The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1900-01-05
and even less on the basis Of present worth.

Croft and J. H. Cooper, called at the office
to protest against Maj. Bowler's last let
ter which extends the time in which re-
tailers may dispose of their old stocks.
J. W. Cooper, of Griggs, Cooper & Co.,
made the following statement as to the
position of the jobbers:
Under date of Dec. s, Maj. Bowler,
state dairy commissioner. sent out cir
cuar stating that the new law requiring
the special labelling of baking powder
would be vigorously enforced. The circu-
lar was sent to Mr.. Croft and other Min
nesota manufacturers. Just before the
first of the year all the papers published
a statement from Maj Bowler that all re-
tailers having on hand old stocks would
be allowed to sell the powder on hand.
He wrote to Reynolds & Reynolds, Of this
CITY. to that effect. Reynolds & Reynolds
handled the trust powders and are allow
ed to continue the sale of the unlabeied
powders, and the law is not enforced.
The local manufacturers have all complied
with the law. and it Is the outside or trust
companies that are refusing to comply
with the provisions of the law. Maj. Bow
ler's action discriminates in raver OF the
trust companies and against the nome
concerns We called on the governor this
morning and presented copy of the let
ter in which Maj. Bowler stated that Rey-
nods g. Reynolds might sell off their old
stock and also presented the letter written
to us, emphatically stating that the law
would be enforced. We did not want to
get into any controversy with the dairy
and food department, but we make a
plain statement of facts. The governor
said to us that the law would be enforced.
We give the governor credit for sincerity
and will let the matter rest upon his state
ment that the law will be enforced I'M
less DEVELOPMENTS are to the contrary.
The law was passed for the protection
of home manufacturers, yet Maj. Bowler
states to the outside companies that he
will not enforce the law, and to us he
gives notice that he will enforce the law.
Our interview with the governor was sat
isfactory as far as It went. We have
the governors promise that the law will
be enforced, and he stated to us that he
had no desire to enforce hardship upon
the citizens of the state"
Mr.. 0. J. Reynolds, OF the firm of Rey-
nolds & Reynolds, who took up the mat
ter with Food Commissioner Bowler,
gives the following version Of the case
"As the time approached for the law
requiring the labelling of all baking pow
Gers sold In this state to take erect we
found ourselves unable to secure the
labels from the manufacturers OF the
powders for which we have the largest
demand and for which our customers
call. We laid this case before the COM
missioner telling him that We had a
large stock of powder on hand which we
had purchased in good faith; that we
understood test cases would be at once
started, and as far as the manufacturers
of the powders we mainly handle were
concerned would be pushed to as early
conclusion as possible. Commissioner
Bowler wrote US very frankly about the
case and took what we consider to be
the only sensible view of the case. We
have made every effort to secure labels,
but are met with the statement that the
manufac turers do not propose to give
the world trade secrets, and that as they
consider the law unconstitutional they
decline to comply with 1t. 1t occurs to
me that the course of the commissioner
In declining to be used by either party
in this war between baking powder man
ufacturers Is proper. That Is all 1t is,
as we consider the powders the manu-
| facturers of which decline to furnish la
| bells, as pure and wholesome.