The Washington times., 1911-08-17
RELIEVE DIR. WILEY
OF "STRANGLE HOLD
: Editor OF THE TINES:

To the Editor Of THE TINES:
| have read with great interest the
editorial in your issue of the llth
instant entitled The Conspiracy
| Against the Food Law" which clear
! ly outlines the whole plot not only
against DR.. Wiley, but against the
whole food law, as you show in your
article.
But the web spun to enmesh DR..
Wiley is slowly enveloping the con-
spirators, thanks to the action OF
Congress, and consumers today can
see for themselves how the special
| interests" have been able to control
the enforcement Of a food law enacted
| for the consumer but enforced in
many instances. against all law for
the special interests" alone.
You ask, What is to be done about
it?"
Rid the Government of officials who
have played into the hands of those
| interests who did all that they could
do to keep the law from being enact
ed and once enacted have never ceased
their efforts to bring about its un-
doing. The special interest" never
sleeps. 1t is always ready for action.
Secretary Wilson is responsible for
all that has been done because he is
responsible for the actions of his sub
ordinates. His resignation Is needed
quite as much as the dismissal from
office Of Mr.. McCabe and DR.. Dunlap.
These are the men who have aided in
the downfall of the food law. 1t is
due to them that today the consumer
is robbed of complete protection under
the law from misbranded and adulter-
ated and poisonous foods, drugs, nq-
uors and medicines.
Should these men continue to hold
office when under them such dire dis
grace has fallen on the law that men
openly scoff at 1t in public?
We have seen how the referee board
was appointed to act as safety
clutch on the Wiley machine so that
when the decisions handed down by DR..
Wiley were too oppressive for certain
manufacturers the referee board Of
fered way out. In letter to me in
reply to one of mine, Secretary Wilson
stated that there might once have been
a difference Of opinion on benzoate of
soda, but that there was none now, and
he only wished that other questions
could be handed to this board for set
tlement, but that the men composing 1t
were too busy to undertake all the work.
I quote the letter merely from memory.
not having 1t here, but the sentiment of
the letter shows that the Secretary of
Agriculture did not depend on his chief
chemist when the special interests"
were involved.
why have the average fines imposed
by the board Of food and drug inspec-
tfon been so small? Where is the use
in fining a manufacturer one dollar or
five dollars or ten dollars for violating
the law? Does II not make the law RI
6iiculous to impose such a fine? Is 1t
not a mockery? Where is the dishonest
manufacturer who cares a button for
such a fine? Manufacturers do not now
violate the Law unknowingly. They know
all its provisions and sin with their
ewes wide open. but hoping not to be
caught Just as long as such silly fines
arc imposed they will cheerfully pay the
fines and continue to violate the law.
There is more money in paying the fine
and continuing the business OF violating
the law.
Is this another instance OF the Dun
lap plus McCahe scheme? More than
six years have elapsed since the food
law became operative.
In that time We have seen the whis-
XIV decisions handed down that have
practically robbed the law of Its eff