206 
AMERICAN POMOEOGICAE SOCIETY 
For example assume that every barrel contains 10% of fruit not up to the 
specifications, yet the purchaser knows that at the very least he will get 
10.8 pecks of perfect apples out of every 12 peck barrel, and if he does not, 
then he has his remedy. He cannot get less than 90% of perfect apples 
and he may get more. Does not this law tell him within reasonable limits 
what he may expect? But on a barrel that is not packed under the Sulzer 
Standards it is a matter of common knowledge and common experience that 
the purchaser may get 5 or 6 or 7 of 8 pecks of perfect apples out of a 
barrel, and in many instances not any outside of the face. Without the 
Sulzer Standard there is no limit whatever and the purchaser is absolutely 
in the dark as to what he may find in the barrel. Moreover he has no pro- 
tection in his purchase and no remedy. 
The point has also been advanced that it is a serious weakness, that 
the law did not provide that the face or shown surface should indicate the 
contents of the entire barreL Not at all. I concede that it would be a good 
thing, but such a provision is not necessary where the sizes are prescribed 
as in the Sulzer law. In other words branding the minimum size of the 
fruit on the barrel, as prescribed by this law, puts every purchaser on notice 
regardless of the face. The reason why some of the laws of other states 
and countries require that the face shown surface shall indicate the quality 
In the barrel is that such provisions are necessary where the specifications 
of size are not mentioned. For example, suppose there are no specified 
sizes in you established grades, as prevails in Canada — no minimum size 
to which the fruit must conform; then assume that there was no provision 
as to the face or shown surface. Under such conditions you might have a 
barrel faced with five inch apples and put them down to two or two and 
one-quarter inches in the middle and the purchaser would have no notice 
of what to expect. But under the Sulzer law, where the minimum sizes are 
provided and where they must be branded on the outside of the package, 
as “Minimum Size two and one-half inches,” the purchaser absolutely and 
positively knows that there are two and one-half inch apples in that barrel, 
no matter if it is faced with four or five inch apples. In other Words the 
brand itself gives him notice in specific language rather than the “face.” 
To my way of thinking this is far superior to the other plan of having to 
draw an inference from an inspection of the face. 
I want to say another thing about the Sulzer law. It was the result off 
the honest, sincere and long continued effort, study and conference of prac- 
tically every section of the barreled territory and supported by the box 
states. Every interest was represented, — horticultural societies', individual 
growers, trade organizations, commercial bodies and state and national 
departments. It was not a snap judgment. Any talk to the effect that this 
was a dealers’ bill or one man’s bill is false, and many now here can testify 
to that fact. Moreover the standard that was adopted was the standard 
that would meet the needs of the average man. He is the man to consider. 
You cannot legislate for the few; nor can you hope for progress by estab- 
lishing a standard so high that only a very few could work under it. Could 
you, for example, hope to educate the Fiji Islanders by starting out with a 
course leading only to the degree of Doctor of Philosophy? How far would 
