FDA History 03
Home |
|
HISTORY OF A CRIME AGAINST
THE FOOD LAW
CHAPTER III: RULES AND REGULATIONS
by Harvey W. Wiley, M.D., the very
first commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), then known
as the “US Bureau of Chemistry.”
After the enactment of the
food and drugs law the necessary rules and
regulations for carrying it into effect
were prepared. The law provided that a
period of six months should elapse and
that the enforcement of the law should
begin on the first day of January, 1907.
In the preparation of these rules and
regalations not only were the rights of
the public at large to be conserved, but
also a due regard for the ethical interests
in the food and drug industries. The
committee appointed to formulate these
regulations held meetings in Washington,
New York and Chicago. Extensive advertisements
of these meetings were published
and all interests involved were invited
to appear and give their views.
Secretary Wilson named the
Chief of the Bureau of Chemistry as his
representative on the committee authorized
by the law to draft the rules and
regulations for the enforcement of the
new act. The representative of the
Treasury Department was Mr. James L. Gary;
the representative of the Department
of Commerce and Labor was Mr. S. N. D.
North. The Chief of the Bureau of
Chemistry was named chairman. My colleagues
entered most enthusiastically into
the discharge of the duties assigned to
them. First of all they studied the act
in all of its relations. We sat almost
continuously every day, and always with
cordial collaboration and mutual sympathy
in the difficult task set before us.
COMMITTEE TO FORMULATE RULES AND REGULATIONS
FOR ENFORCEMENT OF PURE FOOD LAW
From left to right: Dr. S.N.D. North,
Dept. of Commerce; Dr. H.W. Wiley, Dept.
of Agriculture; and Mr. James L. Gary,
Treasury Dept.
On the completion of our
labors we each undertook to secure the signature of
our respective secretary. The Secretary
of Agriculture promptly signed our
report; likewise the Secretary of Commerce
and Labor. Mr. Gary had some little
difficulty in securing the signature of
the Secretary of the Treasury. He
thought that the regulations were a little
bit too severe upon some of the food
industries. Finally, however, he affixed
his signature without any amendment
whatever to the rules and regulations
as presented.
During the hearings accorded
interested parties there appeared before the
committee practically the same interests
that had been active in opposing the
enactment of the law. The same arguments
with which the chairman of the board
had been so long familiar were repeated.
Pleas for recognition of the use of
borax under the regulations were made
by the fishing interests of Massachusetts;
the interests engaged in the manufacture
of catsup begged for recognition of
benzoic acid. The manufacturers of syrups
pleaded for permission to use sulphur
dioxide and were joined in this plea by
the interests engaged in drying fruits
in California.
An interesting incident occurred
in this connection. It was while the
committee was sitting in New York that
the advocates for the recognition of
sulphurous acid and sulphites were heard.
A particularly earnest plea was made
by the representative of the California
interests, in which we were told that
failure to use sulphur dioxide would ruin
the dried fruit industry of that
state. Reporters were constantly present
at these hearings and this story of the
California interests got into the afternoon
papers of this city. About seven
o'clock that evening the card of the California
advocate was brought up to my
room. When he himself appeared he was
considerably embarrassed. Finally he
stated the object of his visit. He said:
"My wife read
an account of my remarks in the afternoon papers. On my
return to my apartment she chided
me for what I had said. She urged me--almost
commanded me--to come to see you
in regard to the matter and here I am. My
Wife does not allow any sulphur
dioxide fruit to come onto our, own table. She
is so firmly convinced of the undesirability
of this kind of preservative that
she will not allow me or any of
my family to eat foods preserved with sulphur
dioxide."
This confession on the part
of the representative of the California interests
I imparted to my colleagues the next morning
before the hearings began.
It is hardly necessary to
say that any regulation for carrying a law into
effect shall not presume to ignore any
function of that law. As it was provided
in the law that the Bureau of Chemistry
alone was to be the judge of what was an
adulteration and misbranding any decision
of that kind under the rules and
regulations would be illegal.
The report of the committee
after receiving the signature of the three
cabinet officers authorized to make the
rules and regulations was finally
published on Oct. 17,1906.
