Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1909-12-21
ATTITUDE OF THE BAKERS
No Legislation Needed, as Competi-
ton Determines Practice.
PUBLIC REAPS NO BENEFIT
Board Of Trade and Chamber of Com
merce Present Similar Views at
Hearing Before Commissioners.

Determined opposition against ana
lack of support for the proposed bread
law for the District developed at
hearing before the board OF Dlstr!cs
Commissioners today.
The subject of the hearing was the
bill defining the standard weight OF
loaf of bread. a measure prepared oy
the sealer of weights and measures OIL
the District.
Appearing before the Commissioners
were representatives of the Washlng
ton Merchant Bakers Association. the
Washington Board of Trade and the
Washington Chamber of Commerce All
opposed the bill.
In effect, the bill prepared by Sealer
Haskell provides that the standard loaf
of bread shall weigh one pound, but
that loaves may be made in half, three
quarter. double, triple, quadruple, quin-
tupe or sextuple loaves and In no other
way; that each loaf Shall bear label
setting forth it's weight and the name of
its manufacturer: that bread shall be
known as stale eight hours after it leaves
the oven and that dealers in bread shall
weigh the bread in the presence of pur-
chasers whenever desired. The bill also
contains the usual provisions for inspec-
ton, penalties, etc.
Leary Presents Bakers Case.
The spokesman for the opposition at
today's hearing was Harry B. Leary OF
tie Boston Baking Company, president OF
the Bakers Association. Mr.. Leary READ
carefully prepared statement of the at
t;tude of the association respecting breao
laws for Washington.
The principal arguments presented Ds
him tended to show there was no neces-
| sjty for a bread law. Such laws, Mr..
| Leary said. existed in few cities In the
| country. 1t was his opinion and that OF
| bakers in general that they erected
| merely an inconvenience to bakers WITH
| out being of any benent to the puo,c'
| The baking business, he declared. is
private business, in nowise pubic OF
| even ouasi-public matter. Bakers pos
sess no monopoly, but are always caueu
1 on to meet keen and active competltlon-
| The bakers of Washington, MI Leary
| urged had done nothing to warrant their
I being singled out and held up TO the puo-
liz gaze as swindlers-which the enact
| ment of the Haskell bin would do-Whiie
butchers. grocers and other tradesmen
were left free TO market their wares III
any shape they wished.
That the bakers could take no liberties
with the public was shown several years
ago, Mr.. Leary reminded his hearers
when the bakers tried to increase tae
cost of loaves from to 8 cents each: me
result was that people either stopped
eating bread or made it at nome. ana
nearly put the bakers out Of business.
The matter Of weight in bread. MI
Ieary said had little or nothing TO 90
with the welfare of the customer. lie
dimensions Of the loaf. how many slices
IL would make etc.
Weight No Measure Of Quality.
.The weight Of the loaf said Mr..
Leary, furnishes no evidence OF Its quail
ity or health containing and health giving
properties, its money value or the cost to
produce it, for it is we'll known that
small loaf may not only be worth and
| cost more, but may also contain more
substantial nutriment than loaf OF
double the size.
.These values depend on the constitu-
ent parts and the care exercised In Its
making and baking and weight is an ele-
| ment which does not at all ngure IL
| may be answered that the law does have
some relation to the considerations which
| enter into Jaw making and that Its pur-
pose is to prevent fraud being practiced
on the public
| Business Men Acquiesce.
| At the conclusion of Mr.. Leary's formal
| statement of the case, Thomas c.. Noyes.
representing the special committee APP
| pointed by the Washington Board Of
| Trade to consider the bread question,
stated to the Commissioners that the
| committee. after careful consideration
| had concluded that there was no need
/ for a bread law in the District
| Arthur c. Moses. representing a similar
! committee of the Washington Chamber
| of Commerce, stated to the Commission
ers that the committee had found that no
! law was needed, that the natural cOmpe-
| tition among bakers was sufficient to
safeguard the public, and that 1t would
be unjust discrimination to select a sin
/ gle trade for restraint.
| When the Commissioners called for the
i supporters of the bill none appeared
| After a short discussion with the bakers
| concerning details OF their business, the
| board adjourned with the announcement
| that it would take the matter under adj
| visement and forward it's findings to