5/^ ^^^ 
 
 ■ D 13 
 
/3 
 
7 
 
 /^C^ 
 
 SF 268 
 .D13 
 Copy 1 
 
 ^^^^^....^^ _ 
 
 
 THE OLEOMARGARINE BILL. 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 HON. HERMAN B. DAHLE, 
 
 OF WISCONSIN, 
 
 r ^ 
 
 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 
 
 Thursday, May 17, 1900. 
 
 1900. 
 
 
 <? " 
 
 ^^ f 
 

 ^^ 
 
 (o'i 
 
 Cor.g. Record Off," 
 10 J^.' 01 
 
SPEECH 
 
 OF 
 
 HON. HERMAN B. DAHLE. 
 
 The House being in Committee of the Whole Hoiise on the state of the 
 Union, and having under consideration the bill (S. 3410) making further pro- 
 vision for a civil government for Alaska, and for other purposes- 
 Mr. DAHLE said: 
 
 Mr. Chairman: I will not euter into any general discussion of 
 the pending bill (the Alaska code), btit will take advantage of the 
 rules and practice of the House and will speak on a measure of 
 very great importance to the j)roducers and consumers of dairy 
 products of our country. 
 
 The magnitude of the dairy industry in my State, and especially 
 in my district, emboldens me to address the House on the subject 
 of suitable protection for that industry from unfair and ruinous 
 competition. There is an old maxim to the effect that when the 
 farmer is prosperous the country is prosperous, but that when the 
 farmer is not prospering the country can not long prosper with- 
 out him. The experience of generations has proven the truth of 
 the saying. There can be no enduring prosperity unless it is 
 based on the welfare of the men who till the soil. 
 
 There has been before the House for the greater part of this ses- 
 sion a bill (H. R. 3717), introduced by Mr. Grout, of Vermont, 
 which I believe will do more to promote the legitimate prosper- 
 ity of the agricultural interests of the country than any measure 
 which has been before Congress for many years. It will not only 
 promote the interests of the agricultural population, but will do 
 so notwithstanding the assertions of those opposed to it, without 
 injuring any legitimate industry which places reliable, pure prod- 
 ucts on a fair market and is free from fraud. 
 
 This bill, if passed, will serve two purposes. It will not only 
 safeguard the interests of the producer of butter, but will at the 
 same time protect the consumer from deception in the nature of 
 4517 3 
 
the food lie buys, and enable him to buy butter if he wishes but- 
 ter, and oleomargarine if he wishes oleomargarine, at the proper 
 price for each commodity. The bill to which I refer has been 
 extensively misrepresented. It simply provides that oleomargar- 
 ine shall be sold as oleomargarine and not as butter, and that 
 consumers seeking butter shall not be imposed upon. The bill 
 seeks to place each industry on its own basis and make each 
 stand or fall by its own merits. Can anything be more fair? 
 Wnat injustice is there in this proposition? 
 
 If the manufacture of oleomargarine is a legitimate industry, 
 free from fraud, what wrong is there to it to require its product 
 to be sold on the open market for what it really is, and not for 
 something which it is not? We have heard a great deal during 
 this session about this bill being an effort to crush a legitimate 
 business. How can a legitimate business be crushed by a law 
 which requires its product to be sold for what it actually is? The 
 cry raised hj the friends of imitation butter that the bill will ruin 
 them is a confession that they depend on selling their imitation 
 for butter to continue that enormous business and to reap the 
 enormous profits they have been reaping. 
 
 The cry against this bill is a confession from the men engaged 
 in the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine that their great 
 profits, amounting in some cases to over 100 per cent, depend on 
 fraud and the deception of the consumer. When has a more 
 startling position been taken before a committee of this House by 
 the representatives of any industry? The farmers of the nation 
 come to us with a memorial for protection from fraudulent and 
 ruinous competition with imitation butter, and the representatives 
 of the manufacturers of that imitation come before us and demand 
 that they be permitted to sell an imitation to deceive the consumer 
 and to ruin the farmer. 
 
 We are asked to place each industry on its own basis; make 
 each class of producers sell their product for what it is — butter 
 as butter and oleomargarine as oleomargarine. We are asked to 
 protect the consumer from being deceived as to the food he buys; 
 to protect him from being given oleomargarine, or some other 
 imitation, when he asks for and pays the price of butter. A more 
 fair and just proposition was never laid before Congress. 
 
