•<- V f ' • o <0 TT* " 4 W • <0 V*. %. fee::'* ^■0.*^ o ♦ » • ,G .0 < O V" ^\' .: ^ ' '!v ^o-r^ :!^^<^: .-lo. %.*" -I^^': %/ -afe'-- \/ .'^- \ « V „ « o "^ A V V „ H n '/'. ^' ^;^^^ %/ />^ V^' y. Ao^ T*-^^*' «-^ v'^ o .0 ^ * • • <* oK ^^-^<^. V ^cp^- 'v'K^ \ oBth Congress, ) SENATE. J Report U Session. \ \ No. 2043. -o-"-' » OLEOMARGARINE AND OTHER IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS, ETC. LIB ^1 A BY OF CONGRESS, HECEIVED FEB 12 1901 January 26, 1901.— Ordered to be printH«)'|SION OF DOCUMENTS, Mr. Proctor, from the "Committee on Agriculture and Forestry submitted the following REPORT, WITH THE VIEWS OF THE MINORITY. [To accompany H, R. 3717.] The Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, to whom was referred House bill 3717, known as the Grout bill, and entitled "An act to make oleomargarine and other imitation dairy products subject to the laws of the State or Territory into which they are transported, and to change the tax on oleomargarine,"" begs leave to submit the following report and recommend the passage of the bill: This bill proposes to increase the tax on oleomargarine colored in semblance of butter and reduce that not colored in imitation of butter to the mere nominal sum of a quarter of a cent a pound, the purpose being to encourage the sale of the genuine article, and to discourage the sale of the imitation article and to protect the honest producer, dealer, and consumer of both l)utter and oleomargarine. So far as the identification of the commodity to the wholesaler is con- cerned, the law of 1886 has been successful. So far as the identifica- tion of the commodity to the consumer is concerned, the law of 188() is of little value, the evidence being that a ver}^ large proportion of the oleomargarine manufactured goes to the consumer finally as butter, either as a purchaser of the retailer or as a guest at a hotel, restaurant, or boarding house. Y'^our committee, realizing the importance of the questions involved in the bill, has inquired very carefully and exhaustively into the exist- ing conditions, as shown by the report of the testimony before the committee, which occupies 580 pages, the taking of which was begun Deceml>er 19 last and occupied the attention of your committee nuich of the time from that date to and includinj?" Januarv 16. Y^'our commit- II OLEOMARGARINE AND OTHER LMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. tee can conceive of no interest which would be affected that was not represented at the hearings and does not s(h^ how anything- new could have been presented had the hearings been continued indeHnitely. It apears from the testimony that through the legislatures of 32 States, with four-tifths of the population of the United States, the peo- ple have expressed theii' c^isa;p]ir(n;al.of ioleomargarine colored in sem- blance of butter; that those wdiohftve been charged with the duty of enforcing the State laws regarding this pi"oduct are positive in the opinion that so Ipiiig as it is colored in imitation of butter fraud upon the consuhier. if not upon the dealer, can not be prevented. Your conmiittee is of the opinion that such fraud is actually sanctioned and defended l)v some of the largest manufacturers, who guarantee their retailers protection in case of prosecution for the sale of oleomargarine in contravention of State laws. It also appeared, and it was not denied b}' the uianufacturers them- selves, that the}' do not feel in any way bound to respect the laws of the States against selling oleomargarine colored in imitation of butter, claiming that they are unconstitutional; and the testimony revealed methods by which such law\s are evaded or their enforcement defeated, despite the fact that such laws have been sustained ))v the courts of last resort in the States and also by the Supreme Court of the Ignited States. So far as the committee has been able to ascertain, this measure has the approval of all State officials and food commissioners whose duties are the enforcement of the laws regulating the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine. It appears to Ije unanimously desired by the farmers of the country who are engaged in dairying, and has the earnest approval of the Sec- retary^ of Agriculture, who appeared l)efore the conmiittee at its request and who has made an exhaustive study of the question from a broad, economic point of view. Your connuittee has listened with interest to the representations of the live-stock interests and the cotton-seed oil manufacturers, and is unable to see in this measure anything that can greatly injure either. The Secretary of Agriculture expressed the opinion before the com- mittee that the dairy cow was a necessity to the restoration of the exhausted cotton lands of the South. We have heard some objections to this measure from organized labor; and while it is true that some laboring men may, as represented, prefer, as a matter of pi'ide. to consume oleomargarine that is yellow instead of white, yet your committee believes that while the pride of some may suffer under this measure, which will raise the tax on the colored and reduce it on the uncolored, a far greater number are now being deceived througn the sale of oleomargarine as butter and at butter prices. Your committee is of the opinion that if oleomargarine is the whole- some and nutritious product that those interested in its manufacture and sale claim it to be, it will meet with a ready demand in its natural color, and especially as the tax on the uncolored product is by this bill reduced from 2 cents to one-quarter of a cent per pound. We submit herewith the report on this measure by the committee of the House and the views of a minoritv of that bodv. FEB 12 1901 D. ofU, Or.EOMARGARINE AND OTHER IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. Ill [House Report No. 1S.'>4, P'i ft y -sixth Congress, first session.] The Coniiiiitlee on Agrieultiire, to \vh(,ni Mas referred H.K.STIT, known ay the Grout bill, " To make oleoniargiririue and oiler iniitati( n ('airy j rf duct s^ subjtitto tlie laws ( f the Sti te orTeriitory into \\i idi ihey are tiansported and to change the tax on oltoniargar'ne," l;eg leave to .suLniit the f( llowing report and recommend the passage of the bill: "We are of the opinion that the peojile have ample cause for alarm at the tremen- dous illegal growth of the oleomargarine trafhc in this countiy duiirg the past few years, which now ajiptais to have reached proportions beyond the power of the States to successfully regulate or control, and the pies-ent Federal aws- are apparently altogether inadequate for the emergency. After carefully weighing the evidence anel suggestions offered for remedies for the regulation of this tratlic we aie cemstrained to hold that the jjrovisiens of H. R. .3717 offer t''e best practical solution of the eiiffie-ulty. We believe that the States should be protected in their rights to regulate their internal affairs to the fullest extent in relatie)n to articles of food which have been adjuelged adulterateel or of a dee*eitful charae'ter, anel we elo not tliink that the inter- state-connnen-e law of the (iovernment shejuld prejtee't a deceitful imitation from the jurisdiction of the State's laws, even if the article in ejuestion is in the original pack- age anel is shipped from an outsieler into the State in such i)ackage. We tind that the very foundation and cause of the enormous amount ejf frauel and ille'gal selling of oleomargarine is in the great profits which are elerived from the sale of the imitation because of its absolute counterfeit of butter, which enables unscru- pulous dealers to impose upon unsuspee^ting customers. These profits are sufficiently large to cause the retailer te) run the chances of eletection and ])rosecution; anel they are further emboldeneel and encouraged through the guaranties of the manufacturers of protection against prosee-utions uneler the State laws. Thirty-two States, having four-fifths of the entire population of the Uniteel States, absolutely forbid the manufacture and sale e)f oleomargarine colored to resemble butter. These laws have l)een upheld in the higher courts without a single exe-ep- tion, anel the question has twice been passed upon favorably l)y the Supreme Court of the United States. Therefore, the policy of a very large majority of our people is plainly against the existence of the article in such counterfeit form. The tax of 10 cents per pounel upon oleomargarine colored to resemble butter will not eleprive the manufacturers anel dealers or e-onsumers of any great amemnt of legal right they now jjossess. Four-fifths e)f the colored ai-ticle maele is sold illegally now. as indicated by the rejiorts of the Treasury Department, anel the only effect of this tax, even were it pre)hiV)itive upon this class of olee)margarine, would be te) itrevent the manufacture of an article the sale of which is e»ontrary to the laws of 32 State's of the Union. This tax will bring the cost of the colored article up to a figure that will take from it the possibility for the large profits which have l)een the incentive to violate the laws of the State and Government and defraud innocent jjure-hasers, while the reeluction of the tax on oleomargarine in its natural color from 2 cents to one-fourth cent per pound will make it j)ossible for the man who really desires to consume oleo'i.argarine to procure it at a much lower cost than heretofore, the emly difference being that it will not contain coloring matter, which not even the oppo- nents of this measure claim contributes anything to its palatableness or nutritive value. We believe the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine will e'ontinue under this measure, anel that those who elesire a che>ap sul)stitute for butter will purchase the uncolored article. The only differene-e is that the counterfeit article, colored in imi- tation of butter, will no longer be accessible to hotel keepers, restaurant keepers, anel boarding-house proprietors at such prices as will be an inducement for them to deceive their guests, as is now, we believe, absolutely universal where it is served, anel thu« another class of consumers, who have been subject to impositicjn for more than twenty years, will be able to know whether they are eating butter fat or hog fat when they spread their bread. If colored oleomargarine is served it will be because it is better and not because it is cheaper than Ixitter. Seriems conditions require drastic measures, anel it e'crtainly appears from the tes- timony of those representing the producers of butter, as well as from the admissions of the witnesse.s for the other side, that those who are engaged in this oleomargarine traffic have absolutely no regard for State laws, and regard the public as their le'giti- mate victim, in whose behalf they resent the interference of the General Govern- ment. The continued existence of such a conelition we can not but believe furnishes a elemoralizing example to our people in trade, who are being tutoreel by this oleo- margarine interest in the art of evasion and defiance of the legally constitutetl authorities. IV OLEOMARGARINE AND OTHER IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. APPENDIX. The poi:)ulation of the States which have passed laws forbidding the sale of oleo- margarine colored in semblance of butter, as shown by the census of 1890, is as follows: Population. New York 5, 997, 853 Pennsylvania 5,228,014 Illinois 3, 826, 351 Ohio 3,672,316 Missouri 2, 679, 184 Massachusetts 2, 238, 943 Michigan 2, 093, 889 Iowa 1, 911, 896 Kentucky 1, 858, 635 Georgia 1, 837, 353 Tennessee 1, 766, 518 Wisconsin 1,686,880 Virginia 1, 655, 980 Alabama 1, 513, 017 New Jersey 1, 444, 933 Minnesota 1, 301, 826 California 1, 208, 130 Population. South Carolina 1, 151, 149 Nebraska 1, 058, 910 Maryland 1, 042, 390 West Virginia 762, 794 Connecticut 746, 253 Maine 661, 086 Colorado 412, 198 New Hampshire 376, 530 Washington 349, 390 Oregon 313, 767 Vermont 332, 442 South Dakota 328, 808 Utah 207, 905 North Dakota 182, 711 Delaware 168, 493 Total 50,117,440 The States and Territories which have not passed laws forbidding the sale of oleo- margarine colored in semblance of butter are: Population. Texas 2, 235, 523 Indiana 2, 192, 404 North Carolina 1, 617, 947 Kansas 1 , 427, 096 Mississippi 1 , 289, 700 Arkansas 1, 128, 179 Louisiana 1 , 118, 587 Florida 321, 422 Rhode Island 345, 506 District of Columbia. . / 230, 392 Population. New Mexico 153, 593 Montana 132, 156 Idaho 84, 385 Oklahoma 61, 834 Wyoming 60, 705 Arizona 59, 620 Nevada 45, 761 Total 12, 604, 790 Views of the Minority. The minority of the Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives beg leave to submit the accompanying bill, which we offer as a substitute for H. R. 3717, known as the Grout bill. We first wish to bring to the attention of the House proof positive that oleomar- garine is a wholesome and nutritious article of food, and is therefore entitled to a legitimate place in the conunerce of our country. In substantiation of this statement we beg to submit the following testimony taken before the committee: OPINIONS OF LEADING SCIENTISTS. Prof. C. F. Chandler, professor of chemistry at Columbia College, New York, says: "I have studied the question of its use as food, in comparison with the ordinary but- ter made from cream, and have satisfied myself that it is quite as valuable as the but- ter from the cow. The product is palatable and wholesome, and I regard it as a most valuable article of food." Prof. George F. Barker, of the University of Pennsylvania, says: "Butterine is, in my opinion, quite as valuable as a nutritive agent as butter itself. It is perfectly wholesome, and is desirable as an article of food. I can see no reason why but- terine should not be an entirely satisfactory equivalent for ordinary butter, whether considered from the physiological or commercial standpoint." Prof. Henry Morton, of the Stevens Institute of Technology, New Jersey, says: "I am able to say with confidence that it contains nothing whatever which is injurious as an article of diet, but, on the contrary, is essentially identical with the best fresh butter, and is superior to much of the butter made from cream alone Avhich is found in the market. The conditions of its manufacture involve a degree of cleanliness and consequent jiurity in the product such as are by no means necessarily or generally attained in the ordinary making of butter from cream." Prof. S. W. Johnson, director of the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station, OLEOMARGARINE AND OTHER IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. V and professor of agricultural chemistry in Yale College, New Haven, says: "It is a product that is entirely attractive and wholesome as food, and one that is for all ordi- nary and culinary purposes the full equivalent of good butter made from cream. I regard the manufacture of oleomargarine as a legitimate and beneficent industry." Prof. S. C. Caldwell, of Cornell University, Ithaca, N. Y., says: "While not equal to fine butter in respect to flavor, it nevertheless contains all the essential ingredients of butter, and since it contains a smaller proportion of volatile fats than is found in genuine butter, it is, in my opinion, less liable to become rancid. It can not enter into competition with fine butter, but so far as it may serve to drive poor butter out of the market, its manufacture will be a public benefit." Prof. C. A. Goessmann, of Amherst Agricultural College, says: "Oleomargarine butter compares in general appearance and in taste very favorably with the average stances. Carefully made physiological experiments reveal no difference whatever in the palatability and digestibility between butterine and butter." Professor Wiley, chief of the Division of Chemistry of the United States Depart- ment of Agriculture, also appeared before the comiiaittee and testified to the nutritive and wholesome qualities of oleomargarine. The Committee on Manufactures of the United States Senate, in a report dated February 28, 1900, finds, from the evidence before it, "that the product known com-, mercially as oleomargarine is healthful and nutritious." Judge Hughes, of the Federal court of Virginia, in a decision, says: "It is a fact of common knowledge that oleomargarine has been subjected to the severest scientific scrutiny, and has been adopted by every leading government in Europe as well as America for use by their armies and navies. Though not origi- nally invented by us, it is a gift of American enterprise and progressive invention to the world. It has become one of the conspicuous articles of interstate commerce and furnishes a large income to the General Government annually." Believing that this testimony establishes beyond controversy that oleomargarine is a nutritious and wholesome article of food, the main question to be considered is the complaint that fraud is practiced in its sale. The only just complaint (indeed the only complaint) against the existing oleomar- garine law consists in the facility with which the retail dealer, in selling from the original or wholesale package and substituting a new and unmarked wrapper, may violate the law. There is nothing in H. R. 3717 (known as the Grout uill) which would decrease the temptation or increase the difficulty of such violations. On the contrary, the increased taxation would either be fraudulently evaded or else would force the honest manufacturer out of business. H. R. 3717 merely increases taxation without providing any new or additional penalties or any new methods to prevent the sale of oleomargarine as butte)-, either in its colored or mic-olored state. In fact. VI OLEOMARGARINE AlW OTHER IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. the radical advocates of the (irout Inll do not seek this end, as they have declareil in their testimony before tlie committee and in declarations elsewhere that their sole intention is to absolutely crush out the manufacture of oleomargarine and eliminate it as a food product. In substantiation of this assertion we quote the following: Mr. Adams, pure food connnissioner of the State of AVisconsin, in his testimony before the committee on March 7, 1900, said: "There is no use beating about the bush in this matter. We want to pass this law and drive the oleomargarine manufacturers out of the business." Charles Y. Knight, secretary of the National Dairy Union, in a lettei' to the Vu- ginia dairymen, dated May 18, 1900, writes: " Now is the time for you to clip the fangs of the mighty octopus of the oleomar- garine manufacturers, who are ruining the dairy interests of this country by manu- facturing and selling in defiance of law a spurious article in imitation of ])ure butter. We have a remedy almost in grasp which will eliminate the manufacture of this article from the food-product list. The (irout bill, now pending' in the Agricultural ronnnittee of the House of Representatives in Congress, meets the demand." \V. D. Hoard, ex-governor of AVisconsin and president of the National Dairy Union, stated in his te.stimony before theconnnittee on March 7, 1900, as follows: "To give added force to the first section of the bill, it is provided in the .second sec- tion that a tax of 10 cents a pomid shall be imposed on all oleomargarine in the color or semblance of butter. In plain words, this is repressive taxation." In view of this testimony the minority believe they are justified in claiming that the Grout l)ill, if enacted into law, would destroy the business of the legitimate oleo- margarine manufai-turers. In other words. Congress is l)eing asked to ruin one indus- try to benefit another; and this, in the opinion of the minority, is a thing Cbngrcss ought not to do. The minority believe it to be class legislation of the most pro- nounced kind and would estal)lish a precedent which, if allowed, would create monopolies, destroy conij)etition, and nulitate against the public good. The substitute bill offered by the minority would, in our opinion, eliminate all possibility of fraud, and would compel the manufactiu'ers of and dealers in oleo- margarine to sell it for what it really is and not for butter. The substitute offered is practically an amendment to section :5 and (i of the existing oleomargarine law. The licenses for manufacture and sale of this article ai'e not changed, and are as follows: Manufacturers, $H00 per anninn ; wholesale dealers, !t!480 per anmim; retail-- ers, $48 per annum, while the penalties imposed for violations of the law are materially increased. We (juote in full .'section 2 of the substitute bill, and ask for it the careful and thoughtful consideration of the House, believing that it is just and fair to all the interests involved: "Sec. 2. That all oleomargarine shall l)e i)Ut uj) by the manufacturer for .'iale in packages of one and two pounds, respectively, and in no other or larger or smaller package; and upon every })rint, l)rick, roll, or lump of oleomargarine, before being so put up for sale or removal from the fat-tory, there shall be imjjressed by the man- ufacturer the word 'oleomargarine' in sunken letters, the size of which shall ))e prescribed by regulations made .by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and approved by the Secretary of the Treasury; that every such print, Ijrick, roll, or lump of oleomargarine shall first be wrapped with paper wrapper with the word 'oleomargarine' printed thereon indistinct letters, and said wrapper shall also bear the name of the manufacturer, and then shall be ])ut by the manufacturer thereof in such wooden or paper packages or in such wrappers, with the word 'oleomargarine' printed thereon in distinct letters, and marked, stamped, and ])randed in such man- ner as the Commi.