INVESTIGATIONS OF THE BUREAU OF CHEMISTRY REFUSED PUBLICATION BY SECRETARY WILSON

Page 868-869.

THE CHAIRMAN: I understand also, Mr. Secretary, that you have referred the report of the Bureau of Chemistry on the copper question to the Referee Board without publication?

SECRETARY WILSON: Oh, yes; I remember now. I had two bureaus considering the sulphate of copper, and there was a man in the Plant Industry named Woods who had done a most remarkable lot of work with sulphate of copper. He found by taking a little bag of sulphate of copper and going into a large reservoir that had green scum over it, if he would sail around for an hour and drag that bag after him he would kill every single particle of that green scum there; and he went to a number of States in the country, and he went to Panama and cleaned up every one of the reservoirs they had. He and the doctor did not come within gunshot of agreeing on sulphate of copper. In a case of that kind, Mr. Chairman, one must go slow when they have two scientists in two different lines and they do not quite agree. It is not best to bring any arbitrary rulings in there, but wait and see if we can not get more light.

THE CHAIRMAN: It is a matter of fact, however, the Bureau of Chemistry did make a report upon copper, and it has not been published?

SECRETARY WILSON: Yes; and that is the reason, Mr. Chairman; that is the reason.

THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Secretary, will you be willing to have prepared and inserted in the record at this point a complete list of the investigations of the Bureau of Chemistry which you have refused or have failed for any reason to have published?

SECRETARY WILSON: I could do that; yes; I could do that.

(Manuscripts relating to subjects involved in the enforcement of the food and drugs act, approved June 30, 1906, submitted for publication by the Bureau of Chemistry, but not published:)

Corn Sirup as a Synonym for Glucose. Submitted as Food Inspection Decision 83, November, 1907.

Investigations of a Substitute (weak brine) for Sulphur Dioxide in Drying Fruits, by W. D. Bigelow.

Sanitary Conditions of Canneries, Based on the Results of Inspection. By A. W. Bitting, February, 1908.

Influence of Food Preservatives and Artificial Colors on Digestion and Health:

VI. Sulphate of Copper. By H. W. Wiley and others, April, 1908.

VII. Potassium Nitrate. By H. W. Wiley and others. April, 1908.

The Bleaching of Flour. By H. W. Wiley, February, 1909.

Influence of Food Preservatives and Artificial Colors on Digestion and Health:

IV. Benzoic Acid and Benzoates. By H. W. Wiley and others. Submitted for reprint, June, 1909.

Medicated Soft Drinks. By L. F. Kebler and others. July, 1909.

Drug Legislation in the United States:

II. Indexed Digest of Drug Legislation. By C. H. Greathouse. October, 1909.

Food Legislation During the Year Ended June 30, 1909. January, 1910.

Estimation of Glycerin in Meat Preparations. By C. R Cook. March, 1910.

Technical Drug Studies. By L. F. Kebler and others. April, 1910.

Experiments on the Spoilage of Tomato Ketchup. By A. W. Bitting. January, 1911.

The Influence of Environment on the Sugar Content of Cantaloupes. By M. N. Straughn and C. G. Church. May, 1911.

A Bacteriological Study of Eggs in the Shell and of Frozen and Desiccated Eggs. By G. W. Stiles. May, 1911.

The Arsenic Content of Shellac. June, 1911.

THE CHAIRMAN: Is it the policy of the Department of Agriture, Mr. Secretary, to suppress or refuse publication of the reports which the Bureau of Chemistry may make to you on any questions which are referred to the Referee Board, until, after the board has made its final report?

SECRETARY WILSON: I may have done that. I think probably there is justification for having anything which treats with benzoate of soda handled in that way. I believe that is the question, is it? Benzoate of soda is a question that was referred to the Referee Board. I think I would not favor printing anything in the department until we heard from them.

THE CHAIRMAN: As a matter of fact, whether the findings of the Referee Board govern your action, or whether the findings of the Bureau of Chemistry govern your action, is a question which you yourself decide within your own diseretion, is it not?

SECRETARY WILSON: Surely. You have to have a secretary there who must decide.

THE CHAIRMAN: In other words, the decisions of the Referee Board have no value whatever until approved by you? I am speaking now legally, and as to its influence upon the administration of the pure food law.

Page 865-866.