 4517 
 
The importance and necessity of some sucli legislation as this 
 is readily seen, when it is remembered that the oleomargarine 
 manufacture has doubled and more than doubled in the past four 
 years. The oleomargarine factories of the United States produced 
 45,000,000 pounds of the imitation in 1897, and in 1899 the amount 
 had risen to 83,000,000 pounds. Of this the greater part was con- 
 sumed under the belief that it was butter. 
 
 Were it not that the greater part was palmed off as butter, 
 this bill would not have received the support it has received from 
 the farmers and butter consumers of the United States. Congress 
 was not ajipealed to unt-l every other method of protectins; the 
 dairy industry from this fraudulent and ruinous comiDetition had 
 been exhausted. A majority of the States of the Union have en- 
 acted laws forbidding oleomargarine being colored to imitate but- 
 ter, but from the very nature of things these laws have been 
 found insufficient to jn-otect either the producer or consumer of 
 butter. Oleomargarine manufactured in one State can be sold in 
 another in violation of law, and the officials of neither State can 
 successfully ti'ace the shipment and effectively enforce the law. 
 
 Twenty years' experience has demonstrated that imitation but- 
 ter of any kind can be sold by the dealer to his customers for 
 butter if it be colored to imitate butter, and the substitution is 
 difficult of detection. Any law which seeks to prevent the sale 
 of colored oleomargarine as butter to the consumer by the retailer 
 is very difficult of enforcement, and is on the whole impracticable. 
 Experience in the State of Wisconsin has shown that the proper 
 way to protect the legitimate butter industry is to so tax the man- 
 ufacture of oleomargarine colored to imitate butter that its cost 
 to the retailer will be equal to that of butter and the incentive to 
 fraud is thereby done away with. 
 
 Under existing conditions the temptation to substitute the 
 cheaper imitation for butter when sold to the consumer at retail 
 is very strong. Both kind of goods look alike, and the unskilled 
 consumer can not detect the difference. The dealer will get a 
 profit of perhaps 2 or 3 cents a pound on the butter and twice as 
 much or more on the oleomargarine. Eoth kinds of goods are 
 kept in the same refrigerator. 
 
 The opportunity for substitution and fraud on the consumer ia 
 4617 
 
6 
 
 more than the morals of many men can stand, and the result is 
 that multitudes are given oleomargarine, costing the dealer from 
 10 to 15 cents a pound, in place of butter which was called for 
 and which cost the dealer 18 to 28 cents a pound. The customer 
 paj's for butter. As long as the dealer confines his sales of oleo- 
 margarine as butter to known customers, whom he can rely on 
 not investigating the nature of the goods they are supplied with, 
 he is comparatively safe, and may continue his fraxidulent prac- 
 tices for a long period of time and reap the large i)rofits resulting 
 from getting butter prices for a cheaper substitiite. Against this 
 condition of affairs the producers and consumers of butter are 
 helpless unless Congress comes to their relief. 
 
 The present laws for the protection of the public from fraud in 
 the sale of oleomargarine have failed, and it is because of the fail- 
 ure of these laws, State and national, that this Congress is ap- 
 pealed to. Thirty-two States have enacted statutes against the 
 sale of colored oleomargarine. These statutes have been found 
 unequal to the task of protecting the public, and twenty yeai'S of 
 experience has shown that only a law which shall control the 
 manufacturer and the nature of his product will accomplish the 
 desired end. The evil must be met at its own source and freed 
 from fraud before it gets into the great channels of trade. Human 
 experience has demonstrated the insufficiency of State laws to 
 protect the public from this fraud. 
 
 Experience has also shown that only a law which will clearly 
 distinguish between butter and oleomargarine, in some way that 
 the one can not be sold for the other and the public deceived, will 
 meet this growing evil and avert the danger which threatens the 
 legitimate dairy industry of the nation. Gentlemen may quibble, 
 ma)' talk of the rights of the oleomargarine manufacturer to de- 
 ceive the consumer, but the fact remains that only a national color 
 law will meet the evil. 
 
