Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1910-08-20
Claim Made by the Depart
ment of Agriculture.
BENZOATE OF SODA CASE
Reply to Attorney General Bingham
Of Indiana.
NO ATTEMPT MADE 10 HAMPER
Government Is Interested Only Incl
dentally in Litigation Between
Private Parties.

Oniciais of the Department OF Agricul-
ture have taken exceptions TO the state
ment of Attorney General Bingham OF
Indiana that the department was try
ing 10 hamper him in getting the testi-
mony OF experts In the benzoate case
brought BY certain manufacturers
against the state OF Indiana This was
the personal statement OF Attorner Cen
eral bingham. There was another per-
sonal statement ISSUED today by tho
legal branch OF the Department of Agri-
culture saying that whatever formal OBJ
Jections were made to the testimony OF
DR.. Wiley and other experts going into
the record We're not prompted by a de-
sire TO conceal the facts, hut by tho
wish 10 have the courts definitely settle
to what extent outside parties had a
right 10 demand the testimony OF gov
eminent witnesses. The Developments Of
the benzoate cases are briefly reviewed
as follows:
Dr. Wiley, chief Of the bureau OF
chemistry OF the Department of Agricul-
ture. organized his now famous poison
squad and experimental on many Of tho
young employees of the department with
food containing preservatiyes and adul-
terants. among them benzoate OF soda.
Puts Ban on Benzoate.
As result of this series OF experi-
ments he wrote a report saying that
benzoate OF soda was a harmful pre-
servatfye and should be excluded from
all foods. The department. was at once
besieged by manufacturers who were
using benxoate as a preservative and a.
a result of their representations appoint
ed the refree board headed by DR. Ira
Remsen Of Johns Hopkins University.
This board also made some experiments
with benzoate OF soda and reported that
II il were used in limited quantities tt
was not harmful.
The department accepted this report
and reversed DIR. Wiley.
The state of Indiana. however, accepted
DIR. wiIey's original report and prohibited
the use of benxoate OF soda in food prod
ucts. The. e.JsAAse--ysss&xyspon sued by
the manufaeaIrsIs. OF f66aS containing
this preserratsss<, xSA1 IN offending the
case wanted the testimony OF Or. Wiley
and the other experts OF the department
on whose report the Indiana state law
was based.
Objections Raised.
The testimony OF DIR. Remsen and one
OF his colleagues, who framed the pro-
benzoate report. was secured without in
reference by the department. but when
II came TO taking the testimony Of DIR.
Wiley and his assistants the department
refused to allow them 20 20 To Indiana
on the score OF interfering with their de-
partmental work, and when Attorney
General Bingham came to Washington to
take their dispositions .he department had
the courts pass formally on the right OF
outside parties to demand expert DEPART
nent testimony.
Attorney General Bingham said in q
statement yesterday that he had been
hampered and thwarted in his efforts to
get the facts and the department de-
clared that the objections II had offered
were purely formal and designed 10 set
tic the question from legal standpoint
as a matter OF precedent The officials OF
the department say that they do not care
whether the experts OF the bureau 81
chemistry testify or not. hut that the de-
partment will not 20 on record as order
ing them TO testify.
Solicitor McCabe Explains.
A statement issued today from the of-
tice of Solicitor McCabe OF the Depart
ment of Agriculture is as follow:
That the department Is trying 20 pre-
vert Dr. Wiley from testifying in this
case is hardly a fair statement Of ire
facts. TIC Indiana suit i merely Of in
cidental interest TO ms. the decision nf the
referee board that benzoate - tsoda Is
harmless settles the matter "a far ~.
Department OF Agriculture j. concerned.
Or. Wiley requested my opinion 10 thu
legal force and effect of tho sdbpocna -
sued to him in this ease. / advised him
that government expert could EUt -
compelled to appear and testify H. a suii
between private parties. either a. 10 lis
expert opinion or 70 the Investigations
and the experiments on which IFS opinion
was based. IL appearing that he Was not
witness to any OF the facts IN the In
diana case.
1T was. of course. highly important for
the department 70 know how the courts
In the District would rule on tho qucs-
ton, since the greater number OF the
department. expert chemists and scien-
tific men are employed i'm Washington.
and they might be called AT any time
from their work To testify in cases where
the government had not the slightest in
terest. Consequently. when the question
came before Judge Barnard for decision,
1t was entirely proper, in my judgment.
for the department. representsd bv the
acting United States attorney, Mr.. Peelie.
TO present It's side of the case and have
the matter determined.
Not Under Orders.
Neither the Secretary nor the acting
secretary has ordered DR.. Wiley not 10
testify. The records OF his experiments
were promptly furnished when counsel
for both sides agreed To request them:
this is fair and i'm accordance with TIE
usual practice In furnishing certified
copies OF the decision OF Secretaries Cor
telyou. Wilson and Straus, the report ot
the referee board and DIR. Wiley's bull
letin an benzoate of soda. bound together.
the department simply followed the usual
custom. There Is no disposition 20 ham
per counsel In the trial Of this case, but
the department cannot he expected 10
turn aside from valuable work and vol.
unteer testimony in a case Ia which the
Is not party
The original documents on which the
henzoate report was made are in the
hands of both the defenders and the
prosecutors i'm the Indiana suit. They
were furnished by the Department OF