Arizona republican., 1905-05-08
The Liquor Dealers and
 Dr. Wiley
The Former Declare That the Latter Is in an Unworthy League With the BOttIe-in-BOnd Men.

of the national association or whole sale liquor dealers, bearing on the at titude of the doctor toward the proper labelling of whisky, has just been made public. For a long time Dr. Wiley has 1 been active in pressing the passage of 1 a national pure food bill containing q whisky clause which favored bottled ] n-bond whisky at the expense of i blended or rectif1ed whisky. The na- l tional association of wholesale liquor i dealers held that Dr. Wiley was un- 1 duly interested in protecting the so- i called straight whisky, and on Jan uary 2Sth last issued a circular con i taining the following statement: This 1 association is on record as favcring i the passage of laws, both state and ! federal, which will absolutely prohibit the sale of whiskies containing any poisonous or deleteriOus substances ] whatever, whether added or otherwise. and when it asked the pure food con gress to adopt a similar resolution, the guiding hand of Dr. Wiley and the 1 bottled-in bond whisky interests oper- | ated to prevent it." As Dr. Wiley has 1 set .25 of one per cent of fusel oil as a maximum for whisky. and the straight whiszies exceed this percen- tage, it is evident that should the rec concentrations of the national associa- l tiontion be adopted, Straight whls- 1 kies would come within the operation of the law and the distillers of such whiskes would be compelled to tell on their labels how much fusel oil , "bottled-in-bon whisky contains. pr. Wiley therefore resented the imputa-
 ton that he had any guiding hand" in preventing the adoption of the res OIution and addressed personal letters to the members of the executive com 1 r,7ftfna ba fa ar as the reference to me is concerned
 in the above statement, it is abso-
 lutely false. and, I believe. has been naliciously uttered. pr. Wiley then goes on to say that he was mot pres ent at the meeting when this subject was discussed, did not know it was
 coming up for discussion and took no part whatever in ii, either directly in directly or otherwise. 70 Acconapanytns
 tnis indignant denial the famous au- ; thor of the "poison squad articles'' | inquired: "I wish to ask if such an
 outrageous faIsehood meets with your personal appreciation as member of ? the executive committee of the associ-
 ation in question:"
 Apparently it did. for under date of . February 20. David Stauber. of Pitts , burg, Pa, the secretary of the associ- , ation, pointed out to Dr. Wiley that 9 far from being an "outrageous false ! hood" the statement was supported , by the best of evidence and had re- f peatedly been made to him directly
 without challenge or contradiction f While you appear to have frequen tIy gone out of your way to make state ], ments,' continues Mir Stauber "un- 2 called for by your official position, and i unwarranted by the facts. which were
 calculated to injure the business of the
 rectifier and the blender. and to pro-
 mote the business in bottled-in- bond
 whiskies. we have no desire to do you
 an injustice" He therefore asks Dr Wiley if it is not true that he was s
 member of the subcommittee on res z l olutions at the pure food congress tC which the resolution was presented; ' if the bond interests dic u not present another resolution which
 pr. Wiley and the others reported
 unanimously to the general committee
 Mir. Stauber also asks if Dr. Wiley dic
 not "state to members of the genera e resolutions committee that Mir Hough'. U resolution ought not to be adopted = and did you not favor before thaf U committee the resolution which wa, 't finally reported from that committe, = and subsequently adopted by the con t gress?"
 s How then could you have the har n dihood to brand the statement in ou1 ' circular as an outrageous falsehood, , c inquired MT. Stauber, land to asser
 in your circular that you were no
 present when this resolution was dis = cussed and took no part in it. eithei A directly, indirectly or by suggestion :? MT. Stauber further rubbed it in on th
 distinguished savant by stating: Ill
 view of all the foregoing which, inde '- pendent of the personal testimony O 1 persons present who know of the par
 you took in the matter of the rejec
 tion and adoption Of the resolutions
 the statement in your circular tha
 you took no part in the matter is ir
 refutably branded by the very term
 which you yourself have used" No
 content with thus hurling back on DI
 Wiley the charge of an "outrageou
 falsehood. MT. Stauber sarcasticall.
 adds: What could have been you
 purpose in making such manifest mis
 statements is, of course, beyond m
 power to solve. but they appear to u
 to be in perfect harmony with all tn
 things which you have hitherto don
 through the press to unnecessarily in 10 jure a legitimate business"
 Replying to this letter Dr. Vile
 admitted that lie was a member ot tn
 committee referred to. but was in
 hurry to leave St. Louis. 'I stated [
 the committee my personal views i T. regard to the resolutions pending" h 1. says. underlining personal" He con T. tinues that he opposed the adoption (
 the ''very drastic resolution" the on 4, originally proposed by the bottled-in
 bond people, and that 'I thought
 was far better to reaffirm the originj
 St. Paul resolution than to adopt ti
 very radical one which it was propose L- to put in it's place. which was als ne bottled in bond resolution. 'I con S. sidered I was doing MT. Hough all at his interests a favor" continues tn