but I do claim the right to say what I think as an American citizen, and I will call an ace an ace, and that is what I am here for. Suppose under those circumstances those 200 barrels are shipped through every State of the nation and are seized as they are, one or two here or there, by these poor fry of deputy inspectors that are looking to hold down their jobs, what is the consequence to me and what is the consequence to my son, in Heaven's name? The consequence is that I and my father and my grandfather, who have been honored merchants in New York for one hundred and fifty years and I will guarantee that I have paid more money in duties to the United States Government for its support and defense against its enemies, and that I have held one of the highest positions in one of the churches in my city that you, Mr. Marshall, come with that miserable, bastard, damnable billMr. SHERMAN. You will have to omit that sort of language. Mr. SMITH. Bringing me

Mr. SHERMAN. If you want to discuss this bill, get down to it, and stop your personalities, or we will adjourn this committee.

Mr. SMITH. If I am curtailed the right of speech, very well.

Mr. SHERMAN. If there is anything you want to say about the bill, say it. Leave out the personalities. Discuss the bill; that is all we care about.

Mr. SMITH. I referred to that for the reason

Mr. SHERMAN. Never mind what you referred to it for.

Mr. SMITH. Very well. Under those conditions I would be fined $300 for a single offense on paint that is worth $1,000, and I would go to jail and rot in jail for one year, and be branded as a jail bird and have that descend to my children, simply for what? Simply this, "Because there was no label he died in jail." And my descendants and friends and acquaintances have that, if you say so.

This gentleman from Alabama very wisely saw that not everybody could use good paint; that they must have cheaper paint. Allow me to read from a bulletin that the paint army of the United States will file, and which will be out perhaps in two weeks. This is entitled "Because there was no label he went to jail," and each Member of Congress and each Senator, and the President of the United States, and each legislator of the 42 States of the United States, will have a copy, and I pray God he will have a thousand copies before he votes to place an honest man in jail. This letter takes all the situations that may come up in a man's business, presumably, after the passage of the Marshall bill. This paint maker, this honored good man, is sitting worried to death, and his stenographer, Miss Fluffy Rufflesyou know her, of the New York Herald-says: Here is another letter." "Well, well; I am listening." [Reads:]

Mr. HONEST GOODMAN:

66

DEAR SIR: We have read your circular about the advantage of using pure white lead and zinc paints that cost $1.25 per gallon. Do you think we are millionaires down here in Starvation City, Okla.? You rich fellows East and West can afford it. We can not afford such luxuries.

(Mr. Smith continued reading from the document referred to.) Mr. SMITH. Now, if Professor Ladd is here, he can hear the Professor talk as a student of economics-he will hear him talk as a professor and as a scientific man, and a chemist connected with the paint trade-and if you will allow me, I will refer to it later.

Mr. SHERMAN. Proceed.

Mr. SMITH. "Because there was no label he died in jail." There never will be a speech in the United States that more people will read

Mr. SHERMAN. Had you not better confine yourself to arguments about the bill? It seems to me you have indulged in about fifteen minutes of rot, which is about all this committee ought to listen to, and if you have anything else in the way of an argument to make about the bill, suppose you make it.

Mr. SMITH. Then I will leave this. Then I will come down in this to the funeral, if you will allow me to say so to you, of the white lead manufacturers and painters' associations. There is one inquiry that is perhaps in more minds than any other, and which perhaps comes up more than any other. You are asked, "Why does your association object to any bill that says you must put on the package if it is impure." This, from which I have just read to you, will explain it when you get it. But I must confine myself to the Marshall bill, and I will say, why does this Marshall bill or why does the other bill have the indorsement of the Paint Manufacturers' Association of the United States, the National Paint, Oil, and Varnish Association, and the International Association of Master House Painters and Decorators of the United States and Canada. To answer that question, gentlemen, as an honest man should, is a difficult task, and if you will pardon me, with the strength that in the past two weeks has been so severely called upon, I will endeavor to convict them out of their own minds. But, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I claim the right of an American citizen, as standing here, that I may speak at least as God puts the words, in my poor ability, in my mind, and that I may not be cramped and cut off in any effort that my feelings may lead me to. I will therefore crave your indulgence, and get down to business.

