or rather the house I represent is responsible. I say to Congress and the States, “Do that if it is necessary." If I sell you something that is not pure, and I sell it as pure, put me in jail; yes, I will submit to that. I may not agree with some of my confrères on this proposition, but I am willing to go that far. But I do protest against your branding me as a thief, as it were, branding me as a fraud, as it has been stated here to-day, when it was insinuated that there were fraudulent paints in the United States. I do not know of a single one. I know some cheap paints are manufactured, and there are some houses that make an inferior grade of paint, but they do not claim it to be an absolutely pure paint, if such a standard can be set as "pure paint," and you will note that no standard has been offered. Mr. RICHARDSON. Are you speaking entirely of paints, or do you include drugs or dyestuffs?

Mr. SOMERS. Dyestuffs as colors—that is, dyestuffs which go into the manufacture of paints that are used in coloring; and if you ask me to give you an analysis of certain colors, they are combinations of certain elements that are gotten together that produce certain effects, and they are given fancy names, and they are known only to science. I happened to see in one of the trade papers recently that a discovery had been made of an azo color, the name of which as given contains 42 letters. Now, I would be required to put that name on the label in the analysis of the paint, and let the house painter, the master painter, or the householder throughout the country guess as to the best method of pronouncing that.

I thank you gentlemen for your patience in listening to me. I think I have exhausted my time.

STATEMENT OF MR. GEORGE L. GOULD, OF BOSTON, MASS., PRESIDENT OF THE NATIONAL PAINT, OIL, AND VARNISH ASSOCIATION.

Mr. GOULD. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, necessarily I will go over a few of the things that were touched upon by Mr. Peters in what I have to say to you. As president of the National Paint, Oil, and Varnish Association I wish to present before your committee a copy of a document entitled “An act to prevent deception in the sale of paint, turpentine, and linseed oil," which is contained in the book of proceedings of our twentieth annual convention, held in Cincinnati last October, said act having been agreed to by a vote of 24 to 2. It will be seen that this bill was recommended for adoption by State legislatures and is considerably different from the bill now before your committee.

Our association is composed of delegates from 15 clubs from large cities throughout the country and individual members as well from places where no local clubs exist. This membership includes quite diverse interests, such as manufacturers of carbonate and oxide of lead, sulphate of lead, zinc, lithopone, whiting, silica, dry colors, mixed paints of all names and natures, linseed oil, spirits of turpentine, rosin and rosin oil, benzine, varnish, driers; also grinders of colors, leads, putty, and so forth, importers of colors, gums, and so forth, also jobbers and distributers of paints, oils, and turpentinesall directly affected by the proposed legislation-besides all allied interests, such as manufacturers of brushes, tin cans, and so forth, incidentally affected.

A moment's consideration will show that it would be unwise and unfair for anyone in an official capacity to commit our great association one whit further than it has already committed itself, and therefore I can not indorse the Marshall bill for the national association.

For instance, to show the percentage of each ingredient whenever varnish, japan, or drier is used in paint would require analyses of all varnishes and driers, and experience has shown that, however desirable it might be, it is physically impossible. Another requirement which was not in the bill recommended by our association is that of the labeling of all dry colors and all dry paints, including probably calcimine, which is now so extensively used for fine ceilings and walls as well as common work, in order to show the percentage of each ingredient. This provision would never be agreed to by many of our members, and is a trivial one to attempt to apply to articles of such very small cost as most of the dry colors and calcimine now sold.

It would work great hardship to some manufacturers who have labored for years to build up a name for some particular article, which possesses peculiar excellence or superiority through secret formula, which would become common property if this law should pass. Our association having committed itself in favor of labeling contents of packages containing articles called for under section 2 of the act, as presented by me, I can not as an official of the association take exception thereto. I do, however, object to the second paragraph of section 2 of the Marshall bill, referring to articles of "inferior quality." It is perfectly true that there are very many lowpriced paints, designed for cheap work, composed of articles which might be truly called of "inferior quality," and yet which give good satisfaction, at the same time being within the means of people of limited income. In spite of labeling under the provisions of this section, the sale of such paints, so largely used for roofs, fences, barns, and farm wagons, stains, and even dry colors, would be liable to be prohibited.

