The Pensacola journal. (Pensacola, Fla.) 1898-1985, 1913-05-15
CHEMIST ROSE
MAKES A REPLY
TO HIS CRITICS
WRITES ANSWER TO NUMBER OF
ARTICLES IN PUBLIC PRESS
SIGNED BY COMMISSIONER OF
AGRICULTURE IN REFERENCE
TO AMENDMENTS TO PURE
FOOD LAW OF STATE.
Tallahassee, Fla, May~zS.

Tallahassee, Fla, May v13.
Editor Pensacola Journal
There have recently appeared a
number of articles in the public press
signed by the commissioner OF agrt-
1 culture, with various heads. In refer
ence to the amendments to the pure
food law Of the state, now pending in
J both houses OF the legislature.
do not propose to critjcise person
ally the actions OF the commissioner OF
agriculture. nor to indulge in tnnuendo,
nor to covertly attack the motives OF
anyone. have RETAINED from public
tiy discussing this matter through the
Epress or otherwise. The articles pub
lished November 9Th, "a Summary OF
the Senate Substitute for Senate BIZ
! No. 49," was a copy of the summary
handed by myself to the senate COM
nittee, a respectful document contain
ing only the facts as shown by COM
parison of the two bills
The commissioner goes far to es-
tab1ish a. fact not disputed by anyone.
that the chemical division is but a
bureau of thepagricultural department !"
and that the commissioner Is the head
of the department, nor does the present
amendment change the pure food bill
of 1911. 1909. and 1907, in regard to the
authority of the commissioner of agrf-
culture as the official head of the di-
visien--ta fact recognized and unques-
toned. The statement that the amend
ments made In 1911 was rushed
through at the last moment by the
state chemist without the knowledge
of the commissioner Of agriculture.
who had not been given the oppor-
tunity to read and discuss the pro-
posed law" is not IN accordance with
the facts as shown by the record. The
commissioner was in full, accord with
the proposed amendments. which was
prepared after consultation and study
by the commissioner and the state
chemist introduced into both houses.
In the senate by Mr. Hudson on April
27: reported favorably with amend
ments (P 500 May 16: page 104S)
read second time May 26th and amend
ments adopted May &c (p1ge 1920;
passed and sent to house June. 1. 1909.
Introduced in the house by Watson.
April 25th (P. 611); reported favorably
April 27th Up. 1888: substituted for
senate bill and passed by house June
/. CP. 1920, hence the claim that it
was rushed is an error, as ii was fully
discussed. and the particular amend
ment objected to was a senate commit
tee amendment on page i604 Senate
Journal providing that the expenses
OF the chemical division should be paid
only after approval of the state chem
list" who is required by law to report
the detailed expenses of the chemical
division. the justice and propriety Of
which cannot be questioned. 1t did
not. and does not, prevent the further
approval by the commissioner. simply
provides that the state chemist shall
have a knowledge of the payment Of
funds for which he must account. The
assertion that ''the state chemist,
through the aid of the press. seeks to
create the impression that he should
be, and is. superior to the executive
head of the department" is not borne
out by the facts, as the state chemist
has done nothing of the kind. His d.
Eest or summary of the substitute hill
for senate bill No. 80 was addressed
and delivered to the senate committee,
together with the following letter or
brief. which letter was read by the state
chemist to the committee in the pres
ence Of the whole committee, and the
commissioner of agriculture, who did
not deny any of the facts therein