^^sioner of Internal Revenue, with the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, shall {irescribe, and the internal-revenue stamp shall l)e affixed so as to surround the outer wrapper of each one and two pound package: Prondi'd, That any number of such original stamped packages may l)e put up by the manufacturer in crates or boxes, on the outside of which shall be marked the word 'oleomargarine,' with such other marks and brands as the Connnissioner of Internal Revenue .shall, by regulations approved Ijy the Secretary of the Treasury, prescrii)e. " Retail dealers in oleomargarine shall sell only the original j^ackage to which the tax-paid stamp is affixed. "Ever}' person \\ho knowingly sells or offers for sale, or delivers oi" offers to deliver, any oleomargarine otherwise than as provided by this act or contrary to the regulations of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue made in pursuance hereof, or who packs in any package any oleomargarine in any manner contrary to law, or who shall sell or offer for sale as butter any oleomargarine, colored or uncolored, or who falsely brands any package, or affixes a stamp on any package denoting a less amount of tax than that required by law, shall be fined for the first offense not less than one hundred nor more than five hundred dollars and be imprisoned not le.«s than thirty days nor more than six months; and for the second and every subsequent offense OLEOMARGARINE AND OTHER IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. VII shall 1)e lined not less than two hundred nor more than one thousand dollars and be imprisoneroduct lowered bj' the pas.sage of the Grout bill and the destruction of the oleomargarine industry. The manufacture and sale of oleomargarine does not interfere with the growth and prosperity of the butter industry. Statistics show a nmch greater percentage in the increase of the production of butter than in the production of oleomargarine. Though similar in ingredients, they are not strictly competing, as the oleomargarine is prac- tically all bought l)y the poorer class of our people. In justification of this statement we have received a large number of petitions from the labor organizations of our country protesting against the passage of this 1)111 for the above-given reasons. It being possi1:)le to keep oleomargarine in a sweet and sound condition nmch longer than l)utter, it is also used extensively in the mining and lumber camps, on exploring and hunting expeditions, on ships at sea, and by armies in the Held. The claim made by the friends of the Grout bill that the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine has greatly depreciated the price of butter will not obtain when it is known that there is now manufactured in the United States nearly 2,000,000,000 pounds of butter annually, and it is positively known that there only were 83,000,000 pounds of oleomargarine manufactured last year, which shows that the amount of oleomargarine produced is al)out 4 per cent of the amount of butter i)roduced. Therefore, the argument that oleomargarine in any material sense controls the price of butter is not justified by the facts. The manufacture and sale of oleomargarine have in no way depreciated the price of butter, as more butter is beijig sold at a higher i->rice in this country than ever before, as shown by testimony. It is a suggestive fact that those sections of our country which are most exclusively devoted to the dairy interests are blessed with the greatest prosperity, as brought out in the testimony of ex-Governor Hoard, of Wisconsin, before our coimnittee, who said that a few years ago land was worth only $15 an acre in that State, but as the State began to be devoted more exclusively to the dairy interests land had rapidly appreciated in price, and that farmers had gotten out of debt, had jiaid their mort- gages, and the land is now worth the sum of $80 per acre, this price averaging much higher than agricultural lands in other parts of the country. In conclusion, the members of the Committee on Agriculture who have joined in this minority report beg to assure the House and the (Country in the most solemn man- ner possible that it has been their earnest intention, and is now their determination, to do everything possible to be done to enforce the sale of oleomargarine as oleomar- garine and to prevent its sale as butter. To prevent fraud and not to stamp out an industry has been and is our purpose. We believe that it ought to be the sole pur- pose of all legislation and the sole motive of all just men. J. AV. Wadsworth. Wm. Lorimer. W. J. Bailey. G. H. White. John S. Williams. J. W.M. Stokes. H. D. Allex. [SuUstitute for H. R. 3717.] A BILL To amend sections three and six of an act entitled "An act defining butter, also imposing a tax upon and regulating the manufacture, sale, importation, and exportation of oleomargarine." approved August second, eighteen hundred and eighty-six, and also to define manufacturers and dealers and to provide for the payment of si)ecial taxes by them. Be it enacted by tJte Senate and House of Representatives of tJie United States of A}iierica in Congress assembled, That sections three and six of an act entitled "An act defin- ing butter, also imposing a tax upon and regulating the manufacture, sale, importa- tion, and exportation of oleomargarine," apjiroved August second, eighteen hundred and eighty-six, be amended so as to read as follows: "Sec. I. That special tax on the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine shall l>e VIII OLEOMARGARINE AND OTHER IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. imposed as follows: Manufacturers of oleomargarine shall pay six hundred dollars per annum. Every person who manufactures oleomargarine for sale shall be deemed a manufacturer thereof. " Wholesale dealers in oleomargarine shall pay four hundred and eighty dollars per annum. Every person who sells or offers for sale oleomargarine in quantities greater than ten pounds at a time shall be deemed a wholesale dealer therein; but a manufacturer of oleomargarine who has given the required bond and paid the required special tax, and who sells oleomargarine of his own production only at the place of its manufacture in the original packages to which the tax-paid stamps are affixed, shall not be required to pay the special tax of a wholesale dealer on account of such sales. "Retail dealers in oleomargarine shall pay forty-eight dollars per annum. Every person who sells or offers for sale oleomargarine in quantities not greater than ten pounds at a time shall be regarded as a retail dealer therein. "Sec. 2. That all oleomargarine shall be put up )jy the manufacturer for sale in packages of one and two pounds, respectively, and in no other or larger or smaller package; and upon every print, brick, roll, or lump of oleomargarine, before being so put up for sale or removal from the factory, there shall be impressed by the manufacturer the word 'oleomargarine' in sunken letters, the size of which shall be prescribed by regulations made by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and approved by the Secretary of the Treasury; that every such print, brick, roll, or lump of oleomargarine shall first be wrapped with paper wrapper with the word ' oleo- margarine' printed thereon in distinct letters, and said wrapper shall also bear the name of the manufacturer, and shall then l)e put by the manufacturer thereof in such wooden or paper packages or in such wrajjpers and marked, stamped, and branded with the word 'oleomargarine' printed thereon in distinct letters, and in such manner as the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, with the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, shall prescribe, and the internal-revenue stamp shall be affixed so as to surround the outer wrapper of each one and two pound package: Provided, That any number of such original stamped packages may be put up by the manufacturer in crates or boxes, on the outside of Avhich shall be marked the word 'oleomargarine,' with such other marks and brands as the Commissioner of Internal Revenue shall, by regulations approved by the Secretary of the Treasury, prescribe. "Retail dealers in oleomargarine shall sell only the original package to which the tax-paid stamp is affixed. "Every person wdio knowingly sells or offers for sale, or delivers or offers to deliver, any oleomargarine otherwise than as provided by this act or contrary to the regulations of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue made in pursuance hereof, or who packs in any package any oleomargarine in any manner contrary to law, or who shall sell or offer for sale, as butter, any oleomargarine, colored or uncolored, or who falsely brands any package, or affixes a stamp on any package denoting a less amount of tax than that required by law, shall be fined for the first offense not less than one hundred nor more than five hundred dollars and be imjjrisoned not less than thirty days nor more than six months; and for the second and every subsequent offense shall be fined not less than two hundred nor more than one thousand dollars and be imprisoned not less than sixty days nor more than two years." VIEWS OF THE MINORITY. The minority of the Committee on Agricnlture and Forestry beg leave to .submit to the Senate a substitute for the bill H. R. 3717, with favorable recommendation. The substitute is as follows: [Substitute for H. R. 3717.] A BILL to amend sections three and six of an act entitled "An act defining butter, also imposing a tax upon and regulating the manufacture, sale, importation, and exportation of oleomargarine." approved August second, eighteen hundred and eighty-six. and also to define manufacturers and dealers and to provide for the payment of special taxes by them. Be it enacted by the Se))ate and House of Representatires of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That sections three and .six of an act entitled "An act defining butter, also imposing a tax upon and regulating the manufacture, sale, importation, and exportation of oleomargarine," approved August second, eighteen hundred and eighty-six, be amended so as to read as follows: "Sec. 1. That special tax on the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine shall be imposed as follows: ^Manufacturers of oleomargarine shall pay six hundred dollars l^er annum. Every person who luanufactures oleomargarine for sale shall be deemed a luanufacturer thereof. " Wholesale dealers in oleoiuargarine shall pay four hundred and eighty dollars jier annum. Every person who sells or offers for sale oleomargarine in quantities greater than ten pounds at a time shall be deemed a wholesale dealer therein; l)ut a manufacturer of oleomargarine who has given the required bond and paid the required special tax, and who sells oleomargarine of his own production only at the place of its manufacture in the original packages to which the tax-paid stamps are affixed, shall not be required to pay the special tax of a whole.sale dealer on account of such sales. " Retail dealers in oleomargarine shall pay forty-eight dollars per annum. Every person who sells or offers for sale oleoiuargarine in quantities not greater than ten pounds at a time shall be regarded as a retail dealer therein. "Sec. 2. That all oleomargarine shall be put up by the manufacturer for sale in packages of one and two pounds, respectively, and in no other or larger or smaller package; and upoia every print, brick, roll, or lump of oleomargarine, before being ^so put up for sale or removal from the factory, there shall be impressed by the manufacturer the word 'oleomargarine' in sunken letters, the size of which shall be prescribed by regulations made by the Comiuissioner of Internal Revenue and approved by the Secretary of the Treasury; that every such print, brick, roll, or lump of oleomargarine shall first be wrapped with paper wrapper with the word 'oleo- margarine' printed thereon in distinct letters, and said wrapper shall also bear the name of the luanufacturer, and shall then be put by the manufacturer thereof in such wooden or paper packages or in such wrappers and marked, stamped, and branded with the word ' oleomargarine ' printed thereon in distinct letters, and in such manner as the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, with the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, shall prescribe, and the internal-revenue staiup shall be affixed so as to surround the outer wrapper of each one and two potmd package: Provided, That any number of such original staiuped packages may be put ujTby the manufacturer in crates or boxes, on the outside of which shall be luarked the word 'oleomargarine,' with such other marks and brands as the Commissioner of Internal Revenue shall, by regulations approved by the Secretary- of the Treasury, prescribe. "Retail dealers in oleomargarine shall sell only the original package to which the tax-paid staiup is affixed. "Every person who knowingly sells or offers for sale, or delivers or offers to deliver, any oleomargarine otherwise than as provided by this act or contrary to the regulations of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue made in pursuance hereof, or who packs in any package any oleomargarine in any manner contrary to law, or who shall sell or offer for sale, as l)utter, any oleomargarine, colored or uncolored, or who X OLEOMARGARINE AND OTHER IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. falsely brands any package, or affixes a stamp on any package denoting a less amount of tax than that required l)y law. shall be lined for the first offense not less than one hundred nor more than five hundred dollars and be imprisoned not less than thirty days nor more than six months; and for the second and every subsequent offense shall be fined not less than two hundred nor more than one thousand dollars and be imprisoned not less than sixty days nor more than two years." Oleoinaro-arhie is a logitiiiiate article ot comnieiro. This has been distinctively held by the Supreme Court of the United States. In the case of SchoUenberger v. Pennsylvania (171 V. S., 80), which was decided May 2(5, 1898, the Supreme Court held as fol- lows: In the examination of this subject the first (|uestion to be considered is whether oleomargarine is an article of commerce. No aftirmative evidem^e from witnesses called to tlie stand and s])eaking directly to that subject is found in the record. We must determine the (|uestioii with reference to those facts wliich are so well and universally knovvn that i'(>urts will take notice of them without particular proofs being addut-ed in regard to them, and also by reference to those dealings of the com- mercial world which are of like notoriety. Any legislation of Congress upon this subject nmst, of course, be recognized by this court as of first importance. If Con- gress has affirmatively pronounced it a pro])er subject of commerce, we should rightly be influenced l)y that declaration. After referring to the act of Congress of August 2, 1886, being the law now in force, im})osing a tax of 2 cents a poiuid on oleomargarine, the court further stated as follows: This shows that Congress at the time of its passage in ISSH recognized the article as a proper subject of taxation, and as one w hich was the subject of traffic and of exportation to foreign countries and of importation from such countries. Its manu- facture was recognized as a lawful pursuit, and taxation was levied upon the manu- facturer of the article, upon the wholesale and retail dealers therein, and also upon the article itself. Concluding upon this branch of the case, the court stated as follows: The article is a subject of exp(jrt and is largely used in foreign countries. Upon all these facts we think it apparent that oleomargarine has become a proper suljject of commerce among the States and the foreign nations. Coloring matter is used both in the making of butter and in the manufacture of oleomargarine for the purpose of catering to the tastes of consumers who have been accustomed to a generally yellow tint in l)oth food products. Neither the makers of butter nor the manufacturers of oleomarga- rine can chiim rightfully any exclusive right to the use of coloring mat- ter in their respective prodticts. Both admit that coloring matter is used for the reason that their customers prefer an article of a yellowish tint. If consumers preferr(>d the article white, or free from anj^ tint whatever, the makers of butter and the manufactiu'ers of oleomarga- rine could just as easily, and even more easil3% respond to that taste. The question for the lawmaking power to consider is this: Should the law interfere in a case of this kind and aid the makers of one product iuid injure the mantifacturers of the others The second section of the proposed l)ill imposes a tax of 10 cen's a pound upon colored oleomargarine, or, in the language of the act, ""col- ored in tht^ imitation of butter." The advocates of this proposed legis- lation admit that their object is to place the tax on oleomargarine so high that it can not be placed upon the markets of the country if colored. It is the universal opinion of those engaged in the manufacture of oleomargarine that a tax of 10 cents a pound upon the product colored a yellow tint will destroy that industry, for the reason, which expe- OLEOMARGARINE AND OTHER IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. XI rience has shown, there Avould not })e any considerable demand for oleomargarine in an uncolored condition, Tliis opinion is based upon efl'orts which have already been made to introduce and sell the uncol- ored pi'oduct in States where anticolor laws now prevail. The object, therefore, of imposing this excessive tax of 10 cents a pound upon colored oleomargarine is not for the purpose of raising revenue, but for the purpose of prohibiting its manufacture, and of thus destroying* the industry. It is of no importance that the proposed legislation reduces the tax on uncolored oleomargarine from 2 cents a pound to one-fourth of a cent a pound. Unless there is reason to believe there would be a substantial production of that kind of article, the increase of the tax of 10 cents a pound would, in all probability, prevent any substantial revenue l^eing derived from its manufacture. The alleged frauds committed in the sale of oleomargarine are not attributed to the manufacturers, but to