214 
AMERICAN POMOEOGICAE SOCIETY 
Sulzer Law to be Compulsory. 
Again the gentleman insists that the provisions of the Sulzer law should 
have been made compulsory. The gentleman forgets that the Constitution 
of the United States says that Congress “shall not abridge the right of 
private contract.” A man may contract to sell his apples by the hogshead 
or by the keg, he may pack them in a shoe box or a churn, and no man shall 
say him nay, but if the Congress shall say a package of a certain size and 
shape shall be called a barrel no man may contract to sell apples by the 
barrel unless he conform to the requirements of the law. 
Likewise, the Congress cannot prevent a man from selling or packing 
any sort of apples he chooses, but Congress can say if the apples are branded 
“U. S. Standard,” they must comply with the provisions of the law. That, 
is what the Sulzer law does; that, sir, is all the /Sulzer law or any other law 
can do under the Constitution of the United States. The gentleman has 
further objections to the Sulzer law because it does not provide for a No. 2 
grade. What is a No. 2 apple? What lies in your mind and in the minds 
©f these other fruit growers when No. 2 grade is mentioned? I know what 
No. 2 means in my country and I think I know what it means almost every- 
where. With us, it usually means anything that will bear transportation to 
the nearest market, big apples and little apples, wormy apples and scaly 
apples, limb rubs, wind-falls, drops and bruises. And the gentleman pro- 
poses to strengthen the law by standardizing these? How many worm 
holes would you permit in a No. 2 apple? Surely, a “limit of tolerance” 
would be necessary here. Mr. President, permit me! We just do not want 
a U. S. Standard No. 2 apple. Selling apples tree-run is bad enough, but 
standardizing a No. 2 is worse. (Applause.) 
The gentleman who spoke against the Sulzer law said that the railroads 
increased their freight rates because of the change in the size of the barrel. 
A fair interpretation of that statement would mean the railroads throughout 
the United States. But we all know the railroads have not done it, either 
on account of the size of the barrel or for any other reason. 
It seems to me that the time has come for the fruit growers of this 
eastern half of the United States to realize that we are up against a most 
serious marketing problem. No man wants to have a better standard than 
I do. I realize as does every thoughtful, fair-minded fruit grower, the limit 
to which we can go at this time in setting up a standard grade for apples, 
and I believe we have already reached that limit. Mr. President, are you 
willing as a large fruit grower in the great state of Missouri to have no* 
“limit of tolerance” so that you cannot put a single defective apple in a 
barrel? Why, to state the proposition, is to disprove it absolutely. 
I appeal to the fruit growers of the eastern half of America, to stop 
this criticism and join hands with the Apple Shipper’s Association, which 
handles our fruit and which is just as desirous as we are to have a high 
standard. I appeal to you to stand for constructive, not destructive legisla- 
tion. I had hopes that the discussion of this law had been finally concluded. 