 As long as oleomargarine can be made and put on the market 
 in imitation of butter, resembling juire butter in color, so long 
 will it be sold as butter. In voting on this question wo must take 
 one horn of the dilemma; we must either allow this admitted evil 
 to continue or we must stop the sale of an imitation for the pure 
 article. The people of the United States demand this action, as 
 4517 
 
is shown by the multitude of memorials before the Committes on 
 Agriculture. In another way, however, the public sentiment of the 
 nation has been shown on this question. Over thirty States have 
 enacted statutes intended to protect the people from deception in 
 the natiire of the food they buy under the name of butter, Not 
 a single one of these statutes has ever been repealed. Can any 
 more direct testimonial be desired of the nature of public senti- 
 ment on this question? 
 
 We have heard before the Committee on Agriculture a great 
 deal of argument against the bill, during which much was sa'.d of 
 oleomargarine as a food for the poor, because it is cheai^er than 
 butter. The representatives of the oleomargarine manufacturers 
 have posed as the friends of the poor man. Now, if this statement 
 of the representatives of the oleomargarine manufacturers is true, 
 why do they wish to color their product and sell it at butter prices? 
 How does the poor consumer benefit from the sale of oleomarga- 
 rine when he pays butter prices for it? Would a law forbidding 
 the coloring of oleomargarine prevent the poor from buying it? 
 Would such a law in any way restrict his right and opportunity 
 to consume it? 
 
 No reasonable man will contend that it will. If the poor or any 
 other class of consumers wish to eat oleomargarine Instead of 
 butter, this bill will not prevent them doing so. The dairymen 
 and butter consumers of the country do not ask that any indi- 
 vidual who prefers oleomargarine shall not be allowed to buy and 
 consume it at his wish. Let butter be sold as butter, and the imi- 
 tation as imitation. As said before, oleomargarine can be sold to 
 the consumer for from 10 to 15 cents a pound. 
 
 This being so, how does the poor man benefit from the sale of 
 oleomargarine when he is charged from 15 to 25 cents a pound 
 for it, the regular price of pure butter? The bill lowers the tax 
 on oleomargarine as such to one-quarter of a cent a pomid, and 
 if it is left uncolored, or is colored some other color than that of 
 butter, the consumer, the poor consumer, will get it at its rightful 
 price, and will be saved from 5 to 15 cents a pound of wliat he is 
 now charged. Nothing shows the hypocrisy of the argument of 
 the oleomargarine manufacturers more clearly than their un- 
 willingness to sell their pj-oduct for what it really is at its proper 
 4517 
 
8 
 
 price. They claim to be the friends of the poor raan, and at the 
 same time insist that they "be allowed to sell hiui oleomargarine at 
 butter prices-. 
 
 This fact was sho\Yn in my own State within the past few years, 
 when nnmerous convictions were had of retail dealers for sailing 
 colored oleomargarine against the State law. The oleomargarine 
 was sold to the poor, but was sold as butter and for butter prices. 
 In no case, as far as I am aware, was the imitation sold otherwise 
 than as pure butter and for the best buTtter prices. This is the 
 whole contention, this is the whole opposition to the bill. " We 
 must be allowed to sell our product for butter," is th3 cry of the 
 oleomargarine industry, " and we must color it to imitate butter 
 to do this." 
 
 The enormous profits resulting from selling oleomargarine at 
 butter prices has caused the bitter fight against this bill. The 
 same enormous profits have caused the creation of a huge fund 
 for the defense of dealers arrested charged with the violation of 
 State laws in the sale of oleomargarine. The profits are so great 
 that men are willing to take many risks of fine and imprisonment' 
 and the manufacturers are willing to spend large sums to keep 
 the market open to their imitation butter. 
 
 One of the principal arguments used against this bill has been 
 the importance of the oleomargarine industry and the large sums 
 invested in the plants of the manufacturers. The bill, we have 
 been assured, will seriously impair the prosperity of this busi- 
 ness, and thereby injui'e a large established industry. The im- 
 mensity of the dairy interests which are being undermined by the 
 fraudulept sa':eof oleomargarine as biitter has received but scant 
 attention from the plausible gentlemen who have been before the 
 committee. The importance of the oleomargarine business, ex- 
 cept to the millionaire owners of the business, is a matter of 
 opinion. 
 