The act recommended by our association states, in section 3, that the label required shall clearly state certain things in the English language, in plain, legible type, whereas in the Marshall bill, section 8, it states:

There shall be shown clearly and distinctly upon the face label and in the English language: First, name and residence of manufacturer or distributor or party for whom the paint is made; second, true net weights or measures on every package of paints, dry colors, colors in oil, japan, or water, or mixed paints; third, name and percentage of each ingredient, solid and liquid, contained therein; fourth, percentage of other than chemically pure colors, or when varnish, driers, and japans are used, the percentage of each ingredient.

And all this on the face of the label.

Our association never has officially indorsed the idea of stamping net weights or net measure on every package, but I feel sure there would be no strong objection to such provisions if the label were suitably placed on the package.

All of the large manufacturers are now putting out their goods in that manner, as distinct from gross weights, heretofore by universal custom followed, the movement having been inaugurated by the manufacturers of pure white lead. We do, however, most decidedly object to the proposed requirement of placing arbitrarily all these particulars on the face of the labels. Our manufacturers have many

millions of labels prepared, many of them copyrighted, and if labeling of contents of packages is decided upon-to which proposition, however, I am bound to say there is a large and rapidly increasing opposition the label should be placed upon some other portion of the package than upon the face of the label, if so desired by the manufacturer.

It would be utterly impossible to carry out the provisions of section 13 of the Marshall bill without a terrible loss to holders of goods unsalable at the expiration of the time limit. There is no disguising the fact that there had arisen, through intense competition, many abuses among certain portions of the paint trade of this country, as well as other branches of industry, and the efforts of our friends in North Dakota to try and remedy matters were very laudable, and they had the effect of calling attention to the wrongs, and very many of them have been righted, and some of the largest manufacturers, and present here to-day, have been very earnest in working to that end. It was felt at that time by many that the paint trade could not afford to antagonize anything where the efforts to improve matters were so laudable, and therefore approval was given to the proposed plan of labeling contents of packages, without such thorough consideration. being given on the part of a very large number of manufacturers and jobbers throughout the country to matter of details and possible hardships and injustice as the importance of the question demanded. I now appear before you in a personal capacity, as one who has had an experience of more than forty years in the paint business, mainly as a jobber, and a large distributor of pure white lead to the extent of nearly 500 tons yearly, and yet partly as a manufacturer, having been a director for nearly twenty years in one of the large paint manufacturing concerns of the country. There may be need of some legislation to prevent gross or irregular weights and measures, false representation, adulteration, etc., which have been prevalent in certain sections of the country, in white lead, oil, and turpentine business, as well as the mixed-paint business; but similar shortcomings prevail in other branches of business to a greater or less extent, and why ours was picked out as the only one outside of the important ones covered by the pure food and drug laws passes my comprehension.

Should not our legislative assemblies as seriously consider the subjects of rubber goods, all kinds of paper and cotton goods, so heavily weighted with the cheapest of "inert" material; also carpets, woolen and other cloths, yarns, ropes, twines, soap, putty, hardware, and metal goods, jewelry, or cement, on the proper manufacture and mixing of which depend not only property interests, but the lives of great numbers of people? Why should not a label be put on every cake or bar of soap used in this country, as well as every half-pint can of paint, or quarter-pound can of prussian blue in oil, or indeed any kind of paint? Surely soap is of much more importance to health. The people at large are not asking for this law, but some special interests which can not be traced may possibly be back of it, and those who will be the most affected by its enforcement do not seem to realize the serious consequences almost sure to follow.

There ought to be general laws which would at least attempt to prevent the evils referred to; but if this is not feasible, why could not a bill be reported similar to what we are considering, and make it

apply in its general provisions, as regards adulteration, to pure white lead, pure spirits of turpentine, and pure linseed oil, and make it apply to the painter or user of such articles as well as the manufacturer or handler? All of the acts referred to ignore the painter entirely, and there are "black sheep" in that profession as in all others, although as a rule the body of men constituting the master painters of the United States and Canada will rank equally well with any other organization of similar nature, and the International Association of Master Painters and Decorators is one with which we are glad to associate by sending delegates to their annual convention. It should be noted that while under any of the proposed bills these "black sheep" painters can apply "any old thing" for paint on contract jobs without any labeling or restrictions, not one of the master painters, however excellent, can do day work with paint which he prepares himself and charges to his customer (generally the best part of his business), unless he labels every lot he mixes as required under the labeling act; and what painter can do that every time? The International Association of Master Painters could not have fully considered this very important matter, any more than could the dealer or manufacturer when he comes down to actual operation of the bill if it becomes a law.

per

Another point which I will only refer to is the opportunity for blackmail which this opens to the unprincipled painter or other son; also that the house owner seems to have no redress against the contractor, but the principal burden seems to fall upon the dealer and manufacturer.

