St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1891-11-05
AND THEN ON THIS:

DeniaIs, 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 NUMBERS OF THE
BOARD OF HEALTH
Joseph r. Davidson, member of the
Board of Health, in response to in
qairies regal ding the alleged endorse
ment. by the Board of the Royal Baking
Powder, said: The whole thing was
all imposition. and our names were OBJ
tanned under false pretenSeS. | was APP
piled to by a personal friend. who asked
ne 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 deserving man
who wanted to get an advertisement.
Under these circumstances | signed my
name. | am free TO admit to you, as |
have to all of my friends. that it was a
mistake, and [ shall be very. very care
full how l sign my name to anything
again."
DR.. Fl. 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. 1t was
an outrageous proceeding all the way
through, and places us in wrong light
before the public"
Dir. Chas. McQuesten, member of the
Board of Health of San Francisco, said:
1.-The alleged certificate, published by the
ROYAL Baking Powder Company, was OBJ
tanned by fraud. We never signed any
such paper as was published in the news
papers Here is a copy Of letter ad-
dressed to the local agent Of the Royal
Baking Powder Company, informing him
that if The advertisement was not with
drawn we should commence an action
against him. | received an answer from
him stating that the Home office had
authorized him to withdraw it. and that it
would not appear again The thing is
outrageous; 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 reprehensi-
bic in the highest degree"
DR.. lie TOurneux, q member of the
Board of Health of San Francisco, said:
''The advertisement published in the
newspapers by which We were made to en-
dorse the purity and excellence of the
Royal Baking Powder, was a fraud. We
never signed any such paper DR.. Me-
Ouesten and myself called on the local
agent of the Royal Company, and he prom
ised to withdraw the advertisements, bat.
on the contrary, it appeared il all the
papers the next day. We then info m d
him that we should take legal means TO
protect ourselves. [ am i'll earnest in this
matter, and.prOpoSe to see that the thing
is set right.
The despicabIe action of the Royal peO-
pie has placed the Board in a wrong light.
and [ for one am determined that justice
shall be done. | have heard Oh good au-
thOrity that this action of the Royal Bak-
ing Powder Company is an old trick of
theirs. and that most Of their alleged eer-
tificates are obtained in this way"
Mr.. w. A. BOYce, reporter for the San
Francisco Chronicle, ceFtifies to each one of
the foregoing letters. that the statements
therein contained were made by the writ
erS to him,
James A. King. notary public. certifes
with his official seal and signature that
each of the foregoing statements wer
made to him under oath at his Office in
San Francisco, December 2. 1885,
to that unerring jury--a
e BAKING POWDER CO.,
Rricn,e Cream Rakinor Rnmdor