The Birmingham age-herald., 1911-08-17
Has Surrendered All of His Authority to Dunlap s
 and McCabe
NEVER RECEIVED
 RUSBY'S LETTER
Tells of the Inside Workings of De- partmeut of Agriculture With Interesting Sidelights On
 Wilson and McCabe

| Washington, August 1s.s-Dr. Harvey w. Wiley, chief of the bureau of chem | istry of the agricultural department | testified before the House Investigating committee today that he has surren- dered practically all of his authority | for enforcing the pure food laws to Dr. | F. L. Dunlap associate chemist. and George P Mccabe. solicitor of the agri- cultural department. Overruled in two thirds of the cases he has brought be- fore the food and drugs inspection board. composed of these two men and himself. he declared he has found it useless to appeal to Secretary Wilson and had not even received an answer to one of the most important appeals he had made to the Secretary.
 Dr. Wiley. summoned before the com mittee to tell of his connection with the employment of Dr. H. H. Rusby on an alleged Illegal contract gave to the committee the most Illuminating in- formation developed in the investiga- ton now being made of the agricultural department.
 He testified that he had never re- ceived the letter from Dr. Rusby which was received by the personnel board to prove that he knew about the Rusby contract. He said that in using this letter, the personnel board had omitted its most essential portion. namely the statement of pr. Rusby that we have agreed on the following arrangement as fair and satisfactory. if approved by the department"
 Dr. Wiley stated that Solicitor Nc Cabe held the decisive vote on the board of food and drug inspection When pr. | Wiley and Dr. Dunlap disagreed on questions of chemistry, it was Solicitor Mccabe who decided whether a prose- | cutfon should be made. In fully 100 cases, said Dr. Wiley where he and pr. Dunlap had voted together and Solicitor McCabe had disagreed with them, pr. Dunlap changed his vote to agree with Mr. sfcCabe.
 Did you never appeal from these de- cisionsT' he was asked. T Useless to Appeal
 T found it was useless to appeal" said Dr. Wiley, for the Secretary in variably upheld the decision of the
 board"
 In two cases he did appeal. he added, "t'Nio it tiicu6h PUDiiC HtdiLn was
 seriously menaced." One of these in- volved the labelling of gluten flour, the food of diabetis patients In this case the Secretary upheld the board
 The other case involved the labeling of fruits and fruit products which contained sulphur dioxide. This subject is now be- fore the Remsen pure food referee board. The board composed of three cabinet members, secretarys Macevagn, Wilson and Nagel, decided that manufacturers | could continue to use the sulphuring pro- | cess, If the fact was made clear on the | label.
 pr. Wiley left the agricultural depart | ment one day at 4 o'clock to go to Bos- | ton. Between that time and 4:30, when the department closed. he said, a special meeting of the board of food and drug inspection was called, Dr. Dunlap acting as chairman, and decision was made 1 overruling the three secretares' board and permitting manufacturers to use tho sulphuring process without publishing the | fact on their labels
 1 As as he returned to Washington and learned of the action. said Dr. Wiley. | he wrote to Secretary Wilson appealing l to him from the decision and declaring that the health of the public. particularly | of invalids, to whom fruit juices are often prescribed, was seriously threatened bv
 
 | and drug inspection had no right to over | rule the three secretaries. What was Secretary Wilson's an- | swer?" asked Representative Floyd of | Arkansas, who has conducted the ques- | tioning for the Moss committee. I "I never received an answer" said Dr. Wiley.
 | Dr. Wiley told of his educational train l ing for the pure food life He described his activity in advocating pure food leg isatfon and opposition to some food man. ufacturers. Active in Pure Food Legislation
 q took very active part in all steps | leading up to the pure food law" Dr. | Wiley said replying to Chairman Moss. | q began in 1888 attempt at an investi- | gaton of the adulteration of foods" | He explained the pure food law author izing his bureau to investigate an foods to determine whether they were mis- ! branded adulterated.
 Do you then certify your findings to the Secretary of Agriculture?" asked RAp- resentative Floyd of Arkansas. | we used to-"
 What was the next change fin the administration of the law" l "The appointment of the food ana | drug inspection board. At first inc hearings were held before the bureau of chemistry; then were transferred to the board" 1 "Is Dr. Dunlap chemist" l Yes
 "Is solicitor McCabe chemist?" | Not that I know of" | Suppose you took one position as a | chemist and Dr. Dunlap another did | MT McCabe's vote decide the question ?'' "It did" When you and pr. Dunlap disagreed, | how many times were you sustained by MT McCabe, the third member of the board?"
 Never. as remember. except on | my decision that rye whisky must be made from rye On that matter MT. 1 McCabe sided with me" | How many of the cases have been | passed on by the board?' Prom 1500 to 2000. On about 100 | cases. where pr. Dunlap agreed with | me on the first vote and the solicitor disagreed with both of us, Dr. Dun | lap changed his vote In every instance l to agree with the solicitor" pr. Wiley declared that the result l of these overruings was to "squauder and waste" all the money spent in prep aration of the cases by the chemistry bureau He said that so far as he