the retail dealers in the article. This brings us to the consideration of the question whether fraud in the sale of oleomargarine as butter can better be prevented by the proposed legislation, which imposes a tax of 10 cents a pound upon its manufacture, or by the enactment of more stringent regulations governing the retail dealer. Under the present law^ the retail dealer is required to lireak the original package in which he receives oleomargarine from the manu- facturer. The smallest package which the law permits the manufac- turer to place upon the market contains 10 pounds. The retail dealer is only permitted to sell from the manufacturer's original packages. If he desired to sell in 10-pound packages or over, he would be required to take out a wholesale dealer's license, which is fixed at $480 a year. This makes it necessary for the retailer to break the original pack- age, and it is conceded that whatever frauds may be committed occur l)y reason of this fact. If the retail dealer desires to commit a fraud upon his customer, the opportunity for so doing is thus afforded. If legislation can be enacted which will require the retail dealer to sell oleomargarine in the origi- nal package put up by the manufacturer Avithout breaking the wrap- per or the internal-revenue stamp of the Government, and if such wrappers and stamps were clearly and distinctly marked and branded, under regulations of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, the opportunity, to commit fraud upon the customer would be whollv eliminated or reduced to a minimum. This opinion is entertained by those most intimately connected with the manufacture and selling of oleomargarine: and it is also the opinion of the Secretary of the Treas- ury, given in his statement liefore the Senate Committee on Agricul- ture: and also the opinion of ex-Commissioner of Internal Revenue. Mr, Wilson, given in his statement before the House Committee on Agriculture. Under the proposed bill the temptation to fraud on the part of the retail dealer would be largely increased from the fact that he will be enabled to buy the uncolored oleomargarine, on which one-fourth of a cent per pound tax is imposed, and by coloring the same himself increase the value of his product 9^ cents per pound, for the reason that he could sell the same at this largely increased profit for either butter or oleomargarine. We assume that the lawmaking JDOwer of the Government desires to prevent the possibility of fraud in the sale of oleomargarine as but- XII OLEOMARGARINE AND OTHER IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. ter and not to destroy the industry itself. We therefore recommend legislation upon the subject which will make fraudulent sales as near impossible as laws can provide. We have omitted reference heretofore to the first section of the pending bill. This section has for its object the placing of oleomarga- rine under the police laws of the several States, notwithstanding its introduction into a State in the original package. This provision is for the purpose of avoiding the effect of the ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Schollenberger v. Pennsyl- vania, reported in 171 U. S., 1-30. The opinion of the Supreme Court in that case was to the effect that a lawful article of conmierce can not be wholly excluded from importion into a State from another State where it was manufactured. It was conceded in that opinion that a State has power to regulate the introduction of any article, including a food product, so as to insure purity of the article imported, but that such police power does not include the total exclusion even of an article of food. The States may provide for a reasonable inspection of all food prod- ucts imported into them, but the object of this legislation must be inspection and not prohibition of the traffic. . It is true that Congress, in 1890, passed an act which placed intoxicating liquors under the police power of the States; but oleomargarine, which is a wholesome and nutritious food, ought not to be treated in the same manner that the law regards intoxicating liquors. The States should not be per- mitted by C'Ongress to interfere in its sale, and especially should Con- gress refuse to place the article subject to the laws of the States, which might exclude its manufacture or sale entirely. The States my inspect oleomargarine for the purpose of ascertaining whether it was free from adulterants or unwholesome ingredients; but Congress should not recognize the right of a State to exclude it from importation and sale therein, so long as it is conceded to be nutritious as an article of food. The proposed bill is not a revenue measure. It is not for the pur- pose of raising revenue or reducing surplus revenue. In fact, in no sense is it a measure resting for its authority upon the taxing power of the Government. Its object is to prevent competition between two home industries by building up the one and destroying the other. Such use of the taxing power of the Government is an abuse which should not be encouraged or even tolerated for a moment. , The prece- dent will open wide the door for all manner of vexatious schemes and instigate selfish greed to demand legislation involving every conceiv- able interference of Government with private interests. It is an effort to so frame our internal-revenue laws that one class of home producers will be protected from competition with another class of home producers. While our Government has adopted the policy of protecting home producers against foreign producers of the same kinds of articles, there can be no excuse or justification for interfering among our own citizens by aiding one industr}" at the expense and to the injury or destruction of another. This policy would tend to destroy all benefits which consumers receive from improved processes of production, from labor-saving machinery, and from the results of invention. By such means all progress could be arrested and mankind could be deprived of the blessings which modern science and genius are securing to the world. The taxing power of the Government can not be used for any object OLEOMARGARINE AND OTHER IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. XIII other than the public needs. As was said by the Supreme Court of the United States, in Loan Association r. Topeka (20 Wallace, 664), ''To lay with one hand the power of the Government on the propert}' of the citizen and with the other to bestow it upon favored individuals to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes is none the less a robber}' because it is done under the forms of law and is called taxation."' While under the proposed l)ill the object is not to donate the taxes which may be raised to aid a particular industry, yet the imposition of the tax is for the purpose of enabling one industry to sell its products free from competition with another, and thus to exact from the public an increased price for the product, not for the benefit of the public Treasury but for private purposes solely. The effect upon the people is the same in both cases. As was stated in the opinion of the Supreme Court in the Topeka case, "there can be no lawful tax which is not laid for a public purpose." This doctrine is so well recognized that it is unnecessary to produce further authorities upon the subject. There is no conflict of judicial opinions; all are in harmony with the opinion in the Topeka case. The proposed bill is class legislation of the most dangerous character. It is not demanded by any existing economic conditions in this country, and its passage would be a perversion of the taxing power of the Gov- ernment, and a violation of the Constitution, l)oth in its letter and spirit. The Hon. Lyman J. Gage, Secretary of the Treasur}^ was invited to come before the committee and give his view from a revenue stand- point. The following is a part of his testimony: SetTetary Gage. Of course I only feel at liberty to state my views as the Secretary of the Treasury, and only upon that part of the bill which involves the question of revenue. I might have personal views which go far beyond those; but you would probably not care much about them. There" is, in my opinion, an objection to the bill on either theory. If it is a rev- enue producer, it is superfluous; we do not need it. If it is not a revenue producer, then the title of the bill is a misnomer, and it is inoperative in the name of revenue. It seems to me that on either theory there are serious objections to it. I think that covers all I care to say directly on the subject. ******* The Acting Chairm.\n. Mr. Secretary, can you tell us what has been the experi- ence, in a general way, of your Department in the collection of the revenue on oleo- margarine? You know, of course, that there is now a 2-cent tax on it. Secretary Gage. Yes, sir; I think the revenue is well collected. There has been considerable discussion of that subject between the Commissioner of Internal Rev- enue (especially Commissioner Wilson) and myself, at different times; and we think we are cheated to some extent, as we are in all revenue matters. ******* Senator Bate. Then I suppose the losses in oleomargarine internal-revenue col- lections are about on a par with the losses in all other revenue collections? Secretary Gacje. Well, they are on a par with the losses in most of the revenue collections. There is not any great disparity. ******* Senator Allen. Of course the liquor can not go out without the consent of the Government? Secretary Gage. No, sir; but the tax on liquor is |1.10 a gallon, while that onbut- terine is 2 cents per pourtd, so that the temptation is very much greater in the one case than in the other. Senator Allen. The only thing with which you are concerned is the tax? Secretary Gage. That is the main thing, of course. Senator "Money. The remark you have just made, Mr. Secretary, suggests this question: You say the greater the tax the greater the incentive to fraud. The same rule would apply here, would it not? Secretary Gage. Undoubtedly. XIV OLEOMARGARINE AND OTHER IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. Conflicting interests have appeared ])efore the committee, one to demand the exercise of the taxing power in order to crush a I'ival in the business, and the other to ask that it be permitted to continue the manufacture of a product, wholesome and nutritious, for the benefit of the thousands who are unable, b}' their poverty, to buy butter. The makers of oleomargarine, of dairy l»utter, of creamery butter, of the process or renovated or resurrected butter, have all appeared, person- ally or l)v representatives, to insist upon their interests being more or less protected or not to be interfered with. The producers of cotton- seed oil and the live-stock growers have also been represented, asking that there be no further interference with the protits of their several industries for the benetit of the dairy nien. In the consideration of this subject the quarrels of the respective manufacturers and parties at interest as to the protits to be lost or made from this legislation are not so important as the rights of the consumers of the several products. There are millions of working- people who are not producers of any articles of food, but who nmst con- sume these various products. They can not all of them buy butter, and. as the object of this bill is evidently — from the expressions of the lead- ing advocates of the bill — to exterminate the oleomargarine industry, these great numbers of people are interested that such nefarious legis- lation should be defeated. They have rights as well as the manufac- ' turers of Imtter and oleomargarine, as well as the cotton-seed-oil and the live-stock men, and it is the cry of the consumer, the cry of the poor, that should have the lirst attention of the Senate. Below is appended statements hy accredited representatives of the various la])or organizations of the counti'v, and it can not he dou})ted that the}- speak not only for those who have formally accredited them to us, but also for the vast number of unrepresented poor people whose interests and whose w^ants are the same. Mr. Patrick Dolan, president of the United Mine Workers' Asso- ciation, testified as follows: Our people, Mr. Chairman, are against the passage of the measure. I represent over 40,000 miners and their families, and I know from the sentiment in other sec- tions of the country to which I go, from talking to people who are interested in our organization, that they do not want to be deprived of the ability to purchase this wholesome article of food. If it is not made in a wholesome way, then they do not want it; but if it is just as good to them to spread their bread with as 35-cent butter, they do want it. And if this measure passes the chances are that butter will go up to 50 cents, and poor people will not be able to purchase it at all. Mr. fJohn Pierce, representing the Amalgamated Association of Iron and Steel Workers, said: Colored oleomargarine is at present retailed at from 12J to 20 cents per pound. On investigation I am satisfied that most of our people are paying about 15 cents per pound for it, and I can not admit that those who buy it can afford to pay more. I therefore arrive at the conclusion that they must either find 10 cents per pound more to pay this proposed robbery (for I can not dignify it by the name of tax) or buy and eat white oleomargarine. And this to satisfy the greed of the manufacturers of but- ter, who think that white oleomargarine is good enough for those who can not afford to pay 10 cents additional for yellow, or the 20 cents or more additional for creamery butter, or use the off grades of butter now unsala))le as food. Shall those thus defrauded of what should be their inalienable constitutional right l)e compelled either to wear in their homes, on their very tables, flaunting before the eyes of their children and of those who may share their board, a badge of their poverty, and an emblem of their inability to pay a legalized robbery; or, on the other hand, to contribute from their meager board to the hellish greedof the butter interests, of OLEOMARGARINE AND OTHER IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. XV ^\■holn it hass been doubtless truly said that they seek to follow the fashion and form a trust, but are deterred by the existence of oleomargarine? * * * * * * -:f Now, Mr. Chairman, there are a good many of our people who make pretty good wages, and of course they can buy butter; T)ut the majority of them make small wages now, es{)ecially since we got into this trust l)usiness. I know there are lots of men who do not like to l)uy this white oleomargarine, because it looks more like lard than anything else. It does not look like butter at all. Why should they be made to pay 10 cents a jHiund more bei-anse they get l)utter that resembles country butter and looks a little l)etter on the table? That is why I am here to oppose the passage of this bill. It is for our people alone, for of course I do not know much al)out the 1 lutter business myself. Mr. John F. McNameo, vice-president and chairman logi.shitive com- mittee Cohimbus Trades and Labor Assembly, Colum])us, Ohio, said: I bear from the Central Labor Union of the city of Columbus, Ohio, ofticiall)' known as the Columbus Trades and Lal)or Assembly, credentials which, with your permis- sion, I will. read to you: Columbus, Ohio, Jdiinari/ o, I'joi. To irJioiii It may conctni: This is to certify that the bearer, ;\Ir. John F. McNamee, vice-president of the Columbus Trades and Labor Assembly, is authorized and empowered by said body to exert every effort and use all honorable means in accomplishing the defeat of a measure now pending in the United States Senate, and known as the Urout bill, the object of which is to destroy a legitimate industry in the interest of its competitors, said Grout bill being regarded by said Trades and Labor Assembly and all it repre- sents as a gross injustice, class legislation, an invasion of citizenship rights, and a serious menace to the best interests of all citizens, ])articularly those in moderate circumstances. Any courtesies extended to our representative, Mr. McXamee, will be fully apjire- ciated and remembered liy the Colum)>us Trades and Labor Assembly. [seal.] Frank B. Cameron, Prcsidcid. WiivLiAM P. Hauck, Sccretdr;/. This letter of introduction which I have presented represents but faintly the bitter antagonism which jirevails in the ranks of organized la))or to said measure. ******* The members of organized labor are thoroughly familial- with all of the pha.ses of this bill. They speak about the chemical analyses which have been made of oleomar- garine by official chemists, and they discuss all of the various components and ingre- dients of the product with almost as nmch familiarity as the manufacturers themselves are capable of doing. So I say that they are wide awake to the necessity, in the pro- tection of their own interests, of having the bill defeated. Not only that; but as patriotic American citizens they feel deeply the indignity to which our legislative bodies have been subjected by this attempt to utilize them for the promotion of the interests of certain individuals and corporations in violation of every sense of right and justice and at the expense of the constitutional prerogatives of other citizens. They feel that the legislative bodies of some of our States and the Congress of the United States have been insulted by this attempt to utilize them as tools for the pro- tection of certain interests which can not sustain themselves against competitors. ******* Gentlemen, there are hundreds of thousands of our citizens in uKxlerate circum- stances who are now looking to the United States Senate for protection against the per- petration of such a gross injustice. They are depending absolutely upon that sense of justice, that sense of honor, fair play, and conservatism which has always character- ized this body to protect them from this, one of the most culpable violations of their rights which any individual or com])ination of individuals has ever attempted to perpetrate upcMi the Amerit'an inil)lic. Tliey are looking to this body with tlie firm hope that its traditional love of justice will jirevail and jiredominate in this crisis. Should this measure become a law, aiising from the mists of the near future there will come a monster into whose insatiable maw the contributions of our citizens shall continually flow, and whose appetite shall l)e increased by all attempts at its gratifi- cation. This monster we have all, in our apprehensive conviction of the certainty of its existence, learned to regard as the creamery trust of the future — the coud)inatiou of creamery interests into one great organization, which shall monopolize the manu- XVI OLEOMARGARINE AND OTHER IMITATION DAIRY PRODLCTS. facture, not only of the food product known as butter, but of everything of that nature. That octopus is now being conceived. If the United States Senate should consent to the passage of a bill so outrageously unjust as this one is, then its birth will have been accomplished. ****** 4e- Now, we can not see that there is any justice whatever in placing any tax upon oleomargarine. Heaven knows that its manufacture is already sufficiently restricted and that it is an utter impossibility, under the stringent laws which exist in almost all of our States regulating its sale, for any deception to be practiced therein. And I want to assure you, gentlemen, that if any deception in this connection should be attempted in our part of the country it would be, and often is, in undertaking to palm off inferior butter for the product known as oleomargarine. I am myself a con- stant consumer of the article, and I propose that it shall be continually used by my family, because I know, and so do all of the members of organized la1)or who have listened to the discussions relative to this product in their various unions, that it is absolutely free from all disease germs; that the process of its manufacture is such as to destroy all the bacilli of tuberculosis