 The importance to the country of the prosperity of the millions 
 of farmers engaged in the production of butter is a matter of fact. 
 The two classes of prodtVjts can not Jive together. Pure bv.tter 
 or colored oleomargarine must give way. Either the sale of 
 colored oleomargarine sold as butter must end, or the farmers 
 engaged in the manufacture of butter must forfeit their pros- 
 perity. Which is the most important to the country? Can any 
 4517 
 
9 
 
 reasonable man sincerely believe that the prosperity of a handful 
 of manufacturers, numbering 20 firms, to be of greater importance 
 than the prosperity of 5,030,000 or more farmers who depend 
 either wholly or partly on the butter market for their well-being? 
 Is the piling up of a few colossal fortunes better to the nation 
 than the prosperity of the farmers scattered over the smiling face 
 of the country? 
 
 The farmer is the great consumer, and on his financial welfare 
 depends, more than on any other, the well-being of the rest of us, 
 and the fact, for fact it is, can not be too strongly dwelt upon, 
 that either he must suffer serious loss or the sale of oleomargarine 
 as pure butter must stop. In 1899 the oleomargarine product was 
 over 83,000,000 pounds, and more thanthree-fourthsof that was sold 
 as butter. Every pound sold as butter displaced a pound of butter 
 and took the value of that pound of butter from the pockets of the 
 farmer. Were this done by legitimate competition there could be 
 but little objection, but all this immense loss to the farmers of the 
 country was caused by fraud, was caused by the consumer who 
 ■wished to obtain the farmer "s product being deceived and tricked 
 into buying something he did not want at a price far in excess 
 of a legitimate profit. 
 
 The sale of oleomargarine is steadily increasing at an average 
 rate of 20 per cent a year, and if this continues, as it is most likely 
 to unless some legislative safeguards are thrown about the con- 
 sumer, the butter makers of the land will scon have to divide 
 the market with this cheaper substitute, and the consumers v/ill 
 be sold more and more of an article they do not want in the guise 
 of what they do want. 
 
 Considering the facts, aside from the exaggerations of the im- 
 portance of the oleomargarine industry, it is easy to see how 
 entirely insignificant the oleomargarine interest is when compared 
 with the dairy interests of even a single State. If the injury 
 which we are assured this bill will work to the oleomargarine 
 business is to be made the test, we will readily appreciate the 
 greater claim of the dairymen and consumers for protection. 
 Much has been said before the committee of tha immensity and 
 importance of the oleomargarine industry. 
 
 The fact is that the entire oleomargarine business, as measured 
 by the value of the plants, machinery, and fixtures of the 26 fac- 
 4517 
 
10 
 
 tories, is not equal to the value of the plants, machinery, and 
 fixtures of the 252 dairy plants of my district alone. Think of it ! 
 The entire value of the plants, machinery, and fixtures of the oleo- 
 margarine factories of the United States not equal to capital 
 5nvested in dairy plants in one Congressional district of four 
 counties. 
 
 One of the largest oleomargarine manufactories in the country 
 is that of William J. Moxley & Co., of Chicago. According to 
 the last statement by this firm to one of our most reliable mercan- 
 tile agencies, the value of this plant, fixtures, and machinery is 
 $30,850.63. There are 26 such factories in the United States, the 
 majority of them smaller and with less capital than this one and 
 ■with less invested in machinery and fixtures. 
 
 The Moxley plant being worth $30,000, it is fair to estimate the 
 average value of the oleomargarine plants, machinery, and fix- 
 tures at $25,000. There are 26 oleomargarine manufactories in the 
 United States, and at the average value of $25,000 the total value 
 of these plants would be $650,000, That is the value of the plants, 
 machinery, and fixtures of the oleomargarine factories of the 
 United States. 
 
 How does this compare with the value of the creameries of a 
 single State, or, better still, a single Congressional district? If it is 
 a business of such magnitude as has been urged, surely it must be 
 worth more than the creameries of four counties comprising the 
 Second Wisconsin district. There are 252 creameries in my dis- 
 trict, worth on an average $2,700, making a total value for the 
 creameries of the district, taking only the values of the plants, 
 machinery, and fixtures, $680,000, or $30,000 more than the entire 
 value of the plants, machinery, and fixtures of all the oleomar- 
 garine factories of the United States. 
 
