287 
ruary, 1907. The account is taken from the Ice Cream Trade Jour- 
nal of February-March, 1907 : 
Pennsylvania is the Keystone State and seems to take the initiative in most 
things political. We do not have a Matthew Stanley Quay any longer, but we 
have some people who have learned politics from Matthew Stanley * * *. 
We are free-born citizens and we do not propose to have any commissioner of 
agriculture or his coterie of associates tell us what to do as against that which 
has been done for one hundred and fifty years. We had with us at Harrisburg 
Senator Tustin, chairman of this committee, who assured us that he recog- 
nized that there was an injustice being done to a manufacturing industry 
which ought not to be tolerated. We are untiring in our efforts to bring about 
the passage of a pure-food law which will benefit the public without injuring 
manufacturers and dealers. We do not want a law that makes standards. I 
am not in favor of any standard. When jmu ask for 1 per cent or 2 per cent or 
8 per cent of butter fat in ice cream, you are asking for an arbitrary standard. 
We are Americans. Our standard is as high as the heavens, and whatever 
people want and are willing to pay for give them. * * * You must get your 
State association organized and prevent the insertion in the agricultural bill in 
the Senate of a provision for standards. 
Mr. Thos. E. Lannen, a lawyer, also addressed the convention on 
the subject of standards. During the address he said : 
“ My only suggestion at the present time on this standard for ice cream would 
be to adopt a standard which will permit you to conduct your business as you 
have been doing it in the past, and if there is any practice going on in your 
industry which is illegal and which in the minds of the majority of the men 
present here to-day should not be permitted then you should draft such a stand- 
ard as will stamp out that practice.” 
Mr. N, Lowenstein, Secretary of the Sethness Company, of Chicago, 
in the course of his address respecting the standards for ice cream, 
said : 
“ In answer to a telegram which I sent to the two Senators from Illinois 
I have a reply from one of them, reading as follows ; ‘ Tour telegram of re- 
cent date is at hand, and contents noted. Your suggestion relating to the pro- 
posed provision regarding food standards in the agricultural bill shall receive 
due consideration I can assure you.’ ” 
It may be said in passing that the ice cream makers were not the 
only persons who endeavored to have the authority to fix food stand- 
ards abolished. There are manj^ other manufacturing interests which 
object to any standard whatever being set for their products. The 
standard, however, for ice cream to which objection was made was 
established long before the authority to establish standards was with- 
drawn. Continuing, Mr. Lowenstein said, speaking of the authority 
to fix standards: 
“ Certain interests endeavored to have this same provision inserted in the 
agricultural appropriation bill of 1904, 1905, 1906, and again this year, and in 
each instance it was ruled out on a point of order as irregular legislation. 
