THIRTY-THIRD BIENNIAL SESSION 
205 
The statement was also made here this morning that the railroads 
increased the freight rates because the standard barrel was adopted. That 
also is not true and is an absurd assertion. Freight rates are established 
on the basis of weight, not so much per package. There has been no in- 
crease in freight rates. In a limited territory in Virginia the railroads re- 
adjusted the classification of apples, putting them in the next higher class, 
and this brought about a higher charge per barrel to certain markets, like 
New York. I personally had this matter up with the railroads involved 
and I have letters from them stating that the increased charge came about 
solely because of the re-classification of apples and the readjustment of the 
commodity clauses, and that the general readjustment of their tariffs was 
made because the Interstate Commerce Commission ordered it. The SUlzer 
Standard barrel had no more to do with it than spots on the sun. 
Now then, statements have also been made and repeated to the effect 
that our apples packed under the Sulzer law labor under a tremendous 
handicap on the European markets in competition with Canadian fruit. I 
have here in my possession the auction reports covering the sales of apples 
on three different occasions in the Liverpool market this year and among 
the various lots sold were apples from the Rose Cliff Fruit Farm of Waynes- 
boro, Va., and from one or two other places, packed and branded “Standard 
Grade.” Those apples and that grade topped the market over anything 
else in the same variety from either this country or Canada; and one sale 
of substantially 154 barrels of Yorks from the Rose Cliff farm, branded 
“Standard Grade,” sold at a price way over all other varieties from Canada 
or elsewhere. The price on this lot was 28 shillings 6 pence, and on another 
lot of 16 from the same party 29 shillings 6 pence. If this is a “Handicap,” 
then let us have more of them. They look mighty good. I believe the ffruit 
grower would like them as a steady diet. These things are a matter of 
record. The single exception where this price was topped was on a small 
lot of 7 barrels of Kings which went at 30 shillings and for a variety which 
ought to bring more than the York. 
Another point bearing on this proposition of the Standard Grade being 
a handicap: Our former president, Mr. Loomis, of New York, last year 
packed and branded over 50,000 barrels under the Shlzer bill, and his public 
testimony is that he did not have a single complaint, rejection or allowance 
to make on a single barrel of that fifty thousand, whereas on the fruit packed 
in the old way and without the standard brands there were constant and 
insistent kicks and many cash allowances had to be made. This again 
speaks pretty well for that so called “handicap.” 
It has been also stated that under the Sulzer Standard the purchaser 
has no knowledge of what he is going to get. That is another very loose 
assertion and unfounded. First, let me say, gentlemen, that I do not claim 
that the Sulzer law is absolutely perfect. What human law is? But to get 
up here and attempt to create the impression that it has no good in it what- 
ever is absurd and shows a woeful lack of understanding as to conditions 
and the scope of the law. Now, then, the Sulzer law establishes a minimum 
standard; the fruit cannot be poorer than a certain definite and known 
quality; the maximum amount of defective fruit is positively prescribed. 