FOOD STANDARDS COMMITTEE
Quite as important as the
rules and regulations for carrying out the
provisions of the law was dependable information
respecting the methods of
judging the quality of foods and drugs
by standards which were legal and
conclusive in their character. About the
time of the beginning of the
experimental work for determining the
effect of preservatives and coloring
matters upon digestion was originated
the idea of establishing under proper
authority standards of foods. Accordingly
about 1902 a section was added to the
appropriation bill of the Department of
Agriculture, authorizing the Secretary
of Agriculture to appoint a committee
of this kind. Similar action was taken by
the Association of Official Agricultural
Chemists. When this authority was
secured the following named representatives
of Agricultural Colleges and
Experiment Stations were selected for
this very difficult and important work:
Mr. M. A. Scovell, Director of the Agricultural
Station of Kentucky, Mr. H. A.
Weber, Professor of Agricultural Chemistry
in the College of Agriculture of the
State University of Ohio, Mr. William
Frear, Assistant Director of the
Agricultural Experiment Station of Pennsylvania,
Mr. E. H. Jenkins, Director of
the Agricultural Experiment Station of
Connecticut, at New Haven, and Mr. H. W.
Wiley, Chief of the Bureau of Chemistry
of the Department of Agriculture, at
Washington, D. C.
FOOD STANDARDS COMMITTEE
Left to Right: Prof. M. A. Scovell, Director,
Agricultural Station of Kentucky,
H. A. Weber, Prof. Agricultural Chemistry,
University of Ohio, Dr. William
Frear, Assistant Director, Agricultural
Experiment Station of Pennsylvania, Dr.
E. H. Jenkins, Director, Agricultural
Experiment Station of Connecticut; Dr. H.
W. Wiley, Chief of the Bureau of Chemistry,
Department of Agriculture
This committee was enlarged
subsequently by additional members, but the five
original members remained as its nucleus
and principal actors until the
Secretary of Agriculture at the instigation
of the Solicitor of that Department
abolished the committee by having the
authority for its continuance withdrawn
from the appropriation bill. This, however,
only temporarily prevented its
activities. Subsequently, after the Chief
of the Bureau resigned, it was
reorganized and is still at work. The
value of the contribution made by these
five original members is almost incalculable.
We had frequent meetings lasting
for days at a time, usually held at the
Department of Agriculture, but in many
cases we met in other cities where it
was more convenient for interested parties
to attend. You may have some idea of the
extent of our investigations by seeing
the official papers piled up on the table
before us, as shown in the
illustration. The results of the deliberations
of this committee were published
from time to time by the Department of
Agriculture as official documents. They
have become the guide and director, not
only of the national food law, but also
they have been approved and adopted by
the various states.
Before this committee also
appeared practically the same interests which on
the enactment of the food law appeared
before the committee to establish rules
and regulations to carry the law into
effect. They continually presented their
claims for indulgences before the Food
Standards Committee. The character of
this opposition has already been definitely
illustrated. It was not based on
ethical grounds but on individual and
industrial interests without relation to
the welfare of the consuming public.
The result of all these preliminary
investigations shows the wisdom and
timeliness of their inauguration. Had
it not been for these fundamental
investigations the Bureau of Chemistry
would have been totally unprepared to
have organized the machinery which immediately
went into effect January 1, 1907.
It is hardly necessary to
add. that all the conferences, indulgences and
collaborations with vested interests which
thereafter were resorted to as a
means of defeating the purpose of the
law have effectively nullified the
efficiency of the standards originally
established.
The Secretaries of the Treasury
and Commerce cannot be blamed for affixing
their signatures to these documents. They
assumed that these decisions were
intended to carry the provisions of the
law into effect. The Secretary of
Agriculture stood in a different position.
He knew the exact purpose of putting
the decisions of the Remsen Board into
effect. He boldly proclaimed that the
Board was created to protect the manufacturers.
Leaving his Solicitor to
interpret the law, he was firmly convinced
that these restrictions were legal
and binding. He gave himself wholeheartedly
to the effective plan of prohibiting
the Bureau of Chemistry from exercising
its duty to enforce the law according to
its letter and spirit. The food and drugs
law became a hopeless paralytic. It
still breathed but its step was tottering
and its hand shaky. The clot on its
brain has become encysted. There is no
hope that it will ever be absorbed. Only
a capital operation will restore it to
health.