 This oleomargarine business, because established, now comes 
 before us and argues that it is of such importance and has so much 
 money invested in it that it has the right to undermine and fraud- 
 ulently ruin one of the oldest legitimate agricultural industries of 
 the country. It defends itself against this bill on the ground that 
 it is so important, and yet it has lesis money invested than is in- 
 vested in the legitimate dairy industry of a single Congressional 
 district. 
 
 4517 
 
11 
 
 In the State of Wisconsin there are 951 creameries, with an av- 
 erage value of $2,700, making a total value for the State in plants, 
 machinery, and fixtures of $2,567,700. Set against this sum the 
 value of the plants, machinerj-, and fixtures of the oleomargarine 
 factories of the country, which was given before as $550,000. and 
 you can readily see the insignificant amount invested in the imita- 
 tion business when compared with the legitimate industr}'. 
 
 The representatives of the oleomargarine manufacturers have 
 laid great stress on the amount of money invested in their busi- 
 ness as the reason why it should be allowed to continue its fraud- 
 ulent practice. If the amount invested is the test, how small a 
 voice should the oleomargarine business have in this discussion as 
 compared with the colossal amount invested in butter making in 
 my State alone, not counting the other great dairy States of the 
 Union. 
 
 This method of measuring the relative importance of the two 
 industries is the best one, for it precUides the consideration of 
 watered stock, overcapitalization, and exaggerated values. The 
 average statement as to the value of the oleomargarine business 
 is unreliable because of the impossibility of knowing the exact 
 conditions of the business. In order to make the investment of 
 the industry look large, the representatives of the oleomarga- 
 rine industry figure in immense outstanding accounts, large 
 amount of cash on hand, great quantities of stamps kept in the 
 offices of the concerns. 
 
 The Moxley Company claims total assets at $291,581.16. This is 
 made up, however, chiefly of cash on hand, stamps, bank deposits, 
 and outstanding accounts. Its plant, machinery, and fixtures are 
 worth but $30,850.63 on its own statement; and the actual value 
 of the plant, with the fixtures and machinery considered, is the 
 only true way to measure the two industries. Were the stock 
 kept on hand by the dairymen to be known and the value of their 
 outstanding accounts capable of being measured, they would sliow 
 a sura so immense the amount claimed for the oleomargarine 
 industry would sink into insignificance. 
 
 The nece.-sity of some Federal legislation for the protection of 
 the consumer and the legitimate butter producer can not be more 
 clearly shown than by the immense quantity of oleomargarine 
 4517 
 
12 
 
 sold, colored like butter, in the States where such sale is al3so- 
 lute'y prohibited. I can speak more knowingly, Mr. Speaker, of 
 my own State, where I am somewhat familiar with the condi- 
 tions, and the efforts that have been made to enforce the law. 
 Some years ago a statute was passed absolutely forbidding the 
 sale of oleomargarine colored to resemble butter. 
 
 I know from personal knowledge that the most strenuous efforts 
 have been made by the State dairy and food inspector to enforce 
 this law, and numerous convictions were had for its violation. 
 In each of these cases colored oleomargarine was sold to con- 
 sumers who asked for butter, and they were charged butter 
 prices. In spite, however, of the stringent State law, and the 
 earnest efforts of the State authorities to enforce it, 714,742 
 pounds of yellow oleomargarine were sold in Wisconsin in 1899. 
 This is from the report of the Secretary of the Treasury. 
 
 Notwithstanding this report and the uudisputable evidence of 
 the sales it offers in Wisconsin, you may travel the State over and 
 you will not find a pound of oleomargarine for sale as such. Over 
 half a million pounds sold in the State, and not a pound offered 
 on the market as oleomargarine. Requests in several cities of the 
 State for oleomargarine by would-be consumers was met by the 
 statement from dealers that there was no oleomargarine on the 
 market in Wisconsin. The conditions in Wisconsin are but a sam- 
 ple of the conditions prevailing all over the United States, and 
 demonstrate most effectual!}' the necessity for a Federal law for 
 the protection of the legitimate industry. 
 