THE CHAIRMAN: It is true, is it not, Mr. Secretary, that money which you allot to the Referee Board is drawn from money appropriated for the Bureau of Chemistry, and that this allotment is anticipated in the estimates which you make?

SECRETARY WILSON: Yes; anticipated and understood by the Committee on Agriculture when they appropriate the money.

THE CHAIRMAN: And for that reason you do not consult with the chief of bureau in regard to making that particular allotment? Is that true?

SECRETARY WILSON: The chiefs of the bureaus are always consulted. Dr. Wiley, the chief of that bureau, is a little touchy on anything of that kind, and one has to bethink himself quite often about getting along smoothly in this world, you know.

THE CHAIRMAN: Has Dr. Wiley ever recommended that any money be allotted to the Referee Board from the appropriation under his department?

SECRETARY WILSON: I think I would not want to hurt his feelings by ever mentioning it at all.

We had a referee board, and I think a pretty expensive referee board, you will confess. We had gone after big men, and it was costing a good deal of money, and those people met there at Mackinac Island and got themselves outside of sympathy with the department along those lines, attacked me personally, misrepresented things, and I thought the amount of effort the United States was making and the amount of money it was expending to get facts from the greatest chemists in the land made it worthwhile for us to get those big men there before that class of men and let them see them and let them hear them. I did not think they comprehended the difference there was between a small chemist and a big one. That was the one thing in my mind. They were in California studying the drying of foods with sulphur, and the arrangement was that they should stop over at Denver on the way back. I was going to the forests, and I arranged and it was my plan to stop there on my way to the forests. I went into the forests from Denver and stayed a month. Those were the plans. There is nothing I care to conceal here, noththing. Those were the plans and we talked them over, and everyone of them addressed that convention, everyone of them, and I think those people got new light from those men.

THE CHAIRMAN: I wish to refer to you page 338 of the hearings of August 3, to correspondence between yourself and Dr. Remsen. Dr. Remsen says, in this letter: "It is clear from the newspaper reports that there is 'pernicious activity' somewhere." In your reply you say: "The pernicious activity you speak of is quite evident." Will you kindly tell the committee what you referred to as "pernicious activity"?

SECRETARY WILSON: Yes. The activity of people attacking that Remsen Board. That is just what it was.

THE CHAIRMAN: It was correspondence between you and the chairman of the board. Of course, if this "pernicious activity" is without the Department of Agriculture it would not be proper for us to go into it. But if it is within the Department of Agriculture, it would seem to me proper for us to know what you referred to as "pernicious activity."

SECRETARY WILSON: If you have been watching the public press you have discovered that there has been a good deal of criticism. If you have been watching the proceedings of Congress you will no doubt have seen there has been a desperate effort made there for the purpose of destroying the Remsen Board, and things of that kind. That is what I had reference to.

THE CHAIRMAN: In your letter of April 19, 1909, you say further: "Things will come to a head before a great while, I think, along this line." Would you care to explain what that means?

SECRETARY WILSON: I thought the work of that board, as it was being done and reported, would settle all those questions.

THE CHAIRMAN: Do you consider, or did you consider at the time, that the attendance of members of the Remsen Board and Solicitor McCabe at this Denver convention, which we were speaking about heretofore, was in line with their official duties?

SECRETARY WILSON: Yes; it was a kind of public trial we were having, really, of the Remsen Board.

THE CHAIRMAN: Their attendance being in the line of their official duty, will you explain why you issued to each one of them a special authorization for traveling expenses to attend this particular convention, when each one of them had an annual authorization for travel anywhere in the United States upon official business?

SECRETARY WILSON: If you have evidence of that special authorization, you had better call my attention to it.

THE CHAIRMAN: Very well, I will be glad to do that.

(Reads letter from Secretary Wilson to Dr. Remsen, dated August 6, 1909, wherein it is stated that authorization No. 1163 is amended so as to permit Dr. Remsen and his assistants to attend the Denver convention.)

SECRETARY WILSON: I guess that is correct. What do you want to know about it?

THE CHAIRMAN: I want to know, if this attendance was in line with their official duties, as stated here, why it was necessary they should have special authorization when they had a regular authorization?

SECRETARY WILSON: I 'Presume they had some doubts about stopping off at Denver being in their original authorization. If they had, then I gave them all the authorization they would need.

THE CHAIRMAN: If there were any doubt it would be doubt as to whether or not that came within their official duties?