FOOD INSPECTION DECISIONS
From June 30, 1906, the date
the Food and Drugs Act became a law, until
January 1, 1907, when it went into effect,
numerous questions were propounded to
the Bureau of Chemistry by interested
parties respecting the scope and meaning
of many of its requirements. The Bureau
of Chemistry to the best of its ability
interpreted, as the prospective enforcing
unit, the intent of the law. Following
the usual customs in such cases these
opinions were taken to the Secretary of
Agriculture for signature. The last Food
Inspection Decision prior to 1907 was
No. 48, issued Dec. 13, 1906.
For a few days after January
1, 1907, the Bureau of Chemistry was
unrestricted in its first steps to carry
the law into effect. Although all
matters relating to adulteration or misbranding
were now solely to be
adjudicated by the Bureau, it was decided
to continue to have these opinions, as
heretofore, signed by the Secretary. The
first decision under the new regime was
signed by the Secretary Jan. 8, 1907.
It discussed the time required to render
decisions. It was prepared because many
persons presenting problems were
complaining of delay.
An open break in the plan
of preparing decisions by the Bureau of Chemistry
for the Secretary came in the case of
F. I. D. 64, signed. by the Secretary
March 29, 1907. The question was, "What
is a sardine?" The Bureau prepared a
decision that only the genuine sardine
prepared on the coasts of Spain, France
and the Mediterranean Islands was entitled
to that name. The Secretary, due to
protests from the Maine packers, referred
this problem to the Fish Commission of
the Department of Commerce. The Fish Commission,
which had no function whatever
in describing what was a misbranding,
made a decision diametrically opposed to
that reached by the Bureau. It was as
follows:
Commercially
the name sardine has come to signify any small, canned
clupeoid fish; and the methods
of valuation are so various that it is
impossible to establish any absolute
standard of quality. It appears to this
Department that the purposes of
the Pure Food law will be carried out and the
public fully protected if all sardines
bear labels showing the place where
produced and the nature of the
ingredients used in preserving or flavoring the
fish.
The Fish Commission, being
in the Department of Commerce, would consider any
commercial process or practice as of more
importance than the plain provisions
of the food law looking to the protection
of the public against misbranding. The
Secretary of Agriculture ignored the protest
of the Bureau of Chemistry to this
decision, placing a trade practice above
the plain precepts of the law. The
Secretary of Agriculture said:
In harmony with the opinion
of the experts of the Bureau of Fisheries, the
Department of Agriculture holds that the
term "sardine" may be applied to any
small fish described above and that the
name "sardine" should be accompanied
with the name of the country or state
in which the fish are taken and prepared
and with a statement of the nature of
the ingredients used in preserving or
flavoring the fish.
The Ambassador of France
earnestly indicated to me in a personal interview
his feeling that the sardine packers in
France would be subjected to a ruinous
competition by permitting young sprats
and young herrings to be prepared
according to the manner of the French
sardine and thus enter into direct
competition therewith. I believe also
the French Ambassador voiced his objection
to this decision in a diplomatic way with
a protest filed with the Secretary of
State. Both this protest and the plain
provision of the law that the Bureau of
Chemistry should decide all cases as to
whether or not the articles were
adulterated and mi sbranded failed to
have any effect whatever on the Secretary
of Agriculture. This was the second official
departure of the Secretary of
Agriculture from the plain provisions
of the law. His whisky decision, which
Secretary Bonaparte turned down, was the
first.
THE BOARD OF FOOD AND DRUG INSPECTION
Soon after this incident
the Board of Food and Drug Inspection was formed in
the Secretary's office. Theretofore the
Chief of the Bureau of Chemistry had not
affixed his official signature to the
Food Inspection Decisions which he had
prepared and the only signature these
decisions carried was that of the
Secretary of Agriculture. After the organization
of the Board of Food and Drug
Inspection the Secretary required that
all the decisions of that Board submitted
to him for approval should be signed by
at least two members of the Board. The
first decision thus signed was Food Inspection
Decision No. 69. The three
members of the Board affixed their signatures
to this and the Secretary of
Agriculture approved it on May 14, 1907.
FOOD AND DRUG DECISIONS SIGNED BY THE
SECRETARIES
AUTHORIZED BY LAW TO MAKE RULES AND REGULATIONS
It so happened that when
the decisions of this board were deemed of
extraordinary importance the practice
arose of having them approved, not by the
Secretary of Agriculture alone, but by
the three Secretaries authorized by law
to make rules and regulations for the
enforcement of the act. When these
Secretaries therefore signed a Food Inspection
Decision it became a rule and
regulation. The first decision of this
kind thus signed was Food Inspection
Decision No. 76, concerning dyes, chemicals
and preservatives in foods.