First I am going to convict the white lead people; I am going to convict the Master Painters' Association; I am going to bury them, if you will allow me the expression, and I am going to tell you first of all why the other associations of paint manufacturers of the United States, the National Paint, Oil, and Varnish Association, and the International Association of Master Painters and Decorators, all of whom you have heard from to-day, indorse this model bill passed for the States, and this Marshall bill, as most of them do. It is simply this, that for the past two years, ever since the law in Dakota was enacted, these associations and these members have been almost terrified. I want to call your attention to Professor Ladd's No. 4 circular, issued in March. With all these matters that are threatening, they fear that they will not be able to sleep at night or have time to speak to their children, which every God-fearing citizen has a right to do at night when he goes home, but they must be worrying about the subject of the package and what they shall put upon it. Therefore this has brought around among them a state of panic, and they formed one association, as you see, and another association, and another one, and at last, here a month ago, the associations for which I am now speaking. Then comes along this Master Painters' Association, and they have their convention in New Orleans in February, and then we have delegates from all these other big associations and

they put their heads together and they concoct this bill, along with the white lead people that is, the white lead people concoct it, as I understand, in conjunction-and indorse it, which I will prove by words written in this pamphlet which I hold up, which the National Lead Company issued, which undoubtedly shows that it is true. This arrangement I wish you would allow me to use a stronger expression-shows why the master painters and the lead people go hand in hand, and, as I say, last night they held conference together. I am going to read from this little pamphlet, called "The Dutch Boy," issued by the National Lead Company. This is volume 1, No. 2, and it has on the cover "Convention number, 1908." I read now from the second paragraph on page 32, and I would like to ask Doctor Thompson if he wrote that. He was here this morning.

Mr. SHERMAN. No difference about who wrote it.

Mr. SMITH. Simply, he could confirm it. The National Lead Company prints this. This reads:

Therefore the painters want an honest label law of national scope

I believe that refers to this bill

and the justice of the demand is so apparent that it does not seem possible that Congress can refuse their request.

Now, with reference to this bill—and that I make as a point of order, that it is with reference to the Marshall bill-I say that the Master Painters' Association and the white lead people and this association here have agreed to support this bill, and I want to show its fallacy.

Mr. SHERMAN. Suppose they have agreed to support it; they have a right to agree to support the bill, and you have a right to oppose it; and if you want to oppose it, proceed to do so, and leave out these personalities. We do not care anything about having you criticise people that favor this bill, but if you have any real argument to advance why this bill should not be reported by this committee, we want you to advance it.

Mr. BARTLETT. I do not know what he is going to read, but it occurs to me if he can show that the bill is not really in the interest of the people, to keep people from being imposed on, but he is going to show that this is being done by a combination of people who themselves are to be benefited at the expense of other corporations, and it is not the great public that they are trying to protect, but it is for private interests, it is perfectly proper. I do not know whether that

is true or not.

Mr. SMITH. That is the fact.

Mr. SHERMAN. We should confine ourselves to the bill and to questions as to why it should be turned down or as to why it should be reported.

Mr. SMITH. This is cognate entirely to the question why the Eastern Paint Manufacturers' Association of the United States want to show you why this bill which is here which requires the labeling of pure paint and adulterated paint is here, why that is in this bill to the detriment of the public, and how it is intended to cheat the public "cheat them" I say advisedly-by an association that is held responsible by the Eastern Paint Manufacturers and the entire association of manufacturers in the United States. Gentlemen, is that correct?

Mr. MCCAFFERTY. That is correct.

Mr. SMITH. May I read it?

Mr. SHERMAN. Go on and read it.

Mr. SMITH (reading):

As it was expressed by one speaker, the painter knows by experience, and therefore knows better than anyone else, how this paint should be mixed and of what it should be composed. If he knows that he wants some zinc, conditions should be left so that he can buy pure zinc as he needs it; if he wants barytes, he should be allowed to buy it ground separately, so that he may use just as much as he may desire and no

more.

Is that cognate to this subject? According to this bill they come here and say: "You paint manufacturers must grind pure paint and give it to the painter, according to the law, and the bill authorizes that the painter shall be allowed to buy his barytes pure, and, as it is here stated, 'use just as much as he may desire and no more. This asks Congress to pass a law which says this, that the painter must receive it pure and he can adulterate it. Now, I claim the right, Mr. Chairman, as an American citizen, to speak just as this matter appeals to me and to every fair-minded man. I want to show this

committee what this is. The painters come here and say, "We are the only honest men." Why do they want to buy barytes and put it in the paint? I will take any 12 men from this room, Mr. Chairman, you included as the foreman, and I will say to them: "Why does the painter want to put barytes in the paint, and why does he say that?" He must be allowed to put it on the job.