 The experience of many years, both among the officials whose 
 duty it is to enforce the law and among men of large experience 
 in the marketing of dairy products, has also taught the necessity 
 of such legislation as the pending bill. I have had some corre- 
 spondence with various firms of long experience in the dairy 
 markers in various States, firms which as a merchant and manu- 
 facturer I have intrusted with my own goods. They are unani- 
 mous in saying that only a Federal law taxing colored oleomarga- 
 rine, so that its cost to the retailer will be equal to that of butter, 
 will be effective. I quote from some of these letters: 
 
 Potter & Williams, Buffalo, N. Y.: 
 
 Your esteemed favor of May 10 is to hand and noted. In reply we would 
 say that from our point of view there is no question but what Mr. Grout's 
 4517 
 
13 
 
 bill slioiild become law. The laws of the State of Now York governing the 
 sale of oleomargarine are in all probability as prohibitive as the laws of any 
 State in the Union, nevertheless the oleomargarine manufacturers find a 
 way of getting around our law, with the result that thousands and thousands 
 of pounds are sold all over the State of New York, not sold as oleomargarine, 
 but sold for butter and colored to look like butter. Our present law forbids 
 the coloring of oleomargarine, and when it is uncolored it is almo.st as white 
 as lard, but in defiance of the law the goods are colored to resemble butter 
 and are sold for butter. 
 
 One of our nearest neighbors was apprehended this spring with something 
 over 500 packages of oleomargarine on hand. His sales jirevious to the time 
 of his apprehension amounted to thousands and thousands of packages, all of 
 which he sold for butter. He also claims that he bought it for butter. We 
 understand the fines due the State of New York from this one man alone 
 amount to aboiit S1G,000, but as yet nothing has been done. Whether the 
 manufacturers of the oleomargarine are protecting him or not we do not 
 know, but at all events the State authorities are not bothering him any now. 
 
 During the time our neighbor was handling oleomargarine every i^ackage 
 of it took the place of a package of pure butter and affected the deinand for 
 pure butter to just that extent. We and all others who were dealing hon- 
 estly in the pure article during the time that our neighbor was handling 
 oleomargarine were practically put out of business. We could not compete 
 with him in price, and apparently his goods were just as good as any pure 
 butter. 
 
 Up to the present time the manufacturers of oleomargarine appear to 
 have been strong enough to defeat the object of all State laws so far as they 
 interfered with the sale of oleomargarine. At the present time no one knows 
 when he buys a pound of butter at the retail store whether he is I'eally tak- 
 ing homo butter or oleomargarine. 
 
 Mr. Grout's bill, of course, is in the interests of dairymen, but at the same 
 time it is also in the interest of every person who desires to deal honestly iu 
 honest goods, and in the interest of every family in the United States. 
 
 A. H. Barber, commission merchant, Chicago: 
 
 I surely think that the Grout bill will be a great benefit to all the farmers 
 who are interested in the dairy business. I think that at least seven-eighths 
 of all oleomargarine is sold over the coianters by the retailers as butter, and 
 if these goods were made uncolored they could not be pawned off to the con- 
 sumers for butter. The manufacturers and the wholesalers, I think, as a 
 usual thing sell it to the retailers as butterine or oleomargarine. 
 
 It is a fact that the sale of oleomargarine has driven the dairymen qxiite 
 largely out of business, as the prices on genuine butter have been so low the 
 past two or three years that but very few factories are getting much more 
 thanhalf the amount of milkthey formerly did. This past winter butter has 
 ruled higher than formerly, on account of the smaller production of butter. 
 If the Grout bill should become a law, it would stimulate the dairymen to 
 increase their herds, and the consequence would Ije a larger jiroduction of 
 butter, and the prices of dairy products would rule at a remunerative price to 
 the farmer. 
 