OPINIONS OF EXPERTS
Some time prior to the issuance
of this decision, and in fact long before
there was any hint that the functions
of the Bureau of Chemistry would be
usurped illegally, questionnaires had
been sent to three or four hundred
prominent physiologists and dietitians
in the United States as to their attitude
in regard to the use of preservatives
and coloring matters in foods. The
questions propounded and the number of
answers received, both negative and
affirmative, are as follows:
1. Are preservatives,
other than the condimental preservatives, namely,
sugar, salt, alcohol, vinegar,
spices and wood smoke, injurious to health?
Affirmative, 218; negative, 33.
2. Does the introduction
of any of the preservatives, which you deem
injurious to health, render the
foods injurious to health? Affirmative, 222;
negative, 29.
3. If a substance
added to food is injurious to health, does it become so
when a certain quantity is present
only, or is it so in any quantity whatever?
Affirmative, 169; negative, 79.
4. If a substance
is injurious to health, is there any special limit to the
quantity which may be used which
may be fixed by regulation of our law?
Affirmative, 68; negative, 183.
5. If foods can
be perfectly preserved without the addition of chemical
preservatives, is their addition
ever advisable? Affirmative, 12; negative,
247.
It is readily seen from this
tabulation that the opinion of physiologists,
hygienists, health officers and physicians
in the United States to whom these
questionnaires were sent is overwhemingly
against their use. These opinions of
distinguished experts were obtained before
the Remsen Board was ever thought of.
(Food Inspection Decision No. 76, Pages
5 and 6.)
Food Inspection Decision
No. 87 is signed by the three Secretaries as a rule
and regulation. It is neither. It was
an opinion that the term "corn sirup" is a
proper label for the substance commonly
known as glucose. This opinion repealed
the opinion of the Bureau of Chemistry,
which, after a long argument, was
endorsed also by the other two members
of the Board of Food and Drug Inspection.
Thus the three Secretaries authorized
by law to make rules and. regulations
usurped the function of the Bureau of
Chemistry in regard to what was a proper
label under the law.
Food Inspection Decision
No. 102 was signed by the three Secretaries,
legalizing the introduction into the United
States of vegetables greened with
copper. This was clearly another usurpation
of the functions of the Bureau of
Chemistry.
Food Inspection Decision
No. 104 legalized the use of benzoate of soda and
benzoic acid and was signed by the three
Secretaries authorized by law to make
rules and regulations for carrying out
its purposes. It was directly contrary to
the decision of the Bureau of Chemistry
that these preservatives were illegal
under the Act.
Food Inspection Decision
No. 107 is the opinion of the Attorney-General that
the Referee Board was appointed in a perfectly
legal way. In making this
decision Mr. Wickersham vetoed the decision
of Assistant Attorney-General
Fowler, holding that the Referee Board
was illegally appointed. He adopted in
the main the decision of Solicitor George
P. McCabe that it was legally
appointed. The Referee Board usurped many
of the specific functions of the
Bureau of Chemistry, committted to that
Bureau by express wording of the Act.
Food Inspection Decision
No. 113 as to the proper labeling of whisky and its
mixtures, a function specifically confided
to the Bureau of Chemistry by law,
was signed by the three Secretaries, authorized
to make rules and regulations
for carrying the law into effect. It repealed
the decision of the former
Attorney-General, Mr. Charles J. Bonaparte,
and all previous Food Inspection
Decisions relating thereto.
Food Inspection Decision
No, 118 is an extension of No. 113, just described,
and of the same character.
Food Inspection Decision
No. 127 is a decision of Attorney-General Wickersham
in regard to the proper labeling of whiskies
sold under distinctive names. It is
also a complete reversal of the decisions
in regard to proper labeling reached
by the Bureau of Chemistry, and confirmed
by many decisions of federal courts.
Food Inspection Decision
No. 135, in regard to saccharin, is a direct
assumption of authority granted specifically
by law to the Bureau of Chemistry.
It was signed by the three Secretaries
authorized to make the rules and
regulations for carrying the law into
effect.
Food Inspection Decision
No. 138 refers to the same subject and is signed by
the three Secretaries.
