The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1916-02-02
on POINT BILL
IS BITTERLY WAGED
senx4culsural Committee Gives Hearing
which Proves 10 BE One OF Warm
80 NJ Present session OF Assembly

The bin TO regulate the manu1ac,
1nrs, sale and storage OF Spirits %
y efyxfsentf,,e. ifnseei ell, paints etc. and
4 rvysyiaing penalties for the mtsorand-
1 - labelling and authorizations o.
Ses{u<. and ingredients engaged the at
& frnfion of the House and Senate com
. s1nftfNes ON agriculture and manutac-
/ fnr4r,r for some time Monday night
4 tsntysf .panufa cturers. dealers and jon
/ s,ssYS were on hand in large number
and to a man they were unalteraniS
imposed To every provision OF the
fflf. of which senator Bowers was
the patron.
pirhara f. Byrd appeared as the
saasar ~ the opponents, and was sup
ported by the state chemist ana manu-
@art,,rers and dealers AIR. Byrd made
i vigorous attack on the measure. lie
xsid that the proposed law would
r,uiv To six per cent OF the paint used
~. Virginia and on them would tan
the full burden Of the law. Wnhe -
her cent Of the pairt and the manu-
facturers would escape There was
no opposition to requiring high stand :
ards for inseed oil, turpentine and
white lead. Referring TO the scien-
tffic explanations Of the state chemist
he said he knew nothing AMI the mem =
BGTE OF IHE EJttAtAAttA''I N'iN"
ana he would therefore conccde that
All that he said was correct
Mr.. Byrd said that In no law he had
srvn read was there any such drastic
rrovisions and unlimited powers as
we're conferred on the dairy ami roon
commissioners He showed that IN
about a dozen States the laws we're
contained on a single page Of printed
matter, while the bill under consid"
GRAFTON covered eighteen full pages
He said that the prosecuting at
forneys were allowed fee OF $50 In
each case II adulterated or mis-
branded paints were sold or fourd IN
the possession Of q dealer even II the
yafnts were manufactured out OF the
state. such dealer was liable to fine
Of 5000 The dealer would have ia
nay the costs of the analyses and ol
the prosecution.
b. l. Purcell the dairy and food
commission, supported the bill lie
said that the buyers Of paint had a
right to know what they are buying
All that the public wanted was fair
treatment honest dealing and cor
rerf re presentations regarding the
composition of paints. There were q
nun Der Of men who had been dragged
y IN courts by officers who had violated
they were ever ready and willing 10
pay fines rather than TO go into court
He declared that there Is nothing that
wrong doors feared more than pub
iirity and going into court was the one
thing dreaded
Mr.. Purcell defended the law and
SaIiantly eontended for the provisions
nf the law 1t was not contemplated
that the law would work any grea
hardship on the honest, frank DEALER
and dishonest manufacturers. Tha
aatling difficult for the unscrupuiou
and dishonest manufacturers Tha
had been the case in the food laws
the makers of Injurious cattle food
h had been driven from the State. Tn
demand was great for the law. whicl
had been needed for years. He APP
pealed to the committee 10 report tn
bill favorably.
A s. Eeliam, a paint dealer. SAT
that II the laws proposed were en-
acted he would be forced to discnn
finue business He related an ex
perience with a mail-order house Th
man wanted to purchase an srticl
which had been offered for ninety
eight cents, He agreed to sell 70
that sum. He then demanded tw
cents for mailing the order The Gus
TONER was then ordered TO pay twenty
five cents freight. He paid this
THAT made 4ny price for the article
said Mr. KeIlamr ~ had his money
Then / put the article back on tn
shelf and told him to wait two weeks
A4~ would have-f4tetf forced tn d
had he hought- article from tn
maii-order house"
s&The committee then went into ex
ecntive session and adjourned withou
reaching any agreement.
&s --~------.--------------------