 Pitt, Barnum & Co., New York: 
 
 The State law prohibits the sale of butterine and oleomargarine in our 
 State, but, beyond all doubt, there is lots of it sold— and it is sold as genuine 
 butter. Our State dairy commissioner is watching it very closely, and has 
 prosecuted a number of cases successfully. There can be no doubt but that 
 the unlawful sale of butterine and oleomai-prai'ine has its eftVct iipon the de- 
 mand and price of pure butter in the sections where they are selling it on 
 the quiet. 
 4517 
 
14 
 
 T. L. Briimlage, commission merchant, Cleveland, Ohio: 
 
 Since receiving your letter I iiave had a conversation with Mr. Reynolds, 
 who was deputy dairy commissioner for a time, and he tells me that he is 
 satisfied that, from the investigations he has made, fully one half of the oleo- 
 margarine sold is sold to the customers for butter, and of course so far as 
 the influence of such sales are concerned on the price of pure butter it must 
 certainly have a great effect, and it can not be otherwise, and as so much of 
 it is being used the demand for butter is very much smaller. I do not thin*^ 
 that it is sold to the retailer for butter, but it is the retailer that sells it to 
 the consumer for butter. The rctai!er without doubt knows what he is 
 handling, and the consumer is the one who suffers, and the dairy industry is 
 crippled and injured also. 
 
 Earl Brothers, Chicago: 
 
 We find that the sale of colored butterine, or oleomargarine, is certainly 
 injurioiis, and also know that it hurts the sale of butter. 
 
 Mr. Speaker, the Republican party has a traditional policy of 
 protection to American industries from destructive foreign com- 
 petition. To that policy the great party to which we belong is 
 committed heart and soul. Protection is the cornerstone of Re- 
 publican policy. Is it consistent to protect the manufacturing 
 industries of the United States from destructive foreign competi- 
 tion and leave the greatest industry of America, that of agricul- 
 ture, open to the onslaughts of an insidioiTS foe from behind? 
 
 Can we justify ourselves before the people in our policy of pro- 
 tection if we leave the farmers of the United States at the mercy 
 of a fraudulent business, which is demoralizing one of the princi- 
 pal agricultural industries of our country? Is it not as worthy 
 and, indeed, as necessary, to protect this great agricultural in- 
 dustry from ruinous and fraudulent competition at home as well 
 as from injurious competition with underpaid lalor abroad? 
 
 The dairymen of the United States are protected from Canadian 
 competition by a tariff. The injury that the Canadian butter 
 makers could do the dairy industry of the United States, how- 
 ever, is slight when compared with the ravages being made in 
 the legitimate dairy industry by the ruinous competition of the 
 oleomargarine dealers selling their imitation as butter. If the 
 General Government felt it its duty to protest the dairymen of 
 the country from Canadian competition, how much more is it the 
 duty of the Government to now step in and protect them from 
 this new danger, compared with which the Canadian competition 
 is a mere incident. 
 
 The real danger to the dairy industry is from within, not from 
 4517 
 
15 
 
 without, the United States. The Government protects the iron 
 industry with a tariff of $4 a ton on i)ig iron, $1 a ton on iron ore, 
 seven-twentieths of a cent a pound on steel rails, and a half a cent 
 a pound on structural steel. Lumher is protected by a tariff of 
 from $1 to $2 a thousand feet; shoe leather, 20 per cent ad valorem ; 
 chinavvare, 55 per cent; brick, 45 per cent; and many others, ex- 
 amples of which might be multiplied. 
 
 All this protection is practical, because the danger to these in- 
 dustries is from foreign competition with its underpaid labor. 
 These industries have nothing to fear from imitations at home. 
 Brick can not be easily imitated by some cheap?r substitute. 
 Steel rails can not be made from the waste slag of iron foundries. 
 Shoes can not be made from the leather scraps of harness shops. 
 They have nothing to fear from an imitation made of far cheaxier 
 materials, but which can not be detected by the consumer. The 
 position of butter is unique. It can be successfully imitated in 
 taste and appearance so that the consumer is unable, without 
 making a chemical test, to recognize the true from the false. 
 
 This being the case, it becomes the duty of the Government to 
 protect the public from imposition in the nature of the food it 
 buys, and at the same time protect the farmers of the nation from 
 the danger which is staring them in the face. Congress has de- 
 fended the American farmer when he was threatened from without 
 by comparatively harmless foes. Shall it now desert him when 
 he is threatened from within by a stalwart enemy? Shall Con- 
 gress, after its long career as the friend of the American farmer, 
 desert him in his hour of need? Let us join in saying "No," by 
 voting for the Grout bill. 
 i517 
 
 o 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRES<; 
 
 000 891 375 I'"' 
 
■ Dl3 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 DDDDflT1375H 
 
 % 
 
 Hollinger Corp. 
 pH8.5