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

their letter to me Gordon & Dilworth
state that DR.. Wiley of the depart
tana commissioner had been compelled
to back down after declaring their
products illegal Our chemist, Mr.. Hor,
ton, has talked with both men, and
tells me that they most emphatlcally
did not back down from their rulings.
The retailer is not to blame, and as the
MANUFACTURER will not STAND back OF a
case, the only thing l can do Is to put
the trade in possession of the facts, and
notify dealers that the article is lille
gall
Now, for diabolical perversion of the
truth, this takes the palm. What we
did say was: GAS we have not had
need of using any color whatsoever in
or at any time in our career, it is IN
order to refer matters back to you for
revision, and if none Of the errors
above indicated have been committed,
then you may have an opportunity for
scientific investigation like our friend,
Dr.. Traphagen (analyst of Food Dept,
Montana), and when he charged us with
with salicylic acid, and previously DR.:
Wiley Chemist of the Department of
Agriculture), when charging the same
in regard to our okra and tomatoes:
Later knowledge on the subject showed
them that salicylic acid was common in
all of the named fruits, and could not
be isolated from the product in suf-
fcient quantities to prove it's artificial
admiXture.
Now the facts are that good many
years ago the United States bureau Of
chemistry did issue bulletin showing
that the okra and tomatoes packed by
us and other houses contained salicylic
| AZ hot rrn
,tana food department stated the same
2 fact in regard to our red currant jelly
and tomato catsup. As we did not put
it there we know, if found, it must
, have been natural.
l We did not take up the matter with
the United States bureau of chemistry,
as it did not come to our attention till
: long after publication, when we We're
;, advised that later knowledge on the
4 subject showed salicylic acid to exist in
= okra and tomatoes, and we presumed
the matter, ended, as DR.. Wiley had not
pronounced the goods illegal and nc
= special publicity had been given the ar
l ticle and no injury ensued
In the case of the Montana food com
}, missioner it was little different. We
= asked for revision and were treated
u like gentlemen by gentleman; theil
a chemist, DR.. Traphagen, a man Of cul
:. ture and high attachments in his pro
q fession, admitting an injustice had beer
. . done owing to the analysis having beer
! made only qualitatively instead OF
~ quantitatively. He wrote us on thu
: subject, apologizing for the uninten
% % tional wrong done us, and corrected thu
a bulletin in the very next issue. Nov
~ all this is matter of record, and cal
- be seen in Bulletin No. 38 Of the Mon
Il tana agricultural experiment station
IS Bozeman, Mont, Oct. l, 1902, at page
p. 10 and 16.
A. Hence we think if Chemist Horto1
% "talked with both men and tells m
W that they most emphatically did no
d back down from their rulings,' Their
e must be a little Ananias work some
D, where. We did not use the word "bac]
% down. We said "revision,' and tina
If Dr.. Traphagen certainly. accord ed us
r and we challenge Chemist Horton t
show in writing a statement from tn
g doctor denying his revision and publica
r, tion of the same. There was no occa
/ sion on DR.. Wiley's part to revise, a
IT we never asked him, having gotten tn
information when the matter was col
10 and the facts generally known Of tn
g natural presence OF the acid in the veg
ID etables named.
le Again, by courtesy of a friend,
ID Chicago of April Is, 1906, came int
e. our hands, in which appeared lette
80 from Commissioner Slater, dated Apr
TO 10, 1906, devoted entirely to the blacl
Re berry jam case, heaping insults upo
US and bringing, in the honored name
k we had attempted to subject them t
9y ridicule. For these gentlemen we hay
at too much respect, having been brougt
ne into contact with both Of them in til
es lines of their profession, but cand(
en- compels us to say that this same M
al Slater and his chemist, Mr.. Horton, al
putting themselves sSi in very ridifulo,
note the following extract from tt
I'M letter just referred to-:
~ tb II have personally examined tn
Ill sample for coloring. There is lars
49, amount of coloring matter not natur
o. to blackberries; the sample contain
u artificial coloring mattor. I a
LIZ obliged to class the color as Of coal tt
o origin. Our law prohibits any kind
e added coloring matter
VI What confession Of sweaknessl f
ID d has charged us formally with using co
T. tar color, and now virtually admits tn
~, ~ he don It know what it is, but is oblig
"e to class it as of coal tar origin.
,rs This letter further says: col
he plant is ready awaiting. the next Wis
5s' state,o' and 81 have called attenti
as to this case at length for the purpo
Te of demonstrating the tactics pursued
FIR some manufacturers in placing the
Ia goods on the market and also to cauti
Ike dealers against buying supplies fro
ms outside parties who will not stand ba
we Of their goods"
Now all this time our letter Of F.
ng ~, 19o6, was Ignored ana !, unansWert
de, we had stated emphatlcailY that
Gle did not use the color named or a
he other; if there, it must benatural,
The the goods were packed by us. If
an goods were counterfeit, we could n
be held accountable, and asked for
In revision of expressions that would he