and various other disease germs that exist in the cow and through the medium of butter consumption are conveyed to the human system, and that butter is not subjected to any process which will eliminate that element of danger. ******* Here is an expression from one of the largest representative labor bodies in the United States— the Chicago Federation of Labor — and here is what they say relative to the tax : " We believe the efforts to place a tax of 10 cents per pound on colored butterine is inspired by selfish motives, so that the manufacturers of butter may charge an unreasonable price for their commodity and enaljle tlie large creameries to establish surely and securely a butter trust which may raise prices as their cupidity may dictate. ' ' Here is another expression: "Justice demands equal rights for both manufacturers of butter and butterine both products having equal merit. Any adverse legislation against either must l)e condemned." * ****** This is from the Journeyman Horseshoers' L^nion: "We feel that all people having arrived at the age of discretion should be left to exercise their own choice as to whether they shall use butter or oleomargarine: Therefore, be it "Resolved 6// Journeyman Hors^esJioers' Union No. 40, of Columims, Ohio, That as long as butterine is colored with a healthful ingredient said coloring should be encour- aged, as it improves the appearance of the product; that we do most emphatically condemn the persecution being waged against the butterine industry; that we pro- test against the attempt to increase the tax thereon, and that copies of this resolu- tion be forwarded to every Congressman, with the request that they each and every one exert the most strenuous efforts to crushingly defeat once and for all any and all measures providing for the further taxing of butterine." ******* Here is something from the Painters and Decorators of Cleveland, Ohio. It speaks in very plain language. This is in the form of a letter signed by Mr. Peter Has- senpflue, 442 Erie street, Cleveland, president of said union. " I have been instructed by our union, containing over 400 members, to write and inform you that we are unanimously and bitterly opposed to the bills now pending in Congress providing for the persecution of the butterine industry. As you doubt- less know, there are laws now that are being carefully enforced and livedup to that make it impossible for butterine to be manufactured and sold for anything else but butterine, and it is the unanimous opinion of our members that butterine made according to these laws is better for all uses than three-fourths of the butter that can be bought. It won't get strong, and it don't come from feverish cows that are full of disease germs, and butter frequently does. "We feel this way — that if butterine is wrong, or poison, or liable to injure public health, then do away with it altogether; but if it is not (and years of experience in using it have taught us it is not) then why persecute the industry and keep passing laws against it? Our belief is that this is kept up just for political reasons, and that some people in Congress that are sworn to protect the rights and interests of all the people are willing to increase our already too high cost of living and add to our taxes just to catch the farmer vote and increase the business of the butter trust OLEOMARGAEINE AND OTHER IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. XVII or trusts (and if butterine is killed they will soon be in one), and make them a pres- ent of the butter market, so they can either rob the people or make them go without butter. It is the rankest kmd of injustice to kill one industry that is right and legitimate in order to accommodate another. We want butterine; we know what it is; we would rather have it than butter, and it is an outrage, in order to gratify the people who make butter, that we should have to go without it and pay two prices for butter which we are compelled by law to eat, and which, nine cases out of ten, is not fit for human use. It is getting to be pretty serious when the Congress of the United States is asked to go into the business of booming certain interests, and for their accommodation driving their competitors out of existence simply because they are competitors, and for no other reason on earth. A great deal is being said about butterine being a certain color. Now, the only reason that a kick is made on that color is because it helps to sell that commodity. If the butterine makers were to use red or black or blue, these patriotic statesmen, and others so solicitous for the people's protection, would raise no objection, because that would make the same point that they want to make by law, and that is to hurt its sale and thereby tickle the farmers and advance the interests of the creamery trusts. The ingredient used in butterine which gives it its color has been proven by official chemical analysis to be a natural and healthful product. As there is no reason to kill butterine but because it hurts another business, then why not do away with these hose painting machines because they hurt our business? ' ' We know it would be unreasonable to ask this, but i t would be no more so thae for butter makers to try, as they are doing, to drive butterine out of existence becausn it hurts their business. ' ' I will close by saying that we consider any further legislation by Congress tam- pering with the butterine business as a prostitution of that dignified body to the greed and avarice of certain corporations and individuals, at our sacrifice and that of the people in general who don't own farms or creamery factories; and in the name of my union, under its seal, and by its unanimous instruction, I earnestly request you do everything you can to defeat all measures that provide for the increase in the tax of or further interference with the manufacture or sale of butterine." ******* From the Chicago Federation of Labor: Chicago, 3farch 21, 1900. Hon. William McAleek. Dear Sir: The following resolutions were unanimously adopted by the Chicago Federation of Labor at regular meeting, Simday, February 4, and I was instructed to forward a copy of same to you: "Whereas the Chicago Federation of Labor is deeply interested in and desires to encourage every legitimate industry which furnishes employment to the laboring classes; and " Whereas efforts are being attempted by contemplated legislation at Washington to destroy the manufacture and sale of butterine, thereby displacing large numbers of the industrial element and preventing them from gaining a livelihood as well as the use of an article of food which has received the highest testimonials of every chemist in this country and the indorsement of every standard work that treats on the subject of hygiene; and "Whereas we ibelieve the efforts to place a tax of 10 cents per jiound on colored butterine is inspired by selfish motives, so that the manufacturers of Vjutter may charge an unreasonable price for their commodity and enable the large creameries to establish surely and securely a butter trust which may raise prices as their cupidity may dictate; and ' ' Whereas j ustice demands equal rights for both manufacturers of butter and butter- ine, both products having equal merit, any adverse legislation against either must be condemned; and "Whereas the late published reports furnished to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury proves the legitimate and growing demand for butterine and discloses the large amount of revenue derived therefrom; and "Whereas we believe that the present Federal law taxing butterine 2 cents per pound and the additional regulations imposed by the Commissioner of Internal Rev- enue are sufficient to properly regulate the manufacture and sale of butterine: There- fore, be it "JResolved, That we, the representatives of the industrial classes in Chicago, and voicing, as we know we do, the sentiments of the mechanic and the laborer through- out the country, protest against the passage of the Tawney, Grout, or any other bills that have for their object the further increase of tax or the relegating to the different States the right to enact laws that are opposed to the interests of the people and in S. Rep. 2043 ii XVIII OLEOMARGARINE AND OTHER IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. no way in harmony with the inventive and iirogressive spirit of tlie age; and be it further '■^Resolved, That we instruct our secretary to have sufficient copies of these resolu- tions printed that one be mailed to every Senator and Congressman in Washington and one to each of the labor organizations aflBliated with the Federation of Labor, requesting them to indorse same or pass others of a similar character, so that a full expression of our condemnation of such legislation may be made known." Respectfully submitted. Walter Carmody, Secretary Chicago Federation of Labor. ******* Building Trades Council, Cleveland, Ohio, April 27, 1900. Dear Sir: The Building Trades Council of Cleveland, Ohio, and vicinity, repre- senting over 5,000 mechanics, has by unanimous vote indorsed the action of the Chicago Federation of Labor and all the other labor organizations who are so doing in opposing the persecution of the butterine industry. We can not see any justification in placing a larger or, in fact, any tax on butterine or oleomargarine. The article is sold on its merits, and it would rather hurt than help its sale to attempt to sell it for butter, as it is more popular and generally regarded as more healthy than butter. Any of our people that may not want but- terine can, while it is on the market, buy butter at a reasonable price, but if the attempt to kill it by legislation is successful, the butter manufacturers will have no competitors, and the result will be that the present butter trust will absorb the butter industry and control the purchase of milk by having little creameries in every farming locality on the plan of the Standard Oil Company, and we will have the pleasure of paying 50 or 60 cents per pomid for butter or going without it altogether, the chances being in favor of the latter. We feel that as butterine is demanded and sold for what it is, and as the laws regulating its manufacture and sale are operating successfully in preventing its adulteration, that the legislative bodies of our country have gone as far as they have anj' right to go, and that further interference on their part is persecution and intended to advance private interests at the expense of the rights of the peoj)le. There is, undouVjtedly, political motive behind all this. There are a hundred different cases in which legislative vigilance could protect the people from adulterated foods where such vigilance is not exercised, or if in any remote way ever apiilied it is not being taken advantage of by the officials supposed to enforce it; and why? Simply because the manufacturers of adulterated foods or the beneficiaries of their existence have no influential competitors to be served by their suppression. Butterine has been the victim of legislative attacks for a number of years, and we feel it is now time to let up on it and devote the effort wasted in the persecution of this legitimate industry to some more worthy cause in the protection of the real interests of the people. There is an old saying that " He who is bent on an evil deed is never lacking for an excuse," and it is certainly applicable in this case, the excuse being that it is wrong to color butterine because it is likely to be sold as butter, whereas, in fact, owing to the extreme popularity of the former, there is more liability of an attempt being made by some butter manufacturer to imitate it, and the only reason why an attempt is made to prevent the use of the material in butterine imparting color to it is to hurt its sale, as it has been proven this material is perfectly healthy. And where is the justice of prohibiting its use simply because it helps the sale of an honest product? As long as the people want butterine and it is good to use, as the (loverment chemists have pro\en, why should it be abolished? ^Ve can not see that there is need to say more. You can not but see the rank injustice of this whole business, and we would, therefore, earnestly request, in the name of common Americaii justice, ' that you would strenuously oppose and exert every means in your power to defeat all such legislation. This letter has the hearty indorsement of our body, and as a testimony of which it bears our seal. W. C. Davis, President. Grant Morgan, Secretary OLEOMAEGARINE AND OTHER IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS XIX The minority insert here, as a part of their report, the views of the minority of the Committee on Agriculture of the House of Repre- sentatives, which is as follows: Views of the Minority. The minority of the Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives beg leave to submit the accompanying bill, which we offer as a substitute for H. R. 3717, known as the Grout bill. We first wish to bring to the attention of the House proof positive that oleomarga- rine is a wholesome and nutritious article of food and is therefore entitled to a legiti- mate place in the commerce of our country. In substantiation of this statement we beg to submit the following testimony taken before the committee: OPINIONS OF LEADING SCIENTISTS. ^' Prof. C. F. Chandler, professor of chemistry at Columbia College, New York, says : "I have studied the question of its use as food, in comparison with the ordinary but- ter made from cream, and have satisfied myself that it is quite as valuable as the butter from the cow. The product is palatable and wholesome, and I regard it as a most valuable article of food. ' ' Prof. George F. Barker, of the University of Pennsylvania, says: "Butterine is, in my oi^inion, quite as valuable as a nutritive agent as butter itself. It is perfectly wholesome, and is desirable as an article of food. I can see no reason why butterine should not be an entirely satisfactory equivalent for ordinary butter, whether con- sidered from the physiological or commercial standpoint. ' ' Prof. Henry Morton, of the Stevens Institute of Technology, New Jersey, says: "I am able to say with confidence that it contains nothing whatever which is injurious as an article of diet, but, on the contrary, is essentially identical with the best fresh butter, 'and is superior to much of the butter made from cream alone which is found in the market. The conditions of its manufacture involve a degree of cleanliness and consequent jjurity in the product such as are by no means necessarily or generally attained in the ordinary making of butter from cream." Prof. S. W. Johnson, director of the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station and professor of agricultural chemistry in Yale College, New Haven, says: "It is a product that is entirely attractive and wholesome as food, and one that is for all ordinary and culinary purposes the full equivalent of good butter made from cream. 1 regard the manufacture of oleomargarine as a legitimate and beneficent industry." Prof. S. C. Caldwell, of Cornell University, Ithaca, N. Y., says: "While not equal to fine butter in respect to flavor, it nevertheless contains all the essential ingredients of butter, and since it contains a smaller proportion of volatile fats than is found in genuine butter, it is, in my opinion, less liable to become rancid. It can not enter into competition with fine butter, but so far as it may serve to drive poor butter out of the market, its manufactvu'e will be a public benefit." Prof. C. A. Goessman, of Amherst Agricultural College, says: " Oleomargarine but- ter compares in general appearance and in taste very favorably with the average quality of the better kinds of dairy butter in our markets. In its composition it resembles that of ordinary dairy butter, and in its keeping quality, under corresponding cir- cumstances, I believe it will surpass the former, for it contains a smaller percentage of those constituents which, in the main, cause the well-know' n rancid taste and odor of a stored butter. ' ' Prof. Charles P. Williams, professor in the Missouri State University, says: "It is a pure and wholesome article of food, and in this respect, as well as in respect to its chemical composition, fully the equivalent of the best quality of dairy butter." Prof. J. W. S. Arnold, professor of physiology in the University of New York, says: "I consider that each and every article employed in the manufacture of oleomargarine butter is perfectly pure and wholesome, that oleomargarine butter differs in no essen- tial manner from butter made from cream. In fact, oleomargarine butter possesses the advantage over natural butter of not decomposing so readily, as it contains fewer volatile fats. In my opinion oleomargarine is to be considered a great discovery, a blessing for the poor, and in every way a perfectly pure, wholesome, and palatable article of food." Prof. W. O. Atwater, director of the United States Government Agricultural Experi- ment Station at Washington, says: "It contains essentially the same ingredients as natural butter from cow's milk. It is perfectly wholesome and healthy and has a high nutritious value." XX OLEOMARGARINE AND OTHER IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. Prof. Henry E. Alvord, formerly of the Massachusetts Agricultural College, and president of the Maryland College of Agriculture, and now chief of the Dairy Division of the United States Department of Agriculture, and one of the best butter makers in the country, says: ' ' The great bulk of butterine and its kindred products is as whole- some, cleaner, and in many respects better, than the low grades of butter of which so much reaches the market." Prof. Paul Schweitzer, Ph. D., LL. D., professor of chemistry, Missouri State Uni- versity, says: "As a result of my examination, made both with the microscope and the delicate chemical tests applicable to such cases, I pronounce butterine to be wholly and unequivocally free from any deleterious or in the least objectionable substances. Carefully made physiological experiments reveal no difference whatever in the pala- tability and digestibility between butterine and butter." Professor Wiley, Chief of the Division of Chemistry of the United States Depart- ment of Agriculture, also appeared before the committee and testified to the nutritive and wholesome qualities of oleomargarine. The Committee on Manufactures of the United States Senate, in a report dated February 28, 1900, finds, from the evidence before it, "that the product known commercially as oleomargarine is healthful and nutritious." Judge Hughes, of the Federal court of Virginia, in a decision, says: "It is a fact of common knowledge that oleomargarine has been subjected to the severest scientific scrutiny and has been adopted by every leading government in Europe as well as America for use by their armies and navies. Though not origi- nally invented by us, it is a gift of American enterprise and progressive invention to the world. It has become one of the conspicuous articles of interstate commerce and furnishes a large income to the General Government annualh^" Believing that this testimony establishes beyond controversy that oleomargarine is a nutritious and wholesome article of food, the main question to be considered is the complaint that fraud is practiced in its sale. The only just complaint (indeed, the only complaint) against the existing oleo- margarine law consists in the facility with which the retail dealer, in selling from the original or wholesale package and substituting a new and unmarked wrapper, may violate the law. There is nothing in H. R. 3717 (known as the Grout bill) which would decrease the temptation or increase the difficulty of such violations. On the contrary, the increased taxation would either be fraiidulently evaded or else would force the honest manufacturer out of business. H. K. 3717 merely increases taxation without providing any new or additional penalties or any new methods to prevent the sale of