The St. Louis Republic. [volume] (St. Louis, Mo.) 1888-1919, 1903-02-11
Carries Amendment Compelling
Baking Powder Companies
to Label Ingredients.
SHARP DEBATE ON THE FLOOR.
Rubey and Bradley Openly Accuse
the Trust of Being Be
hind the Farris
Measure.
sYLA srAFr CORRESPONDENT,

| by a STAFF CORRESPONDENT.
| Jefferson City. Mo-, Feb. 10.-F'rank Far
| ria won his fight in the Senate to-day and
succeeded in passing an amendment to Sen
ator John l.. Bradley's bill to repeal the
| alum clause In the statutes. which, # passed
| by the House, will compel every baking
! powder company to label it's cans with the
| names of the ingredients. The Bradley bill
, was sent to engrossment by a vote of Is
/ TO 16.
| The House bill has. not yet been reported
! out of the Criminal Jurisprudence Commit
| tee
When the bill came up for engrossment
| on special order from last Tuesday, Farrts
Of Crawford offered substitute amend
! ment which required the labelling of all
baking powder 1t contains two sections
reading a,s follows:
Section c. The tartaric acids when used in food
or compounds mixtures intended TO be used in
OF tartar when constituting this act.
Section :. Acid phosphates when used In foods
be used in the pfepara,ion af Of food s be- called
sc!d phosphate when constituting this act.
Huney of Macon introduced an amend
ment eliminating these two sections, and
IN speeches directed attention to the two
sections OF ths Farrfs substitute. claiming
that they would exempt the baking powder
trust from the effects of labelling.
The vote on the Ruhey amendment was:
hyss BiTSs J2h3 l. Bradisy n n,a1 SSrks Rsw
tpoey sal.!yan. Nories, Young .p,.
c5steio b,c6Son Gs hfFarTf Fn Feds. Heather jew
Ell, Ms!ndoe. Marshall. Martin. Matthew'S, Nor
4n tnbs. e5ysp Wsicr saE,SF%uS arSf h0eh'a"0 smith,
Bradley. Dickinson. Fields, Heather and
Stubbs were against any sort of amendment
FARRIS ORGANIZATION.
On the Farris substitute. his organization
showed itself by commanding eighteen
votes. exactly the necessary number TO pass
a measure. The vote the Farris amend
ment was as follows:
jewell. Lee. 4 Mtindos. Si Iarshali. Martin. Mat.
thews. Morton. Nelson. Sart3rous schoenaub.
Noes, ls-Blgss. John l. Bradley, Nick Brad
Isy Gars BieknsQT M poMs Esds HsaInsF snb
The debate over the bill was largely
discussion of motives and fair play. When
the special order was reached this after
noon Rubey introduced an amendment cor,
recting the title by inserting the word
to-
Farrs accused him of sharp practice in
INTRODUCING the bill at that time. Rubey
replied that no man had ever accused him
of that before, and that he therefore with
drew the amendment. Farris withdrew his
remark.
After some debate Farrls said that his
record on alum had been straight. and that
as far as his purposes and motives were
concerned con, h,,l tnat was question @ on between him
TRUST BEHIND AMENDMENT.
Nick Bradley said the Royal Baking Pow
der Trust was behind the Farris amend
ment. Walker spent some time explaining
that he could not be coerced. Dowell spoke
for the Rubey amendment. Farris insinu-
ated that the Ruhey amendment was drawn
SO that the word aluminium could be used
instead of alum, and Rubey replied that no
man or agent of any baking powder had
seen the amendment before il was intro
duced. and that no man had ever dictated
TO him what he should do In the Senate.
t'paGaY fGad-'
remarked Farris. that he. has become SO
great"
Not upon the meat of the. Baking Pow
der Trust" replied Rubey
After the vote on the Rubey amendment
had been taken. Heather OF Marion said
that he hoped the Farris amendment would
be killed and the subject matter be con-
sidered in separate bill. which Farris had
introduced. Dickinson spoke along the same
lines.
After the vote had been taken on the
Farris substitute and adopted. the title was
perfected and 1t was sent TO engrossment.
p. Z. BURTON.