The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1912-04-28

rel. so that with our Virginia barrel
We stand on an equal footing with our
principal competitor In the foreign
market.
The apple buyers of New York ero
trying to force upon US barrel that
holds from eight to eleven quarts more
/ than tho Virginia or Canada barrel
This might be boon to the New York
bunyers who might wish to repaols our
barrels In boxes some do but 1t
would entail great loss to Virginia
fruit growers. for the fact was ad
mitted by the sponsors for this bill
| that berrel is barrel in the mar
ket. and the differences In size would
/ bring the growers in more money,
and We would be simply presenting the
foreigners with tho difference between
! tn NV York barrls and the Virginia
and Canadian barrels--about $50 in
/ every hundred barrels. $500 on every
| 1000, and $4,000 on every 10000 bar
rels Our loss from this Source alone
would be enormous. Moreover. the
Virginia apple barrel is the same size
sthe -four barrel IN common us in
the United States. and the best slaves
are used for -four barrels, the No
slaves Tor apple barrels II the bar
rel Is changed as proposed and Vir-
gtnia Is forced to give up its legal
oarrei' then the cooper will have to
put his higher priced slaves into
apple barrels and tho grower and con-
, sumner VIII pay the difference Thu
ItllWaEs VIII also raise freight once
more, and the cost TO the people who
have to haul many miles as in Nelson
and RappahnnnocIe. Will be greatly in
creased These good reasons for ndont
ing the apple barrel standard by law
IN virginia rs the United States stand
ara impressed some OF the members
Tnlttee and there was absolutely NO
reason given for the adoption OF the
| New York barrel except the bold. bald
statement. that Mr. NIoomaw repeats.
| that 30 per cent. of the apple growers
in the United States use the New York
apple barrel These gentlemen have
made a great mistake In this assump-
ton There is absolutely no such pro
portion as they imagine. A number OF
| other states have the same standard
barrel as Virginia Tho witnesses
called called by the New York buyers and
change would make no material diff
, ference in the cost to New York coop
ers or apple growers. Compare this
MIN .,,le tho loss TO the Piedmont fruit
with Canada!
Tho Pacific Cast people. who are tho
pest graders and packers in tn. coun-
compromise was effected and the
law was redrafted and they were left
Out Out Let us go forward, not back
snlnna, and nd have good law. good
good as the Canada law; but do no;
let the United Suites disgrace itself
ny any such crude, undigested fake
as this House bill No 2l4S0. 1 do NOT
mean to impugn any ones motive who
Is pressing this bill, but It Is easy
10 SEQ that while II would do the grow
sr OF apples who is putting UP good
| pack no good and only harm, 1t would
! put the biggest sort OF IL big stick in
: I" the hands uf Il dishonest buyer or
J commission man. and many Il grower
| would feel It's effect
Mr.. Moomaw refers TO the Virginia
| State Horticultural society and the
| TACT that certain Virginia growers en-
| deavored to create tho Impression that
In opposing this bill they represen ted
! the society. l called the attention of
the committee to the only resolution
passed by the horticultural society
nj the last meeting at Harri5onburg.
| in which the Horticultural Society an
proved the Virginia standard apple
barrel and asked Congress to have IT
made the standard barrel OF the
United States. The State society
did not approve of the Sulzer bill Our
action In standing by the Virginia
legal. barrel Is representing the View
| OF tho Virginia State horticultural
Soc1ety Furthermore, while the exc
cnuy ti,, comhmittee did approve tho Sui
| Her DILL they only represented q ma
iority OF the members present of that
committed l know that Mr.. Whatclcy
the secretary; Mr.. Woollcn, tho trea-
| surcr, ana MIR. McCue, all members of
| the executive committee. do not agree
with such action and are opposcd 70
! the Sulzer bill. These are the oniy
! members of the board to whom / have
! talked. have entire confidence that
the State society Will never indorse
this bill. and | believe that upon a
! tu!l hearing the executive committee
| would reconsider its action II Com
| Eress acts tavoTahly upon our amend
ncht the virginia standard barrel he
! comes the standard barrel Of the United
! states MI. Moomaw Is mistaken in
surprising that when the Committed
OF Coinage Weights and Measures rec
omnends measure. be IL a barrel
or q bushel, and Congress adopta II
as the standard measure. any State
can use any other barrel. The Consti-
tuition of the United States confcrs tho
exclusive power on Congress to coin
money and establish weiShts and mea
sures, and whenever Il acts the right
Is thereby taken from every State 10
Iegisiate nthe matter Virginia would
then have just "a much right 10 coin
gold dollars a. 10 make apple barrels
according to Virginia law We have
been told by the advocates of this
b!ll that u Is only "permisslve" and
That We can stNl continue 20 uss the
Virginia legal barrel. Let us not CON
fuse tho issue II cannot be done The
law is not permissive Wa were also
told that no amendments could he Of
fered TO this bill. These statements
ano other unwaTrfnted statements
We're made to the executive committee