oleomargarine as butter, either in its colored or uncolored state. In fact, the radical advocates of the Grout l)ill do not seek this end, as they have declared in their testimony before the committee and in declarations elsewhere that their sole intention is to alwolutely crush out the manufacture of oleomargarine and eliminate it as a food product. In substantiation of this assertion we quote the following: Mr. Adames, pure-food commissioner of the State of Wisconsin, in his testimony before the committee on March 7, 1900, said: "There is no use beating about the bush in this matter. We want to pass this law and drive the oleomargarine manufacturers out of the business." Charles Y. Knight, secretary of the National Dairy Union, in a letter to the Virginia Dairymen, dated May 18, 1900, writes: "Now is the time for you to clip the fangs of the mighty octopus of the oleomar- garine manufacturers who are ruining the dairy interests of this country by manu- facturing and selling in defiance of law a spurious article in imitation of pure butter. We have a remedy almost in grasp which will eliminate the manufacture of this article from the food-product list. The Grout bill, now pending in the Agricultural Committee of the House of Representatives in Congress, meets the demand." W. D. Hoard, ex-governor of Wisconsin and president of the National Dairy Union, stated in his testimony before the committee on March 7, 1900, as follows: "To give added force to the first section of the bill, it is provided in the second section that a tax of 10 cents a pound shall be imposed on all oleomargarine in the color or semblance of butter. In plain words, this is repressive taxation." In view of this testimony the minority believe they are justified in claiming that the Grout bill, if enacted into law, would destroy the business of the legitimate oleo- margarine manufacturers. In other words. Congress is being asked to ruin one industry to benefit another; and this, in the opinion of the minority, is a thing Con- gress ought not to do. The minority believe it to be class legislation of the most pronounced kind and would establish a precedent which, if followed, would create monopolies, destroy competition, and militate against the public good. The substitute bill offered by the minority would, in our opinion, eliminate all possibility of fraud and would compel the manufacturers of and dealers in oleomar- OLEOMARGARINE AND OTHER IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. XXI garine to sell it for what it really is and not for butter. The substitute offered is practically an amendment to sections 3 and 6 of the existing oleomargarine law. The licenses for manufacture and sale of this article are not changed, and are as follows: Manufacturers, $600 per annum; wholesale dealers, $480 per annum; retailers, $48 per annum, while the penalties imposed for violation of the law are materially increased. We quote in full section 2 of the substitute bill, and ask for it the careful and thoughtful consideration of the House, believing that it is just and fair to all the interests involved: "Sec. 2. That all oleomargarine shall be put up by the manufacturer for sale in packages of one and two pounds, respectively, and in no other or larger or smaller package; and upon every print, brick, roll, or lump of oleomargarine, before being so put up for sale or removal from the factory, there shall be impressed by the manu- facturer the word "oleomargarine" in sunken letters, the size of which shall be pre- scribed by regulations made by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and approved by the Secretary of the Treasury; and every such print, brick, roll, or lump of oleomar- garine shall first be wrapped with paper wrapper with the word "oleomargarine" printed thereon in distinct letters, and said wrapper shall also bear the name of the manufacturer, and then shall be put by the manufacturer thereof in such wooden or paper packages or in such wrappers, with the word ' ' oleomargarine ' ' printed thereon in distinct letters, and marked, stamped, and branded in such manner as the Com- missioner of Internal Revenue, with the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, shall prescribe, and the internal-revenue stamp shall be affixed so as to surround the outer wrapper of each one and two pound package: Provided, That any number of such original stamped packages may be put up by the manufacturer in crates or boxes, on the outside of which shall be marked the word "oleomargarine," with such other marks and brands as the Commissioner of Internal Revenue shall, by regulations approved by the Secretary of the Treasury, prescribe. "Retail dealers in oleomargarine shall sell only the original package to which the tax-paid stamp is affixed. " Every person who knowingly sells or offers for sale, or delivers or offers to deliver, any oleomargarine otherwise than as provided by this act or contrary to the regula- tions of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue made in pursuance hereof or who packs in any package any oleomargarine in any manner contrary to law, or who shall sell or offer for sale as butter any oleomargarine, colored or uncolored, or who falsely brands any package, or affixes a stamp on any package denoting a less amount of tax than that required by law, shall be fined for the first offense not less than one hundred nor more than five hundred dollars and be imprisoned not less than thirty days nor more than six months; and for the second and every subsequent offense shall be fined not less than two hundred nor more than one thousand dollars and be imprisoned not less than sixty days nor more than two years." One of the claims made by the friends of the Grout bill is that it will protect the interests of the farmer. We call attention to the fact that every ingredient that enters into the manufacture of oleomargarine is as much a product of the farm as the butter, and that such ingredients are made more valuable on account of their use in the manufacture of oleomargarine. Your committee has had before it representatives of bbth the cattle and hog raisers of the country, and also representatives of the cotton industry, and they are unani- mous in their opinion that their business will be materially injured and the price of their product lowered by the passage of the Grout bill and the destruction of the oleomargarine industry. The manufacture and sale of oleomargarine does not interfere with the growth and prosperity of the butter industry. Statistics show a much greater percentage in the increase of the production of butter than in the production of oleomargarine. Though similar in ingredients, they are not strictly competing, as the oleomargarine is prac- tically all l)(iught by the poorer class of our people. In justification of this statement we have received a large number of petitions from the labor organizations of our country protesting against the passage of this bill for the above-given reasons. It being possible to keep oleomargarine in a sweet and sound condition much longer than butter, it is also used extensively in the mining and lumber camps, on explor- ing and hunting expeditions, on ships at sea, and by armies in the field. The claim made by the friends of the Grout bill that the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine has greatly depreciated the price of butter will not obtain when it is known that there is now maiuifactured in the United States nearly 2,000,000,000 pounds of butter annually, and it is positively known that there only were 83,000,000 pounds of oleomargarine manufactured last year, which shows that the amount of oleomargarine produced is about 4 per cent of \he amomit of butter produced. There- XXII OLEOMARGARINE AND OTHER IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. fore, the argument that oleomargarine in any material sense controls the price of butter is not justified by the facts. The manufacture and sale of oleomargarine have in no way depreciated the price of butter, as more butter is being sold at higher price in this country than ever before, as shown by testimony. It is a suggestive fact that those sections of our country which are most exclusively devoted to the dairy interests are blessed with the greatest prosperity, as brought out in the testimony of ex-Governor Hoard, of Wisconsin, before our committee, who said that a few years ago land was worth only $15 an acre in that State, but as the State began to be devoted more exclusively to the dairy interests land had rapidly appreciated in jjrice, and that farmers had gotten out of debt, had paid their mort- gages, and the land is now worth the sum of $80 per acre, this price averaging much higher than agricultural lands in other parts of the country. In conclusion the members of the Committee on Agriculture who have joined in this minority report beg to assure the House and the country in the most solemn manner possible that it has been their earnest intention, and is now their determina- tion, to do everything possible to be done to enforce the sale of oleomargarine as oleo- margarine and to prevent its sale as butter. To prevent fraud and not to stamp out an industry has been and is our purpose. We believe that it ought to be the sole purpose of all legislation and the sole motive of all just men. J. W. Wadsworth. Wm. Lorimer. W. J. Bailey. G. H. White. John S. Williams. J. Wm. Stokes. H. D. Allen. Mr. W. E. Miller said: At this juncture we would like to introduce as evidence an article from Experiment Station Record, United States Department of Agriculture, on the nutritive value of oleomargarine: "The nutritive value of margarin compared with butter. E. Bertarelli {Riv. Ig. eSan. Pubb., 9 {1898), Nos. 14, pp- 538-545; 15, pp. JZ^^-J/S*).— Three experiments with healthy men are reported in which the value of margarin and butter was tested when consumed as part of a simple mixed diet. In one experiment the value of a mixture of olive oil and colza oil, which is commonly used in Italy in the neighbor- hood of Turin, was also tested. The author himself was the siilDJect of one of the tests. He was 24 years old. The subjects of the other tests were two laboratory servants, one 27 years old, the other 32 years old. The coefficients of digestibility and the balance of income and outgo of nitrogen in the different experiments were as follows: Digestion experiments with margarin, butter, and oil. Time. Coefficients of digestibility. Nitrogen. Protein. Fat. Carbo- hydrates. In food. In urine. In feces. Gain. Laboratory servant, P. G.: 500 gm. white bread, 270 gm. veal, 70 gm. Days. 5 5 6 6 5 5 5 Per cent. 81.75 79.50 81. 85 77.80 85.32 82.92 83.27 Per cent. 92. C7 93.90 94.25 93.73 95.80 95.33 95.82 Per cent. 97.25 97.07 97.35 96.70 97.38 97.24 97.56 Gms. 15.7 1.5.7 13.5 13.5 16.5 16.9 17.5 Gms. 9.6 10.3 10.1 9.6 13.2 12.5 13.4 6ms. 2.6 3.2 2.5 3.1 2.9 3.4 3.5 Gms. 3 5 Laboratory servant, P. G. : 500 gm. white bread, 2.50 gm.veal, 70 gm. margarin, 250-300 cc. wine Author: 450 gm. white bread, 250 2.2 9 Author: 450 gm. white bread, 250 gm. meat, 70 gm. margarin Laboratory servant, F. D.: 824 gm. wliite bread, 250 gm. meat, 61.6 .8 .4 Laboratory servant, F. D. : 8.59 gm. white bread, 250 gm. meat, 61.6 1 Laboratory servant, F. D. : 910 gm. white bread, 250 gm. meat, 61.6 .6 OLEOMARGARINE AND OTHER IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. XXIII "The principal conclusions follow: When proj^erly prepared, margarin differs but little from natural butter in chemical and physical properties. On an average 93.5 to 96 per cent of fat was assimilated when margarin was consumed and 94 to 96 per cent when butter formed part of the diet. The moderate use of margarin did not cause any disturbance of the digestive tract." * " * * * * * * This is a resolution passed by the Sioux City Live Stock Exchange: "Whereas a bill has been introduced in the House of Representatives known as House bill 6, providing for an amendment of 'An act defining butter, also imposing a tax upon and regulating the manufacture, sale, importation, and exportation of oleomargarine;' and. "Whereas such a bill, if enacted, is calculated to build up and restore one industry at the expense of another by means of uncalled-for and unjust taxation; and "Whereas the destruction of the oleomargarine industry would greatly impair the market value of beef cattle, and would thereby deprive the producer of a large amount of revenue: Therefore, be it ''Resolved, That the Sioux City Live Stock Exchange of Sioux City, Iowa, emphat- ically protests against the enactment of the law proposed in House bill No. 6. "Witness the signatures of the president and secretary of said exchange and the official seal thereof affixed at Sioux City, Iowa, December 28, 1899. "J. H. Nason, Prmden^. "Wm. Magivny, Secretary." ******* These are resolutions passed by the Texas Cotton-Seed Crushers' Association: "Dear Sir: At a meeting of the Cotton-Seed Crushers' Association, held in Dallas on Tuesday, November 14, 1899, T. P. Sullivan, of Jefferson; R. K. P^rwin, of Waxa- hachie; W. R. Moore, of Ardmore, Ind. T., and Robert Gibson, secretary, of Dallas, were appointed a committee to draft resolutions expressive oi the sense of the meet- ing on the mattei's discussed. The resolutions as submitted were unanimously adopted, and are as follows: "Marion Sansom, Chairman: "The undersigned committee appointed by you beg leave to submit the following preamble and resolutions: "Whereas the line of industrial business represented by this association is coexten- sive with the entire area of the cotton-cultivated zone of our Southern States and, in conjunction with cotton in its various uses, represents the wealth of the South; and " Whereas Texas represents over 30 per cent of the cotton and cotton seed annually produced in the United States, any embargo placed by legislation on the growth and development of our industry is detrimental to the vast interests committed to our care. It is therefore of most vital necessity that all avenues leading to the sale and con- sumption of our cotton-oil products should be free and unrestricted, and inasmuch as cotton oil is used to a large extent in the manufacture of butterine, which is a most wholesome and healthful substitute for butter; and "Whereas a tax at present exists of 2 cents per pound on the manufacture of this most healthful article of food, and that it is contemplated to introduce at the next session of Congress an increased tax of 10 cents per pound on same: It is, therefore, '■'Resolved, That this association enter its protest against the existing tax of 2 cents per pound on butterine and ask for its abrogation and repeal, and against the intro- duction or adoption of any future tax on same as an article of food, as it directly affects our great industry both at home and on the continent of Europe, where a cheap and wholesome article of food, such as butterine, is appreciated. ' ' Resolved, That we believe the imposition of a special tax of this nature is class legis- lation and should be combatted l)y all the means at our command, and that our Sen- ators and Representatives in Congress are hereby requested to give us all the neces- sary aid in this behalf ; and it is further "Resolved, That the secretary of this association transmit a copy of these resolutions to each cotton-oil mill in the South, with the request that they interest their Senators and Representatives therein, and also to our Senators and Representatives in Con- gress from Texas. "T. P. Sullivan, Chairman, Jefferson, Tex. " R. K. Erwin, Wa.vahachie, Tex. "W. R. Moore, Avdmore, Ind. T. " Robert Gibson, Secretanj, Dallas, Tex." XXIV OLEOMARGARINE AND OTHER IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. Resolutions against oleomargarine tax offered at meeting of cotton-oil mill super- intendents: "Charleston, S. C, July 6. "Cotton-oil superintendents from South Carolina and North Carolina met yester- day at the Calhoun Hotel for the purpose of organizing the cotton-oil mill superin- tendents' association ; "After the constitution and by-laws were read and adopted, the following resolu- tions were offered by A. A. Haynes: " 'Resolved, That this association, representing millions of dollars of invested capital in the South, strongly protest against national class legislation which aims directly at the destruction of competition in the manufacture and sale of wholesome and health- ful articles of food. " 'Resolved, That we protest strenuously against the passage by Congress of the Grout oleomargarine bill, which pro^soses to tax oleomargarine 10 cents per pound, and thus to drive it from the market. " 'Resolved, That this association implores Congress not to destroy an industry which now uses nearly 10,000,000 pounds of the best grade of cotton-seed oil annu- ally, and thus kill that ciuantity of our most profitable output. " 'Resolved, That we urge the legislatures of South Carolina and of other Southern States to remove from their statute books the antioleomargarine legislation thereon, because such acts are only in the interest of the renovated and process butter facto- ries of the North and Northwest, and against the hog fats, beef fats, and cotton-seed- oil products grown on our Southern farms. " 'Resolved, That a copy of these resolutions be sent to the National Provisioner, of New York and Chicago, the indomitable champion of the cotton-oil interests, for publication, and that the members of this association proceed to secure, if possible, the repeal of the obnoxious State laws above referred to. "'Resolved, That this association will do what it can to cause the defeat of the Grout antioleomargarine bill in Congress during the coming session.' " Mr. John C. McCoy presented the following resolutions: The Kans.