There is never a package of white lead-and this is the point I want to make or of any other kind of paint, that ever did anybody any harm until it was opened and painted onto a house, or a barn, or a fence, or whatever it was put on. As long as the paint is in the package it is perfectly harmless. These men come here -excuse the personality with a check as large as the Gulf of Mexico, and say "We must have our paint pure, but I want you gentlemen to pass a law that into the paint I may put just as much white lead and just as much barytes as I may desire.' That is really the point of the case. I am sorry to see that our friends are leaving so soon; I would like them to hear me. That is the point of the whole business. You say to the painter "I want my house painted," and he comes in and says-this is the effect of this to the Eastern Paint Manufacturers that I represent as the major-general of the army of the paintersand they will be heard from later-"Give us the lead pure, and let us be the only ones to cheat."

How is this received by the Master Painters' Association? Is Mr. Dewar here? This little pamphlet says:

The hearty applause with which this explanation of the situation was greeted foretold the way the vote would go. The painters decided to keep the mixing and tinting of their paints in their own hands and refused to indorse the "composite base" plan.

There is another matter which has been spoken of so much here that I ask the privilege as an American citizen of reading one article here as to adulteration.

Mr. SHERMAN. We will give you five minutes more. The House has adjourned and we ought to adjourn, but you may have five minutes, and you may occupy that time as you see fit.

Mr. SMITH. I read from a conference with the National Lead Company which was held to ask them kindly to withdraw their amendments offered in several States, and I am happy to say that although they refused, and they refused it to the Master Painters, they granted it to this committee. It reads as follows:

ADULTERATION.

The Standard Dictionary gives the meaning of this word as follows: "The act of adulterating or corrupting by the admixture of foreign and baser elements, especially for fraudulent purposes.

In the popular mind the idea of paint or colors being mixed with any cheaper material, such as barytes, gypsum, whiting, starch, or other well-known and inert materials, is associated with adulteration with the intent to cheat or deceive. That this common understanding in most cases is not usually a just one may be illustrated by the following: A majority of the colors used in tinting house paints, like Prussian blue, chrome yellow, and similar colors, are far too expensive to be used for many purposes for which in their reduced state, by the addition of some cheapening material, they are available. It is also true that many such pigments have in themselves an unnecessary amount of covering property and tinting strength when used alone, and at the price at which they are sold the quantity would cover such a small surface as to prohibit their use except in very small quantities. Where, however, such colors can be reduced in cost to the consumer by the addition of some inert material, like those mentioned above, the consumer is enabled to obtain the beauty of color and a satisfactory opacity and other properties at a cost which for the pure material he could not afford. For instance, the article of Venetian red, which, under that name and as a bright paint of cheap price, has been known as long, perhaps, as any paint in the market, and possibly for the last thousand years has been used with generally satisfactory results, is made by mixing a small quantity of bright, expensive oxide of iron with a large quantity of some inert material. The consumer who wishes a red paint at a cheap cost knows Venetian red under its name and buys it freely, and the result is that his house is painted with a bright color at a cheap cost, which, in most cases, if he were obliged to buy the pure oxide of iron, he possibly and generally could not afford to do.

Another illustration on this idea would be chrome yellow, costing in the pure state to the manufacturer about 13 cents a pound, and is retailed in the neighborhood of 20 cents. If the consumer for house painting, agricultural implements, and various other purposes, wants a yellow of a bright color, he can not find it in any of the natural ochers, or any yellow found in nature, and he can not afford to use the chemically pure chrome yellow, for the same reason as that which prevails in the case of the blues and the greens. Therefore, the bright yellow color is produced for him by the paint grinders by a mixture of natural ocher, chemically pure chrome yellow, and inert material. The result is a color almost as brilliant as chrome yellow, of good and sufficient opacity, very durable, and generally satisfactory. It would therefore seem that the condition of what is generally considered adulteration is not fair to the paint grinder, but in reality is a condition that by reducing the cost of the expensive materials the consumer can have the benefit of the beauty and brilliancy of very expensive colors.

That is one argument which will be in this document which you will receive. Now, I have not got half through, but you will not allow me to speak further, and I will simply say this, that what I have to say upon the arguments and conditions of the paint army of America will be delivered next Saturday, God willing, and I will see that every member of this committee and every member of the House of Representatives and of the Senate, and President Roosevelt, shall have a copy, and I shall get it before the people in every hamlet in this nation. I regret that I have been so curtailed that I have not been able to get in anything about this army. What I have said, and what I shall hand you further, I commend to your attention.

(At 5 o'clock p. m. the committee adjourned.)