The provisions as to net weights and measures could apply not only to the three articles named, but to other articles in the paint business, and really should apply to every article sold, and here "imagination runs riot."

There have been very many sins committed "in the name of pure white lead," and while the manufacturers of pure white lead in this country may not have the full sympathy or support of the jobbers and dealers in these articles, for certain reasons not necessary to explain here, they are entitled to fair treatment in regard to prevention of sale of substitutes for the pure article, and whatever may be said against the corroders, and manufacturers of pure white lead, they can not be accused of cheating or dishonesty as to their product in regard to their business as at present conducted.

I remember when a very young man hearing Henry Ward Beecher tell of his experience when conducted through a white-lead factory by the proprietor and the process of grinding lead was explained. The manufacturer went to a large keg and took a handful of white material and threw it into the mill where was being ground the so-called white lead. On being asked what that was for, he said, it was to ease his conscience for he could now say that "the best part of it was pure white lead." It is true that articles called pure white lead have been put on the market containing not a particle of lead and very largely of the cheapest material used for painting. Any white lead, linseed oil, or spirits of turpentine, that is not strictly pure, should be marked "adulterated" or "substitute," and severe penalties should be imposed for failure to comply with such requirements as to labeling. Manufacturers of linseed oil have just complaint, the same as manufacturers of pure white lead, and if the members of your committee could know of the great number of instances where adul

terated oil is put out for the pure article-largely from parties outside the State where the oil is used-they would be glad to take at least one step toward a higher standard of purity. Same is true of spirits of turpentine and why should not this article be sold by weight instead of the loose manner at present of selling by gauge.

When, however, it comes to mixed paint, there is a wide difference. This was made clear in the able speech which was made before our convention by Mr. Ernest W. Heath, whose very able efforts and close attention to the subject of this legislation have brought on a very severe illness.. He said:

The term "pure paint" implies a standard. The term "pure" is misapplied if used to designate any article except one which has a natural standard, such as milk, butter, and similar food products, such as gold, silver, etc., but to describe any given kind of paint as "pure" is as absurd as to talk about pure watches, pure pianos, or pure umbrellas. The fallacy involved is that the term "purity" is used instead of "efficiency." Paint being a manufactured composite mixture, that paint is the most efficient which accomplishes to the greatest degree and for the greatest length of time the purposes of paint. The only standard for paint is "efficiency" and to describe it as t purity" is to borrow a phrase from pure food legislation which has no proper application to paint.

Often

A buyer of mixed paint should depend on the good name and reputation of the manufacturer, and common business shrewdness, to say nothing of a high business standard, would indicate that this manufacturer when he puts his name on his goods would put out only such articles as would do the work in the most efficient manner. times second and third rate goods are put out to meet competing prices, but the name of the manufacturer is not as a rule upon the packages, and anyone who buys such goods buys them on his own risk, just the same as a man buys a fake mining stock or a horse at auction. Some are good and some are not-mostly not.

The concern in which I am a stockholder and director has many formulæ, which have been obtained after years of research, experiment, and large expense. It is not fair to us to be compelled to give these to the world with no recompense, and no injustice whatever is done by not doing so, whereas much loss, indeed, may follow should this be done under pressure. This is true of very many other manufacturers, not only in our line, but in other branches of industry throughout the country.

In the matter of pure food, drugs, etc., affecting the health of the people, it is possible that the particular rights of the comparatively few could be confiscated, especially in an emergency, in order to save the many. Such action, however, can not be advocated in the matter of paint manufacturers, as their goods as a rule do not affect the health of the people. Our industry should not be picked out from all others for a law like this, and while I feel sure that we as a rule are perfectly willing to favor any reasonably fair legislation along the fines indicated, I firmly believe that if legislation like that proposed in detail should pass it would not only be invidious and unjust, but would be declared unconstitutional because of infringement on the property rights of individuals and without adequate cause.

You will understand, gentlemen, that in opposing a general labeling law I am doing it as an individual, a jobber, and manufacturer, and I am convinced that much injustice and loss not yet thought of will result, with no corresponding advantages, and I earnestly beseech you to give the whole subject the most careful consideration to the end that the interests of the people shall be safeguarded and no injustice done to those most vitally interested.