\s City Live Stock Exchange, Kansas City, Mo., February 8, 1900. The following preamble and resolutions were unanimously adopted by the board of directors of the Kansas City Live Stock Exchange at a regular meeting held Feb- ruary 5, 1900: " Whereas certain bills have been introduced in the House of Representatives of the United States looking for the enactment of a law, by way of taxation, whereby the manufacture, sale, importation, and exportation of oleomargarine will be ruined; and "Whereas such bills, if passed and allowed to become laws, will build up one industry at the expense of tearing down and ruining another, the logical effect of which will be the granting of a monopoly to the industry sought to be benefited; and "Whereas the destruction of the oleomargarine industry will reduce the value of cattle and hogs to the farmers and raisers thereof, as well as work a hardship upon millions of poor people who are unable to pay the fancy prices asked for butter: Therefore, be it Resolved, That the Kansas City Live Stock Exchange, of Kansas City, Mo., earnestly protest against the enactment of the law proposed relating to oleomargarine; and be it further Resolved, That the board of directors of this exchange be requested to memorialize the Congress of the United States against the passage of a law or laws inimical to the live-stock industry, and that a copy of these resolutions be sent to the honorable the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States." Respectfully, yours, W. S. Hannah, Pres'ident. Mr. William H. Thompson, president National Live Stock Exchang-e, Chicago, 111., said: -In round numbers there are 75,000,000 people in this country. I believe a reason- able estimate of the number of Indians and children under a butter-eating age to be 25,000,000, which would leave a population of 50,000,000 outside of these classes who are consumers of butter. Of this 50,000,000 people at least one-half are able to buy the best butter manu- factured, irrespective of price, while the other 25,000,000 are a class of people whom the butterine manufacturers aim to reach and benefit, and are a class of our citizens OLEOMARGARINE AND OTHER IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. XXV known as laborers, not in the common acceptance of the term, but as a class of peo- ple following a variety of pursuits at small salai'ies, and in most cases, owing to their dependencies and meager earnings, compelled to go without the luxuries of life. it is this class of people whose interests need careful consideration, whose claims upon you as their representatives are invariably backed by justice, who are always the greatest sufferers by and the most sensitive to inimical legislation, who always are the first to respond to and cheerfully comply with all just and reasonable laws. As the representative of the National Live Stock Exchange, I also plead for a con- sideration of the rights of this class of our citizens, who, from the nature of their sur- roundings and conditions, are unable to appear before you in their own behalf. They, who are the principal consumers of butterine, are not asking for anj- legisla- . tion. The producers and raisers of fat cattle are not asking j'ou for any legislation in this respect. "Why should it be any more unlawful to put into butterine, the product of the beef steer, the same coloring matter as is put into butter, the similar product of his sister, the dairy cow? Is there any equity or justice in such denial? Is it made necessary by the condi- tions? Is it warranted upon any grounds? If it is, I am at a loss to comprehend it. This kind of legislation is most assuredly the worst and most vicious kind of class legislation, because it is inaugurated solely for the purpose of destroying a competi- tive industry equally as important and equally as deserving of legislative support and protection. The Grout bill rei^resents an attempt on the part of Congress to tax one legitimate industry out of existence for the benefit of another industry. The ostensible pur- pose is protection to the consumers against "imitation butter;" but the public has never asked for such jirotection. It does not even object to the coloring of butterine the same as butter, so long as the butterine is properly labeled and sold on its merits. As a matter of fact, the consumers of butterine prefer to have it colored, so long as the coloring material used is harmless. They like butterine because of its cheapness and because they are satisfied with its purity and wholesomeness. The enactment of this bill will not only deprive the consumer of a healthy and nutritious article of food, but immediately it becomes a law will depreciate the value of the beef cattle and take from the producers of this country upward of forty-five millions of dollars. The following is not part of the hearino- before the committee, but is vouched for as the true resolution passed by the convention. At the Fourth Annual Convention of the National Live Stock Asso- ciation, held at Salt Lake City, Utah, January 15, 16, 17, and 18, 1901, at which 1,112 delegates were represented and 5,000 visitors were pres- ent, from nearly ever}^ State and Territory in the Union, the following memorial to the Senate of the United States was adopted: To Hie honorable the Senate of the United States: Your orator, the National Live Stock Association, respectfully represent unto your honorable body that it is an association composed of 126 live-stock and kindred organizations, all directly interested in the production, marketing, and disposing of live stock, and whose holdings thereof represent an investment of over 1600,000,000. Your orator, in annual session assembled at Salt Lake City, Utah, desires to enter its emphatic protest against the enactment of what is commonly known as the Grout bill (House bill 3717), and in behalf of its protest desires to record a few of the many reasons in support of its contention. This measure is a species of class legislation of the most iniquitous and dangerous kind, calculated to build up one industry at the expense of another equally as important. It seeks to impose an unjust, uncalled-for, and unwarranted burden upon one of the principal commercial industries of the country for the purpose of prohibiting its manufacture, thereby destroying competition, as the manufacturers can not assume the additional burdens sought to be imposed by this measure and sell their product in competition with butter. "The passage of this law would destroy the demand, except for export, for that product of the beef of animals, oil of oleo, of which 24,000,000 pounds was used in the year 1899 in the manufacture of oleomargarine, and also would seriously injure the iiog industry by a similar destruction of the demand, except for export, of neutral lard, 31,000,000 "pounds of which was used in the year 1899 in the manufacture of this food product, and by thus eliminating the demand for these legitimate articles XXVI OLEOMARGARINE AND OTHER IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS of commerce force dealers to seek other channels for their disposition, at greatly reduced prices, tliereby entailing a loss to the producers of live stock of the United States of niillidus of dollars annually. "The nu'usuie seeks to throttle competition, and, if enacted, will render useless immense estahlisliments, erected at great expense, for the manufat-ture of oleomarga- rine, dejirive thousands of employees of the opportunity to gain a livelihood, and deny the people — and especially the workingmen and their dependencies — of a whole- some article of diet. "In oleomargarine a very large proportion of the consumers of this country, and especially the working classes, have a wholesome, nutritious, and satisfactory article of dii't, which, before its advent, they were obliged — owing to the high price of butter and their limited means — to go without. " Your orator contends that it is manifestly unjust, unreasonable, and unfair to deny manufacturers of the ])roduct of the beef animal and the hog the same privileges in regard to the use of coloring matter that are accorded to the manufacturers of the product of the dairy, and that the rights and privileges of the producers of cattle and liogs should be as well respected as those of others, and, as they are the beneficiaries in the manufacture of this wholesome article of food, they should not be burdened with unnecessary and oppressive special taxes or needless restrictions in the manu- facture of this product, other than is absolutely necessary for the support of the Gov- ernment and the proper governmental regulations surrounding the handling of the same. Your orator respectfully contends that these products should receive at the hands of Congress no greater exactions than those imposed upon competing food products; and that the manufai'ture and sale of oleomargarine is already surrounded by numer- ous safeguards which Congress, in its wisdom, has seen lit to provide, stipulating a severe j)nnisinnent for selling same under misrepresentation as to its composition; and that this ])n)dui'e has, by ex]>erience, i)roven to be just what a large majority of the pei)i)le of this country want, aTid that none but the dairy and allied interests are asking for or seeking any further legislation in this matter, and their indorsement of the proposed legislation is purely and simply selfish. In conclusion, your orator, in behalf of the producers and consumers of this great country, solenmly protests against the enactment of the Grout bill or any other legislation calculated to entail an enormous loss on the live-stock producers of this country, to ruin a great industry, and to deprive not only the working classes, but many others of a cheap, wholesome, nutritious, and acceptable article of food. The National Live Stock Association. John W. Springer, President, By C. F. Martin, Secretary. The bill recommended l\v the majority is, in the opinion of the minority, an unconstitutional measure in that it is class legislation. If it is designed as a revenue measure, then it would be unconstitu- tional, because it taxes one man for the benefit of another, which, according- to the language of the Supreme Court, ""is robbery under the form of law." H. D. Money. ' Henry Heitfeld. I concur generally in the views expressed in this minority report, without indorsing all the expressions therein used, especially in the testimony of witnesses and extracts made a part of it. I concur fully, however, in the conclu.sion of the minority that the bill ought not to pass. Wm. B. Bate. THE OLEOMARGARINE BILL. HEARINGS BEFORE THE UNITED STATES SENATE, BILL (H. R. 3717) TO MAKE OLEOMARGARINE AND OTHER IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS SUBJECT TO THE LAWS OF THE STATE OR TERRITORY INTO WHICH THEY ARE TRANSPORTED, AND TO CHANGE THE TAX ON OLEOMARGARINE. S. Rep. 2043- HEARINGS ON THE OLEOMARGARINE BILL. Washington, D. C, We(Mesday, December 19^ 1900. The committee met at 10.30 a. m. Present: Senators Proctor (chairman), Hansbrough, Warren, Foster, Bate, Money, Heitfeld, and Allen. Also, Hon. William W. Grout, a Representative from the State of Vermont; Hon. W. D. Hoard, ex-governor of Wisconsin and presi- dent of the National Dairy Union; C. Y. Knight, secretary of the National Dairy Union; Hon. William M. Springer, of Springfield, 111., representing the National Live Stock Association; Frank M. Mathew- son, president of the Oakdale Manufacturing Company, of Providence, R. I.; Rathbone Gardner, representing the Oakdale Manufacturing Company, of Providence, R. I. ; Frank W. Tillinghast, representing the Vermont Manufacturing Company, of Providence, R. I. ; Charles E. Schell, representing the Ohio Butterine Company, of Cincinnati, Ohio; and others. STATEMENT OF HON. W. W. GROUT. The Chairman. General Grout, whose name has been given to the bill, is here, and we shall be glad to have him make any statement in regard to the bill which he sees fit. Mr. Grout. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I shall detain you only a moment. It was thought best that the friends of the bill should open with a very brief statement, and we do so by submitting the hearings before the House Committee on Agriculture, which were quite full, and the report of that committee of the bill to the House, together with the minority views. It has also been thought well that some one should explain somewhat to you, as the subject I presume is new to most of the committee, the general scope of the bill. The first section puts all imitation dair}"^ products under the control of State laws the moment they come from the State of manufacture, or from one State into another, to state it more exactly. This princi- ple has already been established by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Plumley v. The State of Massachusetts, which came up to the Supreme Court on a writ of error from the supreme court of that State. Plumley was indicted for a violation of the State law in the sale of oleomargarine and was convicted and imprisoned. He brought a writ of habeas corpus before the State court. The State court held the proceeding regular. It was brought here on a writ of error, and the Supreme Court decided that the State of Massachusetts 3 4 OLEOMARGAEINE. had the right to pass a law taking control of this article so soon as it came into the State, the interstate clause of the Constitution to the contrary notwithstanding; and that the State had the right to enforce that law on the ground that this article was calculated to deceive, it being made in imitation of butter. It was upon that ground that the case went off in the State court, and it was upon that ground that it was affirmed by the Supreme Court. You may ask, then, why do we need any statute law on the subject, the Supreme Court having settled it? Here is the reason why: That decision was made by a divided court. Chief Justice Fuller and two associate justices dissenting from the view taken by the majority of the court, the opinion having been given by Mr. Justice Harlan. It has been thought for these many years — this was a decision some eight or nine years ago; I have forgotten the exact date of it — it has been thought by the dairy interests that they wanted this written in the statutes of the country as well as in a Supreme Court decision, for the question is very likely to arise there again, and it might result in a different decision by the court. Mr. Knight. Allow me to make a suggestion. In the Schollenber- ger "case, in Pennsylvania, the circuit judges — some of them, at least — overruled or reversed the Plumley case, and it was so held in the State of Minnesota by Judge Lochren. Mr. Grout. That has been done by one or two circuit or district judges certainly, and in some of the State courts, but I thought it well to refer only to the court of last resort, the Supreme Court, not wishing to take time to go into the details. It is true this decision has already been brought in question by some decisions of subordinate courts. Senator Allen. Let me ask a question. Did the case to which you refer go off on the ground that the propert}', having gone into Massa- chusetts and become mingled with the property there, at the end of transit is subject to the police regulation of the State? Mr. Grout. Precisely. It is the police power of the State which gives this right to take charge of the article. Senator Allen. Do you know that there is a decision which holds that Congress ma}^ abdicate its power to control interstate commerce to the State? Mr. Grout. Yes, sir; there is such a decision, under what is known as the Wilson law. The Wilson law was passed to overcome>what was known as the original package decision, and there is a decision by the Supreme Court in a case coming up from the State of South Carolina under the constabulary act of that State, or whatever name it went by, in which it is held that that power could be passed to the States. I am not able now to name the case, but I have examined it. Senator Allen. Under the Iowa liquor law originally the court held that liquors which went in original packages were not subject to State regulation. Mr. Grout. Certainly; that was the original package decision. The Wilson law conferred power on the States to take charge of it. Senator Allen. Mr. Wilson introduced a bill, which became a law, remitting that power to the States. Has that act itself been passed upon ? Mr. Grout. Yes, sir; it was passed upon by the Supreme Court in the case from South Carolina, already referred to, the opinion having OLEOMAEGAEINE. 5 been delivered by Mr. Justice White, as 1 remember, in which the authorit}^ of State law is recognized. So there can be no question on that score, I think. This feature of the bill has been pending in the two Houses for several years. I introduced the first section of the bill in the House six or eight years ago, certainly, and four years ago this ver}^ winter, I think, the idrst section of the bill passed the House. I am speaking now of the first section of the present bill. It passed the House and came to the Senate, but was not acted upon by this body. In addition to that, there is the second section of the bill, which puts a tax of 10 cents a pound on all oleomargarine made in imitation of butter, and reduces the present tax of 2 cents per pound to one-fourth of 1 cent a pound on all that is left in its natural, uncolored state. The great objection thus far to this bill has been to the second section. Very few complain of the first section, but it is to the second section that objection is principall}^ leveled. I am not going into any long statement here. Read the testimony which we have submitted, and you will see that the testimony is abundant on all sides that oleomargarine is sold constantly for butter. You will learn from that testimony that the manufacturers arrange with the retailers to sell it — they do not say as butter in their circulars, but to sell it. They know very well that the retailer will sell it for butter — that is a part of the programme — but he is to sell it, and they will stand between him and all State laws for paj^ment of fines, costs, and damages, this being substantially the language used in their circulars. You will find that in the printed hearings before the House committee. There is no question about this. The}^ in fact make no reply to it, or have thus far made no reply, and I presume they will not undertake to do so. Only a small portion of oleomargarine relatively, however, as I believe, is really sold through the retailers. There are no statistics on the subject, because it is a matter wholly within the knowledge of the manufacturers. The great body of it is worked ofi' through hotel keepers and restaurant and boarding-house keepers, who buy directly of the manufacturers; if not, perhaps they buy of some intermediary wholesale dealer this stuff, and palm it off upon their guests as butter. The great share, I believe, of the article is marketed in that way. Now, the oleomargarine men claim, or have claimed, that they are not parties to this fraud, that persons buying it know just what it is. This is undoubtedly true of the hotel man and the restaurant and boarding-house keeper. The}^ know what they are buying, but the manufacturer knows that they intend to palm it off on their guests as butter. There is no question about this, and it makes them, morally at least, parties to the fraud. Senator Allen. How are you going to sustain the constitutionality of the second section ? Mr. Grout. In what respect, if you please, sir? Senator Allen. In respect to its being a tax to destroy an industry. Mr. Grout. The decisions are all one way, as undoubtedlj^ the Sen- ator knows. You may go back to an earl}^ decision b}^ Chief Justice Marshall, in which the Supreme Court denied itself the power to inquire into, " to review," to use the language of that authority, the discretionary power of the legislature to tax. The tax must be laid alike, of course, upon the same class of articles. The legislative power 6 OLEOMARGAEINE. may, in its discretion, single out one thing and tax it and leave another untaxed; but wherever you levy a tax it must be levied uniformly on the same class of articles. The courts insist upon uniformity, but they never question the discretionary power lodged with the legisla- tive body to impose the tax. Senator Allen. I know of but one precedent for this proposed legis- lation, and that is the taxation of State bank issues. Mr, Grout. Exactly. That is a notable instance, the rankest instance probably, our opponents would say, that has ever been fur- nished of the exercise of the power to tax out of existence. Mr. Hoard. In addition to the State bank tax, there is the tax on filled cheese and adulterated flour. Mr. Grout. Yes, to be sure, and along the same line of this pro- ceeding. The power to tax and tax out of existence is unquestioned, as I believe, gentlemen. The only question which the court ever inquires into is whether the tax is laid evenly, uniforml}", upon the class of articles which it proposes to deal with. It may select a single thing and tax it and leave another thing untaxed. That is according to the discretion of the legislative power. The cure for any wrong in this respect is with the constituency. If an unjust tax be imposed, the people will send men here who will exercise better discretion. Senator Allen. The court can not inquire into the motive of the legislative department; but if that motive is apparent upon the face of the act, then it does enter into the litigation and become a part of the construction of the act. Mr. Grout. Yes; but they do not, then, even give it effect to the extent of setting aside the power of the legislature to tax. How could it have been otherwise than that the intent was apparent in the law taxing State banks? Senator Allen. Suppose it is apparent on the face of this bill that the motive for imposing the tax is to destroy the thing taxed ? Mr. Grout. We deny this. We say that is not the motive. Senator Allen. What would be the rule, then ? Mr. Grout. I do not think it would change it a particle. Judge Collamer, up in our State, who was a Senator with you gentlemen, and held a high place when in this body — the very first in his time, as tradi- tion will tell you, and as discussions will disclose if you turn to them — Judge Collamer, on the bench up in Vermont, said you could not inquire into the motive by which one did a legal act; and that I understand to be good law ever3^where. Senator Allen. That is true; but suppose the motive is apparent upon the act itself ? Mr. Grout. Very well; the motive makes no difference, providing the act be legal, and here unquestionably the act is legal. Senator Allen. Then 3^ou must take into consideration the motive, because it is a part of the act? Mr. Grout. Well, I have expressed to the committee my views on this subject, but let me say it is not the purpose here to tax out of existence. The object of this second section i.s to prevent the sale of oleomargarine as butter, to prevent a fraud. And we say that is the only rational construction which can be given, because if the purpose of the section was to destroy the article it would not provide as it does in the closing clause for a small tax, the least possible tax, on the OLEOMAEGAEINE. 