St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1890-12-10
CHASE Makes REPLY.
Assistant Dairy Commissioner
Howard's Latest Letter An

To the Editor of the Globe.
In Yesterdays issue of the GLOBE Mr.. How
ard states that have criticised his warning
to dairymen," which was published the 4th
inst. This is not the case. Mr.. Towards
warning was criticism Of my business,
which l defended, as every man has a per-
feet right to do. l have no desire to rush
into print, and am not seeking newspaper
notoriety. but do not propose to have my
business misrepresented. Mr.. Howard says:
Il did not in my original article, say that
any one was selling patent butter" Either
Mr.. Howard did say SO or he has been mis-
quoted. for The Minneapolis tribune of the
4th inst heads the article in question as fol-
lows: Ion making butter. y Minneapolis
firm is charged with breaking the law If
the charge is not made, it is at least clearly
animated.
l do not care to go into the details of
our process. but it is quite evident that
Mr.. Howard has little knowledge of it and
business-like manner / would have been
pleased to give him all desired information.
But he did not do it. Mr.. II. asks why
"slyly substituted creamery butter for my
own product. if the latter was all right" l
did SO for this reason: When Mr.. Towards
inspector called at my office it so happened
that l knew him to be connected with the
state dairy commission, but when asked re-
garding it he positively denied being con-
nected in any way with either the dairy COM
mission Or any of its officers. i knew this to
be false. but, nevertheless made a list for
him and showed him the increase we claim
over the old way of churning. Then when
he requested a sample of the butter for
analysis thought should like to know to
what extent they would condemn the process
without cause, and 1t was for this reason
only that l substituted the sample of best
creamery butter which the chemist found SO
unfit for use" Perhaps Mr.. Howard did
not hear the chemist pass such judgment,
but my statesmen did.
Mr.. Howard also says: IF we allow his
claim regarding the quality of the butter il
is PLAIN that the mixing of SO much casino
with butter is swindle on the purchaser"
Mr.. Howard uses peculiar course of reason
ing to arrive at the conclusion that it is q
swindle on the purchaser if the quality is the
same.
also quote again: Regarding its keep
ing qualities, every butter expert will tell
you that if the grain of the butter is broken
il will not Keep sweet as long as it would
if the grain were not broken" AS stated in
my reply to Mr.. Towards first article. the
grain of the butter made by my process is
fully equal to that of the best creamery
product. and the butter is not OF a greasy,
salvy nature, and any assertion to the COLI
trary is absolutely false.
Any butter expert who knows as little of
this process as Mr.. Howard appears to know
of 1t, would no doubt condemn it or any
other new discovery that did not play into
their hands; but our process is on exhibition
each and every day to all who are interested
(Mr. Howard not eXoepted), and we will
continue TO do business at the old stand >
regardless of Mr.. Towards warning. and if
he wishes to test his pet law will make by
my process and sell 10 him or his agent Que
pound or one hundred pounds of butter, and
give him an opportunity to do so. This ends
ali newspaper controversy, so far as l am
concerned, but my Office is open from y until
6, and all visitors are welcome.
MinneanoliS Dec q 1900