Baking Powder Figures

THAT DONT LIE. The Royal Baking Powder Co. try to givc the Inference that their powder con any oiher maile, hs stated in their advertlsement on the "Comparativa Worth o Bakinji Powders," exhfbited iy black lines. Our name was mentioned In oonnection wiili one of our cheaper branda, made of different materlals as the trade mleht demund. üur Cream Tarlnr brand of n!i -.i 's I'earl was oniltted evidently tor a verv }ioo'l reason, judsring trom the relátíve mèrfti of Andrew's "Pkarl" and the Roya], as cleaily aemonscrHted bv the Oovernment Chemist Dr Peter Coi,lier of the üepaitment of Agrien ltu re, at Wiisbinton, froin samples received by hiin froin dealers who furnished the samples trom their stocks on band in open niarket. Showlw? excess of Cream Tartarln Andrews' HD Ofi I I ICDP' II II I frlr gaa8raagyfty i'öLLItKS ANALYSIS f v f U. S. Dept of Aokicultube. . ' ¦ ' Washington D. C, March lü, 1883. f C. E Andrews & Co.- Gentlemen : I received bv a expresa from Thoy. Lydiin and J. P. Harkins&Co T tit, Grand Ave., Mihy.-uikce. and HarperBros., Chlcamad o, 111 , samples ol Andrews' Pearl and Royal Bak 'I I n? Powders. The cans were in good c'ondition J M M wljt'n reci-ived and the seals unbroken. I tind upon _SBa tM ¦ analysis that AikIil-ws Pearl Baking Powder con ifi B .1 ¦rninsMboutfourHnd hal; (4J) per cent. uiort) I ¦ Icrean lanar than the Koyl Bakinff P..wder. I I ul ¦ nda proporiio alely larf er percentage L B carboiiif sic-ld fan, and i íid il to he ¦ free fruni aluin, and any injurious snI lances. 11 Sineerely yours, PETER COLLIER, 13&'r IbJbP' l ¦ Chemist, Dept. of Axricul'.ure. Gommiieiii ClieiöisiCollier's An?lysis as to tiie Leavenine: Qnalities. andrew ' PEARLBBBHHitl9&S&BBBHHH9i ROYAL WÊKÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊM No wonder the Royal Co. oinitted Andrew.-' Pearl from their " Comparative List," as Government Chemist Collier's analygis shows conclusively two things: lst, That Andrew.-' Pearl contains more 4'reani Tarlar than the Royal, as show n by the euts above; 2d, That the l.cavciiiiiï l'oncr of Andrews' Pearl is greater than the Royal, as shown by the two black lines above. CHALLENGE. We will fisve the Royal Co. or any one elae $1.000 or $5.000 if they enn prove by any fair mutual test that Andrews' Pearl Baking Powder does, or ever did, contain aluin or any injiirious substances, and th3 e.hallenge is open foreer. Andrews' Pearl B:iking Powder 3 snstained by a testimonial asto its piirit) aiiil wirenglll by the only geiittiiie coniinis-ioned Government chemist, such as the Royal Co. liever have published. Tbt It. C. E. AXDREWS & CO., 287. 289 & 291 E. Water St.. Mllwaukee. 45 Michigan Ave., Chicago.