FAREWELL TO McCABE AND DUNLAP
On the publication of the
report of the findings of the Moss Committee Mr.
George P. McCabe retired from the Board
of Food and Drug Inspection, and Mr. F.
L. Dunlap was given an indefinite leave
of absence. Mr. R. E. Doolittle was
appointed in Mr. McCabe's place.
Food Inspection Decision
No. 140, issued Feb. 12, 1912, was signed by H. W.
Wiley and R. E. Doolittle and approved
by James Wilson.
On Feb. 17, 1912, Mr. Dunlap,
having returned from his vacation, signed
together with H. W. Wiley and R. E. Doolittle
Food Inspection Decision No. 141.
On Feb. 29, 1912, Food Inspection
Decision No. 142, in regard to the use of
saccharin in foods, was signed by two
of the Secretaries, namely James Wilson
and Charles Nagel, but the Secretary of
the Treasury dissented. This was a
function specifically committed to the
Bureau of Chemistry by the law.
The last Food Inspection
Decision which I signed was No. 141 as to the proper
labeling of maraschino cherries. Mr. R.
E. Doolittle was appointed as acting
chief and took my place as Chairman of
the Board of Food and Drug Inspection for
the remainder of its hectic career.
Mr. F. L. Dunlap resigned
from his position as Associate-Chemist at the time
of the inauguration of President Wilson
in his first term as President. Dr. Carl
L. Alsberg, who had been appointed Chief
of the Bureau of Chemistry in the place
of R. E. Doolittle, became by that office
the Chairman of the Food Inspection
Board and became associated with Dr. W.
D. Bigelow and Dr. A. S. Mitchell as the
new Board of Food and Drug Inspection,
the first decision of which was approved
by James Wilson, Secretary of Agriculture,
Jan. 24, 1913.
RESIGNATION
On March 15, 1912, having
been convinced that it was useless for me to remain
any longer as a Chief of the Bureau which
had been deprived of practically all
its authority under the law, I resigned.
Letter of Resignation of
Dr. H. W. Wiley March 15, 1912.
In retiring from
this position after so many years of service it seems
befitting that I should state briefly
the causes which have led me to this
step. Without going into detail
respecting these causes, I desire to say that
the fundamental one is that I believe
I can find opportunity for better and
more effective service to the work
which is nearest my heart, namely, the pure
food and drug propaganda, as a
private citizen than I could any longer find in
my late position.
In this action
I do not intend in any way to reflect upon the position
which has been taken by my superior
officers in regard to the same problems. I
accord to them the same right to
act in accordance with their convictions
which I claim for myself.
After a quarter
of a century of constant discussion and effort the bill
regulating interstate and foreign
commerce in foods and drugs was enacted into
law. Almost from the very beginning
of the enforcement of this act I
discovered that my point of view
in regard to it was fundamentally different
from that of my superiors in office.
For nearly six years there has been a
growing feeling in my mind that
these differences were irreconcilable and I
have been conscious of an official
environment which has been essentially
inhospitable. I saw the fundamental
principles of the food and drugs act, as
they appeared to me, one by one
paralyzed or discredited.
It was the plain
provision of the act, and was fully understood at the time
of the enactment, as stated in
the law itself, that the Bureau of Chemistry
was to examine all samples of suspected
foods and drugs to determine whether
they were adulterated or misbranded
and that if this examination disclosed
such facts the matter was to be
referred to the courts for decision. Interest
after interest, engaged in what
the Bureau of Chemistry found to be the
manufacture of misbranded or adulterated
foods and drugs, made an appeal to
escape appearing in court to defend
their prac tices. Various methods were
employed to secure this end, many
of which were successful.
One by one I
found that the activities pertaining to the Bureau of
Chemistry were restricted and various
forms of manipulated food products were
withdrawn from its consideration
and referred either to other bodies not
contemplated by the law or directly
relieved from further control. A few of
the instances of this kind are
well known. Among these may be mentioned the
manufacture of so-called whisky
from alcohol, colors and flavors; the addition
to food products of benzoic acid
and its salts, of sulphurous acid and its
salts, of sulphate of copper, of
saccharin and of alum; the manufacture of
so-called wines from pomace, chemicals
and colors; the floating of oysters
often in polluted waters for the
purpose of making them look fatter and larger
than they really are for the purposes
of sale; the selling of mouldy,
fermented, decomposed and misbranded
grains; the offering to the people of
glucose under the name of "corn
sirup," thus taking a name which rightfully
belongs to another product made
directly from Indian corn stalks.
