THIRTY-THIRD BIENNIAI, SESSION 203 
tioned already; and I insist upon it, because I do not believe any real suc- 
cess can be attained at all without we get it this way. 
Why, Canada to-day puts better packages of fruit on the markets of 
America than the United States; and the English markets — they do: not even 
care to get ours, because our barreled apples have become poorer and poorer 
with a lot of stuff in the middle of the barrel. They really are not much 
interested in our apples. Why? Because Canada has an output scientifically 
prepared, and also they are required to be good in packing and grading un- 
der the law. Such a law as that we ought to have to-day in the United 
States, and there is no reason in the world why we should not have it. 
This gentleman states that you apple growers would not submit to it; 
would not be told how you should pack your fruit. Why I thought that was 
just what we wanted a law foi^-to fix the grades and pack; a law that re- 
quires the apple growers to submit to that. It is only in that way ydu can 
ever get the standard grade or pack. There is bound to be uniformity, of 
course, as there should be in other things; and when interested in the 
barrel of commerce it seems to me that the law should create authority to* 
require all apple growers to pack their apples in any way it provides. Now 
then, let us have what this gentleman asks for, and let us get amendments 
to the Sulzer Act that will make it effective or more morally secure in 
matter of grade. If it should and does require that same thing of marking 
the standard on the barrel, that would be sufficient indication in itself of 
what the barrel contained. 
Now gentlemen, here are three barrels before you, all marked STAND- 
ARD, packed by different people. Now you do not know whether that barrel, 
the first, contains a peck and one-fifth of cider culls or not. You do not 
know whether the next barrel was packed most religiously or likewise was 
slapped together with defective apples. Under the present law as it stands 
there is that sliding scale, from almost a perfect barrel to one that takes a 
peck and one-fifth of culls or wormy or defective fruit, Now if that wide 
variation or difference is permitted under the controlling standard, who can 
tell what a barrel contains marked STANDARD? And this is what you 
will find upon the market to-day; consequently for every fruit and grade 
there is a different standard and so orchardists do not always care particu- 
larly whether they put “Standard’ on the grade or not. As the second man 
here, Mr. Wately, stated about the 40,000 barrels of his apples at Crozet, there 
was not a single one marked STANDARD. And the gentleman from Martins- 
burg made the same remark. 
Now my chief indictment to the Sulzer Act is that, the very fact alleged 
by this gentleman from Martinsburg to-day, that people this year through 
that district, not the growers, not the farmers, but the commission men who 
went in there and bought the fruit, that those people packed Ben Davis under 
four or five different names and stamped that known falsehood and sent it 
out to the people. That is done under the glorious Sulzer law! The Sulzer 
law is the only such law to-day in the country, and yet they find it possible 
to do that under it! You can pack to-day Rome Beauties, extra fancy, pack 
and put them on the market and people cannot tell whether they are getting 
£uch fruit or not. 
