The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1906-07-15

us to solve the mystery. No duplicate
was obtainable from the dealer, and
the goods were very old and we very
suspicious.
This neglect of over two months to
reply to us and yet have time to issue
bulletins, give interviews and write !
column long letters to newspapers about
us made our blood boil. It was so
different from what we had been used |
to from parties in high office that on
May l, 1906, we wrote Mr.. Slater a
plain, straightforward letter reviewing |
matters, asking questions and demand |
ing that he make response. While in
sistent, we were not discourteous, but |
endeavored to impress our belief that |
he was not acting justly by us, as the |
whole matter turned upon one small
jar of very old goods, and it was not yet |
shown that we were the issuers Of the
them. The contents might have been
eaten by some clerk or porter and re-
placed by cheap pail goods, Or the
bottle filed by secondhand packers,
there being no evidence of the goods
having been purchased from us.
We furthermore offered to appoint a
chemist in connection with his to go
on the open market, buy preserves of
any kind of our brand in any guam
tity; to send representative to Min
nesota to identify the goods, and pay
all the expenses if any coloring matter
beyond that natural to the fruit should
be found by the two chemists working
together. Furthermore, we agreed to
pay the cost of samples and transport
: tation, and the goods could be ordered
from any city in the United States.
Well, this. at last brought an answer,
very short, very evasive Of the main
question and declining our proposition
} for joint analysis, and advising us
to take lessons in business letter writ
ing. This from man who had given
no evidence Of his ability to write one
to us himself up to that time, but who
sought to shift the responsibility of
his own laches of duty by intimating
that our unanswered letter was lacking
} in business courtesy, and leaving us to
e infer that that might be the cause of
\ his ignoring it.
We might probably have let the mat
t ter rest there, however, for any extern
D sive harm it might do us, our word
: with our patrons being still honored,
and our wares not used except by the
: most select and fastidious trade, had
e it not been for another high-handed
r brief authority.
: Our friends again advised us of a
= fact, that we have since verified, viz:
n that in the collection Of condemned
n goods at the dairy and food depart
I ment headquarters are three jars Of
e preserves now instead of one Of our
! reputed make-cherries and raspberries
" marked and numbered on tickets, stat
II ing them to be illegal and injurious
/ to health, owing to being artifcially
l, colored. We have never been notified
IS of these additional discoveries, and we
make the same affrmations and denials
n in regard to them that we did concern.
o ing the blackberries But what is worst
vt of all, and which, if true, we think
C transcends his official duties, is that
= he is reported to have loaned these sam
k pies to certain fairs or public expo
vt sitions for display, where they have
s, been placarded in large type and used
% to do us an injury.
IL There is no use in writing to him
4 any more. He appears incapable Of
4 grasping the subject and knowing how
Is to perform the duties the people of 6
le great state are taxed to pay him ant
III his assistants for, and we must gel
le Justice in any way open to us; there
3 fore,
. so loud that all may hear, and to bacl
1r up our words by our willingness to b.
TO tested by the severest methods known
CT First-We state that in no preserve
II which we issue under our brand ca
X X, any artificial coloring be found. Thi
III naturally includes those .varietie
10 Chemist Chemist Horton, and it therefore fol
"a lows that either the analyst has mad
vvee a mistake Of some kind, the origina
nI contents have been replaced by an in
ne ferior grade, the jars have been use
or by somebody a second time without re
-, -. moving the labels, or we are the victim
10 Of Conspiracy. We should not, u
as any such suspicion, but merely attrit
ne uted the failure Of the commissions
to do what was plainly his duty
lis some reason inscrutable to us. withou
&c raising the question of his honesty, hu
al we confess that circumstances are NAL
INA we speak, that we don't use artifcif
ar coloring in our preserves. 1t woul
OF be not only unnecessary but ridiculou
as it adds to the cost, the fruit whe
He used straight and with cane sugar (or
'al only way of preserving) having all til
at color needed. @ E.@.t. I,
ed Second-We challenge Mr.. Horton
make affidavit that the goods he e:
M amined were Of our pack and that tt
sit coloring found was without questio
he coal tar dye. It won It do to say tt
on Jars bore our label. He mu
99se know them to have been, when he r
by ceived them, in the same condition
cir when they left our factory. Otherwi,
on the commissioner had no right to s
pm ahead and issue bulletins, give inte
ok views and write letters for publicatio
making a special case Of ours, withol
eb. first exhausting his recourse to the ma
ed. ufacturers. The burden would the
we have been on the dealer We wou
my gladly have met him and helped hi
if in every way, even by sending re
The resentative to Minnesota, had he on
not replied to lis direct instead Of by II
s. stah-in-t The back method he annninue