The official
toleration and validation of such practices have restricted
the activities of the Bureau of
Chemistry to a very narrow field. As a result
of these restrictions I have been
instructed to refrain from stating in any
public way my own opinion regarding
the effect of these substances upon
health, and this restriction has
interfered with my academic freedom of speech
on matters relating directly to
the public welfare.
These restrictions
culminated in the summer of 1911 with false charges of
misconduct made against me by my
colleagues in the Department of Agriculture,
which had it not been for the prompt
interference on the part of the President
of the United States (William Howard
Taft), to whom I am profoundly grateful,
would have led to my forcible separation
from the public service. After the
President of the United States
and a committee of Congress, as a result of a
searching investigation, had completely
exonerated me from any wrong doing in
this matter, I naturally expected
that those who had made these false charges
against me would no longer be continued
in a position which would make a
repetition of such an action possible.
The event, however, has not sustained
my expectations in this matter.
I was still left to come into daily contact
with men who secretly plotted my
destruction.
I am now convinced
that the freedom which belongs to every private American
citizen can be used by me more
fruitfully in rallying public opinion to the
support of the cause of pure food
and drugs than could the limited activity
left to me in the position which
I have just vacated. I propose to devote the
remainder of my life, with such
ability as I have at my command and with such
opportunities as may arise, to
the promotion of the principles of civic
righteousness and industrial integrity
which underlie the food and drugs act,
in the hope that it may be administered
in the interest of the people at
large, instead of that of a comparatively
few mercenary manufacturers and
dealers.
This hope is
heightened by my belief that a great majority of manufacturers
and dealers in foods and drugs
are heartily in sympathy with the views I have
held, and that these views are
endorsed by an overwhelming majority of the
press and of the citizens of the
country.
In severing my
official relations with the Secretary of Agriculture I take
this opportunity of thanking him
for the personal kindness and regard which he
has shown me during his long connection
with the department.
In a supplemental statement
to Secretary Wilson Dr. Wiley says:
In transferring
the management of the Bureau of Chemistry to other hands I
desire to direct your attention
to a few matters in which I think you will be
interested.
I have always
been a believer in the civil service law and have endeavored
to carry out both its spirit and
its letter. For this reason I have strongly
opposed, except in cases of extreme
necessity, the appointment of any person
in the bureau not secured from
the civil service register.
It is also a
matter of extreme gratification to me that in the twenty-nine
years which I have been chief of
this bureau to my knowledge there has never
been a cent wrongfully expended
and no officer or employe of this bureau has
ever been accused of misappropriation
of public funds.
Those whose memories carry
them back As far as 1912 will recall that the
resignation of the Chief of the Bureau
of Chemistry created quite a commotion.
Not only were the newspapers and magazines
full of references thereto, but the
caricaturists took up the fight. One of
these cartoons in the Rocky Mountain
News depicted Uncle Sam bidding adieu
to the departing Chief of the Bureau.
Another striking cartoon depicted Uncle
Sam measuring the shoes of the departed
chief. Among the hundreds of editorial
comments perhaps the most interesting are
those made also by the Rocky Mountain
News., under the caption "The Borgias of
Business."
"If the people
exhibited the same persistence in looking after their
interests that Illegitimate Business
displays in looking after its interests,
the things of which we complain
would soon be brought to an end, and
prosperity, like a tidal wave,
would flood the land.
"For twenty years
at least, the food poisoners of the country have waged
warfare on Dr. Harvey W. Wiley,
and since the passage of the Pure Food act in
1906 they have trebled efforts
to have him discharged. These Borgias of
business have won, for the circumstances
attending Dr. Wiley's recent
resignation make it, in practical
effect, a dismissal.
"Dr. Wiley resigned
because the fundamental principles of the Pure Food law
have been strangled; because he
has been powerless to punish the manufacturers
of misbranded and adulterated drugs
and foods; and because the powers of his
position had been nullified by
executive orders. * * *
"Dr. Wiley was
only head of the Bureau of Chemistry, but there is every
reason to believe that President
Taft will find that Dr. Wiley gave the
position an importance out of all
proportion to its standing."
--From the Rocky Mountain News,
March 21, 1912.
|