7 uncolored article. It might be made still less, if the legislative power thought best to do so, although 1 do not think it ought to be less, for it ought to be large enough to cover the cost of policing the business. Now, when it reduces the tax to the lowest possible limit, so that oleo undisguised can go to the consumer at the cheapest possible price, who can fairly say that this second section is intended to destro}^ the manu- facture of oleomargarine? No, instead of destroying, it encourages the manufacture of the honest article. All that it seeks to destroy is the fraud that is perpetrated when it is colored like butter. It may stop its sale as butter and yet not go to the extent of pre- venting its manufacture, as 1 will show you a little later. The profit on the sale of 104,000,000 pounds of oleomargarine and a little more, last year, fairly estimated, must have been anywhere from $13,000,000 to $15,000,000 — thirteen to fifteen million dollars between the cost of the article and the price paid by the consumer. Some oleomargarine friend present smiles — I hear a smile — but such is the case, disguise the matter the best they can. But we will, to accom- modate the gentleman-s state of mind, call the profit $12,000,000, or any large sum you please along there; it can not be less than that amount, as it costs but 9 cents per pound, tax paid, and the consumer pays anywhere from 18 to 30 cents per pound for it. Call it 22 cents, and for 104,000,000 pounds it would amount to $22,880,000. Take from this $9,360,000, cost of production, and you have left $13,520,000 profit. But call it $12,000,000 for safety, if you please. Remember this stuff is sold as butter almost exclusively to the consumer; that is, the consumer takes it supposing it is butter. The guest at table eats it and pays his $5 a day to the hotel. It passes with him as butter and he pays the price of butter. The same is true at the restaurant and the boarding house. And the retailer everywhere sells it as butter and for the price of butter. Senator Allen. Is not that a subject of police regulation in the State? Mr. Grout. Yes; but we have got a regulation here in this second section which transcends police regulations, and, if the Senator will allow me a moment, I will make it plain to him. Senator Allen. Can you do that? Mr. Grout. Oh, yes, sir, in the waj^ we propose to do it here, as I believe. Here are the large profits of which I have spoken. I might go more into details, but I feel that I must not detain the committee. I intended to be very brief when I began, and I will now be as brief as possible. The profits are what I have indicated, twelve or thirteen million dollars annually. If you put a 10-cent tax on 104,000,000 pounds of oleo- margarine, that will make $10,400,000 the manufacturer would have to pay before he could put the stuff afloat. And this would so reduce the profits that it would take away the inducement to enter into the fraudulent practices now resorted to to work it off as butter. It would reduce the profits $10,400,000. If it be true, however, as the oleomargarine crowd claim, that people really prefer oleomargarine to butter and they desire to have it colored, that large numbers of the middle class of people prefer it to butter — that is the way one circular puts it— if that be true, it can be colored and sold to those people for oleomargarine at just about the price it is fraudulently sold now for butter; so they can have it at 8 OLEOMARGARINE. a price not exceeding the present cost. But this is not true, and I believe this 10-cent tax on the colored article will stop the sale of oleomargarine for butter by making the business unprofitable. Senator Waeren. Would it disturb you if I should ask you a question ? Mr. Grout. Not at all, if the committee wish to delay the hearing for this talk by me. Senator Waeren. The bill proposes to tax oleomargarine 10 cents a pound when it is colored in imitation of butter. Is there any estab- lished color that butter has? Mr. Grout. Yes, sir; it is yellow. Senator Warren. And alwa3\s the same ? Mr. Grout. The world over and through all time it has been yel- low — varying shades of yellow. Senator Warren. Is it alwa^^s the same? Mr, Grout. No; not always the same shade, but always yellow — the cow colors it yellow. Senator Warren. Is it the same color at different seasons of the year Mr. Grout. Oh, no, it varies; but it is yellow, different shades of yellow at different seasons of the year. Senator Allen. Depending on the condition of the cow? Mr. Grout, Yes, sir; but there is no cow so poor nor fed so poorl}^ in all the world, I believe, but that the butter made from the cream of her milk would be yellow in some degree; I do not say highly yel- low, but 1 say yellow. Senator Warren. If that were the case there would not then be any necessity of coloring butter? Mr, Grout, Yes, there is, because many people want it a little yel- lower than the cow at some seasons of the year makes it. Many people think it tastes better. There is a demand in certain localities to have it colored a little, and in some places more than a little, and butter makers have to cater to the taste of their customers. I did not intend to enter upon a discussion of this color question, but I am perfectly willing to do so if the committee wish to hear me. There is much that can be said about it. Senator Warren. One question more. When in New England, say in Vermont, at this time of the year and from now until, sa}^ April 1, a farmer has one or two or three cows and is making butter, what is the color of that butter if it is not colored with anything except the milk which comes from the cow? Mr, Grout, It is }■ ellow, but not as yellow as when the cow is fed on grass in June, Then, too, it would be yellower if the cow were were well fed during the winter — fed on corn meal, shorts, and early- cut hay, and the like — and kept in a healthy condition. Senator Warren, I ask for information whether oleomargarine is colored different shades at different seasons of the j^ear to follow the different shades of butter ? Mr, Grout, Yes, sir; these very circulars to which I have alluded disclose that fact. You will find them in this printed report here. They do that very thing, sir, to meet the var3ing shades of butter. That is one of the tricks of the trade. They are up to it, Senator, clear up to it, you may be sure; and they are up to every other pos- sible scheme that ingenuity can devise to work this stuff off' for but- OLEOMAKGARINE. 9 • ter. But if you will put this 10-cent tax on it and stop coloring it like butter the game will then be up. Senator Foster. They put on a June color or a December color ? Mr. Grout. Yes, sir; that is it exactly. They advertise to do it and they do it with neatness and dispatch. They say in these circulars, which you will find in the printed testimony, that they will give it just such color as may be wanted. Senator Warren. As a matter of fact, butter made naturally from the milk of cows will vary at difi'erent times of the year almost as much as the difference between the color of that desk and the color of this sheet of paper. If that is so, where is your guard against coloring oleomargarine? Mr. Grout. Safety consists in the fact that oleo is white. But the Senator will not seriously claim that the color of butter varies as much as indicated by him Senator Warren. But in imitation butter, as to what degree? Mr, Grout. The}^ are not to color it at all. Senator Warren. It must be purely white? Mr. GrouT. Yes, sir; it must be white or some other color than but- ter. The bill, if law, will prevent its assuming the color of butter — ■ that is the only object — so that it can not go forth and practice these frauds. The closing clause in the section puts the tax so low that it enables pure oleo, without disguise, to go at the cheapest possible price to the consumer, and he can get it for 1() or 11 cents a pound with great profit to the manufacturer and a fair profit to the retailer, who will then do an honest business. Senator Allen. Suppose a man says from choice that he wants to use oleomargarine, but he wants it colored, has he not that right? Mr. Grout. Yes, he has the right, and let him color it himself if he wants to be to that trouble. But the legislative power, to prevent fraud, has a right to intervene and say that it shall not take a color which is calculated to produce fraud, and then put it on the market, even though it contravenes the taste of some gentlemen. Senator Allen. Do j^ou think it is within the legislative power to compel all butter to be colored, December butter, for instance? Mr. Grout. I do not think Congress will ever enter that field. If it does, and I am here, I will then enter on the discussion of that question. Senator Allen. Suppose Congress should pass a law that no Decem- ber butter should be sold unless it were colored as June butter. Do you think that would be within the power of Congress? Mr. Grout. 1 do not quite see how Congress would get jurisdiction of the question. We would not, certainly, unless it could be made clear that some fraud was to be perpetrated, and took jurisdiction by the taxing power in some way. We might do it then, but otherwise we could not take jurisdiction of it. Senator Allen. Suppose the article is stamped as oleomargarine. Do you then contend that it is within the power of Congress to con- demn the al'ticle or to give it a particular color? Mr. Grout, ^o; we are not asking you to give it any particular color. We are only asking that you make so expensive the coloring of this stufi* like butter as to leave no temptation to so color it and fraud- ulenth" sell it as butter. Senator Allen. You want to prevent fraud ? 10 OLEOMARGAEINE. Mr. Grout. That is it exactly. Pass this bill and I believe you will stop this great fraud — the greatest the world has ever known in the manufacture and sale of a food product. Do this and you will have the thanks of the millions of hard-working men and women who make honest butter, and the thanks also of the millions on millions more who want to eat honest butter. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I thank you for your kind attention. ORDER OF PROCEDURE. The Chairman. I am obliged to attend a meeting of the Committee on Military Affairs, and I will ask Senator Hansbrough to preside while I am away. I may say before going that I am sure it is the desire of the committee to give all interests a fair hearing, but we wish you to bear in mind that we are very busy — busy without prec- edent, almost, at this time — with the measures before Congress, and we hope you will make your statements as concise and brief as possi- ble and, so far as possible, not repeat what is already before us. The testimony given in the House is before us, and it will be received on both sides. That is all 1 need to say. Mr. Gardner. May 1 say a word before the chairman retires? The Chairman. The committee will remain, and the hearing will continue. Mr. Gardner. Owing to the lack of opportunity we have had to prepare for this hearing, I desire to express the hope that we may be allowed to present our case at a somewhat later date. The parties whom I represent have never had an opportunity to appear before any committee with reference to this subject. They were informed of this meeting very recentl}^ for the first time. They feel that they come here to-day utterly unprepared, and they are most anxious that they shall have an opportunity to present their view to the committee after a reasonable preparation may have been made. The Chairman. The committee will try to be reasonable and fair. I can not speak about that definitely. You represent the oleomarga- rine interest? Mr. Gardner. I represent simply one, the Oakdale Manufacturing Company, of Providence, R. I. The Chairman. I wired you Wednesday morning, did I not? Mr. Gardner. Yes; some time during the week. The Chairman. I think 1 wired you Wednesday morning. That gave 3'ou just a week's notice. We hope that we may get through with the hearing speedily, because after the holidays we shall be extremely busy. It is for your advantage to have the hearing as early as possible, because after the holidays it will probably be a very small subcommittee that we could get together. So, in order to have the hearing by the entire committee, the earlier the better, and we shall determine as we go along when we must close. But 1 merely want to urge you to be as expeditious as possible. Mr. Springer. May I ask. Senator, whether you intend to continue this investigation from day to day during the holiday recess ? The Chairman. Certainly, if necessary. I expect to be here most of the time and some members of the committee will be here all the time. 1 think probably we could have fuller meetings during the recess than afterwards. OLEOMARGAEINE. 11 Senator Hansbeough. Mr. Chairman, I wish to ask if there has been any arrangement whereby a limit is placed on the hearing? The Chairman. There has not been anj^ and in the notice I sent out 1 said that we would hear gentlemen to-daj^, and to-morrow, and the next day. Mr. Grout. I simpl}^ want to say, gentlemen, that with this testi- mony the friends of the bill submit their case, and give the field to those who are opposed to the measure. The Acting Chairman (Senator Hansbrough). It is understood that Governor Hoard is present and desires to be heard. STATEMENT OF HON. W. D. HOARD. Mr. Hoard. Mr. Chairman, I have nothing to submit at the present time. I think it only fair that the men who are opposed to this legis- lation should have tlie time. The proponents of the bill have had their say before the House. I am astonished to hear one gentleman say that he has had no chance to appear before any committee, because this bill occupied two months last winter before the House Committee on Agriculture. 1 will only add that the bill is for the purpose of preventing the counterfeiting of food, so far as the constitutional power of the Federal Government can go. The Federal Government is limited in its con- stitutional power. It has no right to enact prohibition. It has no police power. Those things you are as well aware of as I am. But it has taken ground upon certain lines, like the taxation of State banks in the interest of a sound currency. We believe this is a taxation of a counterfeit and a fraud in the interest of fair dealing, in the interest of the consumer, and in the interest of the producer. Here is a great army, between five and six million men, in this nation who are engaged in one of the most impor- tant branches of agriculture. Here is another great army of consum- ers who are being defrauded and imposed upon. The one is being swindled out of his rightful market and the other out of his propert}^, and they are both imposed upon by a fraud and a counterfeit. The question was raised whether it is not just as lawful to color oleomargarine as it is to color butter. No. In one case the question of color is a matter of taste. In the other it is a matter of fraud, a vehicle of deception. In no instance is the coloring of butter a vehicle of deception. I had a distinguished member of the other House ask me if butter was not colored in winter to make the consumer believe that it was made last June. That gentleman was a student of maxims, not of markets. The cheapest and poorest butter in winter is that made last June. The highest-priced butter is that which is not over ten days old and faultless in character and flavor. In the butter scores at all dairy fairs and conventions 3'ou will find in a scale of 100 that flavor takes 50, color, 5. It is a question of taste with the consumer. Senator Allen appears here with a woolen suit of clothes colored black. It is a question of taste with him. He would not wear that suit in its original color for any reason except that of taste. It was not colored black to make him believe it was silk, or that it was linen or cotton. It was simply colored to suit his taste; that is all. So it is with the 12 OLEOMAEGAEINE. coloring of butter. There is a market demand, a demand of the con- sumer, which compels the producer to adapt himself and cater in that particular, as the maker of fabrics has to do. So, as I said, in one case the matter of color is a question simply of taste, without any change whatever in the mind of the consumer or in the character of the product. Senator Allen. Governor, will you permit me to ask you a question ? Mr. Hoard. Certainly. Senator Allen. Why does the prudent farmer, ordinarily in June, endeavor to put down enough butter to carry him through the winter for his own use? Mr. Hoard. Senator, that is not done at the present time to any appreciable extent. Senator Allen. It has been done ever since I was a boy. Mr. Hoard. It may have been done when j^ou were a boy and when I was a boy. As to that, you are right, but at the present time the whole S3^stem of butter making is changed. Not one man puts down butter in June for the next winter, where 10,000 did it forty years ago. This wonderful change has come through the organization of creameries, where now a very large proportion of the best butter is made. That is the only thing I have to submit at the present time. I do not think it is fair to take the time of these gentlemen who are desir- ous of being heard, and what I may have to say I hope to have an opportunity, if granted, to submit at a subsequent meeting of the committee. I thank you, gentlemen, for your kind attention. opponents of the bill. The Acting Chairman. I should like to ascertain, if possible, the number of gentlemen here who desire to be heard on the other side, and about the length of time they would want to consume. Mr. ScHELL. Mr. Chairman, I represent the Ohio Butterine Fac- tory, of Cincinnati. The Acting Chairman. Are you the only one here in the interest of that institution ? Mr. ScHELL. I am the only one here in the interest of that institu- tion, and that institution came into existence the same day that the Grout bill passed the House. We certainly have not had any chance to be heard. But I do not want to take the time of this committee at all m3^self if some one representing identical interests can cover the ground better than I can. However, I want time to unite our forces, to get together and select one man to present our side of the question. The Acting Chairman. I do not believe that it is the desire of the committee to traverse the ground that has been covered by the hear- ings in the House. Mr. ScHELL. I understand that. The Acting Chairman. If possible it is desired to avoid doing that, and I simply desire to ascertain how many gentlemen are here now who wish to be heard in opposition to the bill and how much time they desire to take. We have heard from one gentleman who wishes to be heard on the other side. Mr. Gardner. 1 represent the Oakdale Manufacturing Company, of OLEOMARGAEINE. 