The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1891-11-05
AND THEN ON THIS:

Denials, individually by the mem
bers of the San Francisco Board of
Health, of the statements attrib-
uted to them BIZ the Royal Baking
Powder Company:
INTERVIEW WITH MEMBERS OF THE
BOARD OF HEALTH.
Joseph R. Davidson, member Of
the Board of Health, in response
to inquiries regarding the alleged
endorsement, by the Board, of the
Royal Baking Powder, said: "The
whole thing was an imposition, and
our names were obtained under
false pretenses. l was applied 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 OBJ
scure weekly paper, and was to
help out deserving man who
wanted TO get an advertisement,
unoer tnese circumstances L signed
my name. | am free to admit to you
as | have to all my friends, that it
was a mistake, and / shall be very,
very careful how l sign my name to
anything again.
DR.. H. NJ. Fiske, member of the
Board, was also seen. He said:
SThe alleged certificate from the
Board of Health. was obtained by
false representations and as it ap-
pears in the newspapers is, to all
intents and purposes, q forgery. 1t
was an outrageous proceeding, al
the way through, and places us in a
wrong light before the public"
DR.. Chas. McQuesten, a member
of the Board of Health Of San Fran.
cisco, 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 Com.
pany, informing him that if the
advertisement was not withdrawn,
we should commence an action
against him. l received an answer
from him stating that the Home
Office had authorized him to with.
draw it, and that it should not ap-
pear again. The thing is outrage
Gus; we never analysed the ROYAL,
don't know what it contains. and
never intended to set it above any
other powder. Their whole action
has been reprehensible in the high
est degree"
DR.. LIE Toureux, a member Of
the Board of Health of San Fran
cisco, said; "The 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 Com
pany, and he promised to withdraw
the advertisement, but on the con-
trary it appeared in all the news.
papers the next day. We then
informed him that we should take
legal means to protect ourselves.
| 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 a wong light, and | for one
am determined that justice shall
lie done. I have heard on good
authority, that this action of tho
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, q reporter ior
the "San Francisco Cronicle," Ger.
titled to each one Of the foregoing
letters than the statements therein
contained were made by the writers
to him.
James A. King, notary pub
lie, certifes with his official seal
and signature, that each Of the fore.
going statements were made to him
under oath at his office, in San
Francisco, December 2, 1889.