did report his baking powder TO contain
impurities 10 the extent Go per cent. OF its en-
tire weight, and four other powders were found
superior TO it in purity, while il was the fifth
on the list in strength. Such fagrant abuse OF
an official paper in pretending TO quote, while
distorting and disappearing your official cir
cular as it did, were criticised by you in fitting
terms.
The manufacturer Of Clevelands baking pow
der also went into the garbling business. He
deliberately states that his powder is placed at
the head of the list (wheTeas, You know, you
placed the Royal, Clevelands being fourth;
that it produces the largest amount of carbonic
acid gas, which is equally false; for your report
shows powder with SO per cent impurity
ahead of it in strength; and he altogether omits
from his pretended repetition of your report
the fact, emphasized by you as most import
ant, that his powder contains 1918 per cent. of
impurities, consisting of tartrate OF potassium
and tartrate of sodium (rochelle salts) moist
ure, etc. These wicked distortions and mis-
representations of your circular evidently in
tended 10 falsfy your report and break the
effect of the facts therein, which exposed his
powder rs impure and of inferior strength, we
are glad to know did most justly excite your
highest indignation.
We have done something to give your re-
port circulation; but its statements were so ia
vorable to the Royal Baking Powder, placing
IL rs they did at the head of the whole list, and
the analysis showing il so much the superior
OF all others in purity, that there could have
been no inducement on our part Tor misrepre-
sentng is facts and we are glad 20 know that
in our condensation OF your document and the
comments thereon you cannot find single
misstatement
We deem your circular the most important
exhibit upon the baking powder question late
ly published and shall be glad 10 aid you in
giving il the widest possible circulation. We
hope that every one will send TO you for circu-
lar no. 6, and il you can properly do so we will
he pleased to have you accept our offer TO pay
the expense OF placing a copy in the hands OF
every housekeeper in Ohio and adjoining
states. Very respectfully yours
ROYAL BAKING POWDER CO.,
New York.