SECRETARY WILSON: Precisely.

THE CHAIRMAN: Do you hold that you have executive authority to add to the official duties of the Remsen Board other than that prescribed in the order creating them?

SECRETARY WILSON: To this extent, yes.

THE CHAIRMAN: To that extent you have?

SECRETARY WILSON: Yes.

One of the most detestable features of the persecution of those delegates to the Denver Convention of 1909 who opposed the decision of the Remsen Board was the dismissal of Floyd Robison. This action was investigated by the Moss Committee. Mr. Robison was one of a group of state chemists who were occasionally requested to cooperate with the officials of the Bureau of Chemistry in enforcing the Food Law. (Pages 522-524.)

MR. FLOYD ROBISON

MR. Moss: Were there any charges filed against you?

DR. ROBISON: None.

MR. Moss: Have you the letter of dismissal with you?

DR. ROBISON: I have.

MR. Moss: Please read it to the committee.

(I will quote only last line of this letter.)

DR. ROBISON (reading): "He is removed from the department for the good of the service. James Wilson, Secretary of Agriculture."

Dr. Robison appealed to the Secretary of Agriculture for reasons which led to such drastic action. The Secretary, in his reply, under date of July 25, 1911, says:

"* * * At the meeting of the Association of State and National Food and Dairy Departments at Denver, in July, 1909, you attracted attention by taking a strong and public position against the policies of the department and of the administration. You appeared in the Federal court in Indianapolis in opposition to the policies of the administration with regard to the reports of the Referee Board on benzoate of soda and the report of the three secretaries with regard to it. * * * I have approved your dismissal for the good of the service. There are no charges against you; we make none. I recognize the fact that you have a perfect right to occupy any position you see fit. with regard to the policies of the administration or of the department, but I do not think you should draw salary while you are taking this stand."

Question by MR. MOSS: Were you a delegate to the Denver convention?

DR. ROBISON: I was.

MR. MOSS: Whom did you represent?

DR. ROBISON: The State of Michigan.

MR. MOSS: Who paid your expenses for attending that convention?

DR. ROBISON: The State of Michigan.

MR. MOSS: Were you drawing any salary from the Government at that time?

DR. ROBISON: I was not.

MR. MOSS: Did you draw any money, either directly or in. directly, from the National Government for your attendance at the convention or for your expenses?

DR. ROBISON: I did not.

MR. MOSS: What position did you hold at the Denver convention?

DR. ROBISON: I held the position of chairman of the committee of eleven State food chemists appointed by the president of the Association of State and National Food and Dairy Departments.

MR. MOSS: Did you make any report?

DR. ROBISON: As chairman of the committee, I did.

MR. MOSS: Will you read into the record that report?

DR. ROBISON: I will read the final recommendation:

"'Your committee therefore respectfully suggests to this association the wisdom of asking the President of the United States and the honorable Secretary of Agriculture to institute investigations along some such broader lines as indicated above."

MR. MOSS: Did you make any address to the Denver convention in which you referred to the Remsen Board one way or the other?

DR. ROBISON: I did not.

MR. MOSS: Did you receive any information from Secretary Wilson or any person representing him as to the policy of the Department of Agriculture?

DR. ROBISON: I received none.

MR. MOSS: Did you make any address to the convention advocating or opposing the use of benzoate of soda?

DR. ROBISON: I did not.

MR. MOSS: In your capacity as delegate did you cast a vote for president of that association?

DR. ROBISON: I did. I voted for Mr. Bird, the commissioner of the State of Michigan.

MR. MOSS: Did Mr. Bird receive the support of the Department of Agriculture?

DR. ROBISON: He did not.

MR. MOSS: So far as you know, then, did you appear in opposition to the Department of Agriculture in any other manner except casting your personal vote for the president of the association?

DR. ROBISON: I did not.

MR. MOSS: At whose request did you appear at Indianapolis to give testimony at that trial?

DR. ROBISON: At the request of the Board of Health of the State of Indiana.

MR. MOSS: Were you paid any fee?

DR. ROBISON: I received no fee.

MR. MOSS: In your testimony, did you give your original work as a chemist?

DR. ROBISON: I testified according to the truth as, I understood it to be and had found it from my own investigations, and according to my oath, and without any regard in any capacity to any other policy.

MR. MOSS: Were you warned in any way by the Department of Agriculture not to do this?

DR. ROBISON: I was not.