THAT DOIM'T LIE! Tlie Royal Baking Powder Co. try to give the nfercnce tliat tlieir powder contjins more C'reuiu Turtar and that its Leavenlng io%ver is greiiter tlian Hjoiher made, ns stated in thelr adrertlsetnent on tlie "Comparativo Worth of Btftnjr Powders," exhihited by black Unes. Onr mime was mentloned in conneclinu wlth onc of our cheaper branda, made of difierent materlals as the trade iniglii dsmand. Our Crcain Turtar lirandof Andreu-'N Poarl was omitted. evidently for a Tery good reaaon, judging from ttie relativa mt-riis of Andrew's "Pbarl" and the Royal, aa clearly demonscrated by the Government Chemist, Dr. Pitsr Coi,LiER-of the Department of Agricultura, at Washington, from samples uceivwl by hlin trom dealera wuo furoteued the samples trom their stocks on iiand 1:1 open iiKirket. IfcnringexceMof CremTartMln Andrewi' QD ffll PDQ AM Al VOIO L. s r N DePT. OF AGRICULTURE. I __ _J 1 Washington D. C, Mareta lü, 1883. C. E. Anduews & Co.- Gentlemen : I received by Ij fromTlios. Lydon and J. P. Harkins fcCo., ï r-=" Grand Ave., Milwaokee, and HarperBros., Chica KO, 111., samples of Andrews' Pearl and Royal Bak J I I inr Powdera The cans were in good condition J I I when received ai'.c' theseals unbroken. 1 tind upon ¦ s CO ¦ ¦ analysis tliüt Andrews' Pearl Kaking Powder con i ¦ tains aboutfour aud a halt (4J) per cent, inore Ol I B H crcain larlar than the Knyul Bakin Powder. ÊS jI ¦ and i iruioriionatcl)' larger percentage lof earbonic aclfl ïa, and I liti tl it to bc ¦ lrce l'roin aluin, and any Injurlom NiibH Mances. I 5 I Sineerely yours, Sfcl i g PETER COLLIER, gj.: fiV" -i.r j '" U. 8. Chemiat, Dept. of Agriculuire. ¦ ? i Göraiiiöiii Cteüiist Collier's Analysis as to tlie Leaveniiif Qnalities. ANDREWS' PEAïiLEBUIB&IBBËBBËBBiÈBBÊÊSBÊiïÊBBSMË royal BHBHHHH o wonder the Royal Co. otnitted Andrews' Pearl from their ;' Comparativo Was Government Chemist Collier's analysis shows conclusively two things: W, That Andrews' Pearl contalna more Creain Tartar than the Royal, as fliown by the cuts above ; üd, That the Lea veiling Power of Andrews Pearl isgreater than thr Royal, as sliown by the two black linea above. CHALLEXTGEI. We wil] gye the Royal Co. or any one else $1.000 or $3,000 if they can prove by any fair mutiTal test that Andrews' Pearl Baking Powder does, or ever did, contain llum or any injurtona substances, and this challenge is open forever. Andrews' Pearl Baking Powder is gtwtained by fl testimonial as to itspnrity and strcnglli bythe only genúine cotninissioneu Government chemist, BUch as the Royal Co. liever have publlshed. Tuv It. C. E. AXIiKKWS & CO., 287, 289 & 201 E. Water St, Milwankee, 43 Jlicliigan Ave., Chicago.