New Ulm weekly review. [volume] (New Ulm, Minn.) 1878-1892, 1891-11-04
AND THEN ON THIS.

AAND AAAAA VA AXANs -
Denials, individually by the members
OF the San Francisco Board of Health,
of the statements attributed to them by
the Royal Baking Powder Company:
INTERVIEWS WITH MEMBERS OF THE
BOARD OF HEALTH:
Joseph r. Davidson, member of the
Board of HEALTH in response to inqui-
rles regarding the alleged endorsement
by the Board, of the Royal Baking
Powder, said: "The whole thing was
an imposition, and our names were OBJ
tanned under false pretenses. Twas ap-
piled to by personal FRIEND who asked
me to sign my name to a statement
that the Royal was a good baking
powder. He told me it would only be
published IN one paper, an obscure
weekly paper, and was to help out a
deserving man who wanted to get an
advertisement. Under these circum-
stances | signed my name. am free to
admit to you, as I have to all of my
friends, that it was a mistake, and l
shall be very, very careful how I sign
my name to anything again.
Dr. H. NJ Fiske, member of the Board,
was also seen. He said: The alleged
certificate from the Board Of Health
was obtained by false representations,
and as it appears in the newspapers is,
to all intents and purposes, forgery.
It was an outrageous proceeding, all
the way through, and places us in a
wrong light before the public
Dr.. Chas. McOuesten, member of the
Board of Health of San Francisco, said:
The alleged certificate. published by
the Royal Baking Powder Company,
was obtained by fraud. We never
signed any such paper as was published
in the newspapers. Here is a copy of
letter addressed to the local agent Of
the Royal Baking Powder Company,
informing him that if the advertisement
was not withdrawn, we should COM
mence an action against him. I re-
ceived an answer from him stating that
the Home office had authorized him to
withdraw it, and that it would not ap-
pear again. The thing is outrageous.
we never analysed the Royal, don't
know what it contains, and never in
tended to set it above any other pow
der Their whole action has been rep
rehensible in the highest degree" H.
Dr. LIE Tourneux, member of the
Board of Health of San Francisco, said:
nThe advertisement published in the
newspapers by which we were made to
endorse the purity and excellence of the
Royal Baking Powder, was fraud
We never signed any such paper DR..
McQuesten and myself called on the
local agent of the Royal Company, and
he promised to withdraw the advertise
ment, but on the contrary it appeared
in all the papers the next day. We then
informed him that we should take legal
means to protect ourselves. I am in
earnest in this matter, and propose to
see that the thing is set right.
The despicable action of the Royal
people has placed the Board in wrong
light, and for one am determined that
Justice shall be done / have heard on
good authority, that this action of the.
Royal Baking Powder Company is an
old trick of theirs and that most of
their alleged certificates are obtained in
this way"
Mr. w. A. Boyce, a reporter for the
San Francisco Chronicle, certifies to
each one of the foregoing letters, that
the statements therein contained were
made by the writer's to him.
James A. King, notary public, certi-
fes with his official seal and signature,
that each Of the foregoing statements
were made to him under oath at his
office, IN San Francisco, December q,
1889.
to that unerring jury
|CE BAKING POWDER CO..
Prices Cream Baking Powder.