13 Providence, R. I., which desires to be heard. I shall endeavor to be as brief as I possibly can, but owing to lack of time for preparation I can not be as brief to-day as I could be after the holidays. The Acting Chairman. Are there any other gentlemen here who wish to be heard? Mr. TiLLiNGHAST. I wish to be heard, representing the Vermont Manufacturing Company, of Providence, R. I. , and I assure you if I do speak I will not go over the ground, or at least while I may go over the ground I will not present the same facts or perhaps the same argu- ments that were used in the House. I did not appear before the House committee. I did not have any opportunity to do so. The Acting Chairman. Are you ready to go on now? Mr. TiLLiNGHAST. I am not ready to go on this morning, but Mr. Gardner is, I understand, ready to speak this morning if it is the desire that he shall proceed at this time, though he has not had that opportunit}^ for preparation that he wished. The Acting Chairman. We have heard from three gentlemen who are present and who desire to be heard. Are there others? Senator Allen. Does not the gentleman sitting by you, Mr. Gardner, desire to be heard ? Mr. Mathewson. No, sir; Mr. Gardner will represent me. Mr. Schell. I wish to add that I have not had a chance to go over what was presented to the House, and I do not know what is before the committee. I will put in every minute of my time in preparation. Senator Bate. You are the only one representing your interest? Mr. Schell. I am the only one representing it on this side. Senator Bate. We can probably hear you now. Mr. Schell. If the same arguments that I would advance appear in the hearing in the House I would have nothing to say. AH 1 want is time to prepare. Senator Allen. I think we ought to have the hearing and be pre- pared to report the bill promptly upon the meeting of Congress after the holidays. Senator Bate. I do not think we can do that. Telegrams are com- ing here from gentlemen who want to be heard after the holidays. The Acting Chairman. We shall have to decline to sit here and listen to arguments the balance of the session. Mr. Springer will be heard now. Mr. Springer. I yesterdaj^ received a telegram from the president of the National Live Stock Association of the United States, asking me to appear before this committee in behalf of the live-stock interests of the whole country to oppose the passage of the bill. I received this notice only yesterday afternoon and it was received by telegram, and I will receive a written communication probably by to-morrow morn- ing, giving some of the views and interests that that association desires to have presented to this committee. 1 will state that I am not aware that that association appeared in any capacity before the House committee. I have not had a chance to examine all its hearings yet, but I will do so at once and, if I find that they have presented their views there in any way I will not desire to go over that ground again. I do not think they have been heard. The Acting Chairman. You represent a live-stock association ? Mr. Springer. All the live-stock associations. Senator Foster. The National Live Stock Association ? 14 OLEOMAKGAKINE. Mr, Springer. All the live-stock associations of the whole country. I represent every live-stock interest in the country. Senator Heitfeld. Who is the president of the live-stock associa- tion? Mr. Springer. John W. Springer, of Dallas, Tex. Mr. Hoard. You say that you represent all the live-stock associa- tions ? Mr. Springer. All who are embodied in the live-stock association. Mr. Hoard. You do not represent the Holstein and Friesian Association ? Mr. Springer. No; 1 do not. However, the association that I represent embodies the large majority of the live-stock interests in the United States. Mr. Hoard. I knew that the Holstein and Friesian Association were here in support of the bill. Mr. Springer. Yes; they are dairymen. These are people who raise cattle for the purpose of supplying the markets of the country with live stock, and it is that association which I desire to appear for before this committee. The Acting Chairman. Are you ready to go on now? Mr. Springer. As I stated before, Mr. Chairman, I had this notice yesterday afternoon, and I have not had a chance yet to read all the testimony. I am going to go over it as rapidly as I can. I do not desire to ask for more than a reasonable delay. I think an association representing such large interests as this ought to be permitted to pre- sent their views, and that there ought to be at least a reasonable time given for that purpose. While 1 can do so some time during the holi- days I could not promise to do it this week, because this is now Wednesda}'^, and I understand Senators are very busy with matters, expecting to adjourn on Friday, but during the holday recess I hope to be able to present to the committee or a subcommittee that you may appoint the views of the association. The Acting Chairman. We have three-quarters of an hour this morning if some gentleman is read}^ to go on now. Senator Foster. Mr. Gardner is ready, I believe. STATEMENT OF RATHBONE GARDNER. Mr. Gardner. Mr. Chairman, I am as read}^ perhaps as a gentleman can be with fortj^-eight hours' preparation, and possibly I am as ready as anyone else who desires to be heard. As I said, I appear here representing the Oakdale Manufacturing Compan}^, which is a corporation engaged in the city of Providence, R. I. , in the manufacture of oleomargarine. I also represent a large number of wholesale and retail dealers in the city of Providence, who sell oleo- margarine, and who I think are, perhaps, a class which has not hereto- fore been represented in any hearing upon this bill. They are men who claim that the}^ sell the product honestly and absolutely in accord- ance with the requirements of the laws of the United States and of the State of Rhode Island, where the}^ do business. The Oakdale Manufacturing Company, as also mj" other clients, feel that an attack upon their existence compels them to protest as strongly as possible against the passage of this bill. They believe that the pas- sage of the bill would absolutely destroy their industiy, and they OLEOMARGARINE. 15 believe that the proposed law is an unwarrantable interference b}' the Congress of the United States with their conduct of a legitimate business. We protest against the bill, in the first place, upon the broad ground that we consider it a dishonest act — dishonest in purpose, pretending to be that which it is not. The Acting Chairman. Of course you do not desire to reflect on the gentlemen at the other end of the Capitol who have passed the biir^ Mr. Gardner. Not at all, because one of the representatives of the gentlemen at the other end of the Capitol has this morning expressed exactly what we claim makes the bill dishonest. He has expressed his view and his opinion that it is a bill to prevent the competition of colored oleo with butter, and I think that that purpose in a bill avowedly a revenue bill stamps it as legally a dishonest bill. I have, of course, not the slightest intention to reflect upon the motives of any person who advocates the bill, but it is a bill which seeks to accomplish by indirection that which Congress can not accomplish directly. It is avowedl}^ a revenue measure, and in explanation of my meaning I say that it is only as a revenue measure that the second section of this act can be considered and passed upon by the Congress of the United States. It is only upon the theory that it is a revenue measure that the constitutionality of the act can be upheld by the courts of the United States. I do not go into the question of the constitutionality of the proposed act. I have felt that the act would be pronounced constitutional on the same ground that other acts which imposed a tax the purpose of which was really not the collection of revenue have been pronounced by the courts of the United States to be constitutional. Upon the same ground upon which I think that the oleomargarine act of 1886 has been by the circuit court pronounced constitutional, upon the ground that the courts of the United States can not impugn the pur- poses, motives or intentions of the legislative body. Upon the face of this act it is a revenue measure. The courts will not say that, notwithstanding the fact that this is avowedly a revenue measure, they know from any source that the purpose of the act was not the collection of revenue; that it was not the intention of the legisla- tive branch of the Government in passing the act to collect revenue; that there is another motive Ij'^ing underneath and behind it. The court does not feel that it is at liberty to do that; and so it seems to me that the court probably would hold to be constitutional any measure which was avowedly a revenue measure. But, gentlemen, I say that this proposed act is not honest, in that sense. The promoters of the bill are not acting sincerely, because, while they claim the constitutionality of the act upon the ground that it is a revenue measure, and while every one of us understands that it can only be upheld upon that ground, they come here and tell 3^ou with perfect frankness that that is not the purpose of the act; that the act has another purpose. The author of the bill tells j^ou this morning that the purpose is not to destroy this industry, but that the purpose is to prevent a fraud b}^ enabling the States to exercise their police powers, or by exercising, as in effect the bill does exercise, as I think I can show in a moment, the police powers of the State for them ; that the purpose and intention of the act is to prevent a fraud. I maintain that the Congress of the United States has no more right, 16 OLEOMAEGAEINE. under the guise of a revenue act, to pass an act the purpose of which is to prevent a fraud than it has to pass an act the purpose of which is to destroy an industry. It is in either case stepping outside of its province. The author of the act has this morning stated its purpose. An advocate of the act in the House stated its purpose in these words: ' 'It proposes to require the oleomargarine manufacturer to pay a tax on oleomargarine, colored as butter, large enough to raise the expense to the producer equal to the expense of producing pure butter." That is to say, so far from the purpose of this act being the produc- tion of revenue, although that is avowedly its purpose, the purpose of the act as declared by its advocates is to regulate competition between different businesses. The advocates of the act come before this com- mittee to-day and say that colored oleomargarine enters into unfair competition with colored butter ; therefore they propose through this act to make the production of colored oleomargarine as expensive as the production of colored butter, and to destroy the advantage which they claim colored oleomargarine has to-day in the markets of the country. Now, that is a purpose which is absolutely contradictory of the claim that must be made before Congress in asking them to take action upon this bill. It is absolutely contradictory of the claim which must be made before the courts if this bill ever comes before the courts. The advocates of this measure frankly state that they are seeking by this act to do something other than what the act purports to do. The advocates of the measure before the House argued that this act was harmless because the legislatures of a large number of the States had alreadj^ adopted laws which prohibited the sale of colored oleo- margarine within those States; that they had found themselves unable to enforce those laws; that this law would simply operate to make the laws of the different States in that respect effective; and that while it was, as a matter of fact, the exercise by Congress of the police power which is reserved to the States, yet it was a harmless exercise, because in so many of the States similar laws had been adopted. It seems to me that Congress has no more right to pass a law to enable States to enforce their own laws governing the exercise of the police power, under the guise of a revenue bill, than it has itself to try to exercise that police power. I wish to call your attention to the fact that in many of the States there are no laws which forbid the sale of colored oleomargarine as such. In the State of Rhode Island, in which my client is doing busi- ness, colored oleomargarine is allowed to be sold as colored oleomarga rine. The regulation of that power of sale is something which every member of this committee will admit belongs absolutely and solely to the police power of the State. This proposed act of Congress comes and says that colored oleomargarine shall not be sold within the State. It imposes a condition upon the sale of colored oleomargarine which absolutely prohibits that sale. Upon the theory of the advocates of the bill that the passage of the bill is to enforce the police laws of the States which have enacted prohibitory legislation, it must enact in effect laws for those States which have not enacted any such prohibitory leg- islation. To-day the State of Rhode Island, as a dozen other of the United States which permit, in the wisdom of their legislatures, the sale of this product, when this bill is passed will be disabled from having the product sold within the State, and the Congress of the United States I OLEOMARGAKINE. 17 is direct!}^ exercising the police power of the State. That is true if it is true that the effect of the bill is to prohibit the sale of artificiall}' colored oleomargarine, and the advocates of the measure claim that that is its effect, because they claim that only by the passage of the bill can the State laws now existing which forbid the sale of colored oleomargarine be enforced. Therefore I say that this act is, it seems to me, properly character- ized as legally a dishonest act, a pretense, an act which seeks to do by indirection what Congress can not do directly; and while it is upon its face a reyenue act, it is ayowed by its friends and adyocates to be an act not for the purpose of raising reyenue, but for the purpose of regulating competition; an act which enables Congress to exercise the police power which is reserved to the State. If that is true, that, it seems to me, is sufficient to condemn the act. It is utterly in yiolation of principle, and if it is in yiolation of prin- ciple, then no considerations of expedienc}^ are strong enough to justify the passage of the act. That is the broad ground which we take. But we do claim much further than that — that eyen though this act were justified on principle, if it were not what we claim it to he, a sub- terfuge, it is not just or expedient in its provisions. As the author of the bill has said this morning, the chief opposition to the proposed act has not come upon the first section of the bill, but the first section of the bill is nevertheless for certain reasons very objectionable, and for certain other reasons it may in the future be very dangerous. It ma}^, I believe, accomplish what even the adyocates of the measure do not desire should be accomplished. Of course eyer}^ honest manufacturer of oleomargarine protests against the first section of the act because it places oleomargarine in the category of those dangerous articles of food the use of which the State b}' the exercise of its police power ought to regulate and does regu- late. We claim that we make an absolutely healthful food product, a food product which more than any other is certified to be healthful and wholesome — the one food product, perhaps, which the Government of the United States makes it its business to see that it is absohitcly wholesome; and we object and protest against having that product of ours placed in the category of articles which justify the exercise of the police regulations of tlie different States. But I desire to call the attention of ever}^ member of the committee, if I may, to the wording of the last part of the first section of the act, which reads as follows: " Provided^ That nothing in this act shall be construed to permit any State to forbid the manufacture or sale of oleomargarine in a separate and distinct form, and in such manner as will adyise the consumer of its real character, free from coloration or ingredient that causes it to look like butter." Every ingredient of oleomargarine causes it to look like butter. Without the use of any artificial coloring matter whatever oleomarga- rine as it comes from the factory looks like butter. It is in its natural state nearly white, and ordinary butter produced at most seasons of the year is in its natural state almost white. It may be yer}^ well claimed under the language of this section that this section does permit an}?^ State to make a law forbidding the manu- facture and sale of oleomargarine which contains any ingredient which makes it look like bvitter; and upon the section as it stands we know S. Rep. 2043 2 1 8 OLE OMAEG ARINE not how we could meet a prosecution based upon a law which forbade the making of oleomargarine to resemble butter, even though it had no coloring matter whatever. Further than that, there are certain absolutely essential ingredients of oleomargarine which do give it color. Oleomargarine can not be manufactured without the use of oleo oil, but oleo oil gives to the product a certain tint which takes it off of white, as I understand. Therefore oleo oil is an ingredient which to some extent, at least, makes oleomargarine look like butter. If a State, under this authority of Congress, passes a law which forbids the manufacture of oleomargarine that contains any ingredient which makes it look like butter, 1 do not see why they can not institute prosecutions and convict us for manu- facturing oleomargarine which contains oleo oil, and such may be the result, if it is not the purpose, of the l)ill. Then there is cotton seed oil. There are other ingredients, as I am informed, all of which have some slight tendency to give a shade of color to the substance. So if this bill is acted upon it should be drawn in such a manner as simply to forbid, or to enable the States to forbid, the artificial coloring of oleomargarine, and these very dangerous pro- visions with reference to the ingredients of the substance should be omitted. It is to the second section of the bill, or to the bill as a whole, that we chiefly object, and we object upon different grounds. I do not desire to cover, and will not, so far as I am able, cover any of the ground which has been covered in the hearings before the House committee, although this matter has been brought to my attention within a time which has rendered it utterly impossible for me to know exactly what has been presented in the House. But we claim that there are abso- lutely no conditions existing to-day which render the passage of such legislation necessary or desirable, and that the reasons urged for the passage of this act are not valid. It then becomes necessary to consider what the reasons are that are urged for the passage of this act. The reason that has heretofore been urged for the passage of similar acts is that the product was unwhole- some. That argument is presented still. I do not think there is any testimon}^ which is worthy of being considered as testimony, to that effect. As 1 have said, 1 believe it is the one substance which is, as no other substance possibly can be under existing laws, certified ])y the Government of the United States to be absolutely pure. We have, in addition to that, the testimony of chemists of the very highest stand- ing and repute who have examined the substance and who have certified over and over again to its absolute purity. But notwithstanding all that, the strongest opposition to-day to oleo margarine, the strongest popular support brought to this act, is based upon the opprobrious epithets which are hurled at the product and which have been used by the advocates of this bill in the House. While in the face of the testimony which is introduced it is impossible to claim that there is anything deleterious in this product, it is nevertheless claimed by innuendo and indirection that there are in the product those things which render it harmful to certain persons or on certain occa- sions, and there is something which perhaps is called evidence with reference to its effect in almshouses somewhere in England. It seems unnecessary to argue this point. I presume the members of this committee know the conditions under which oleomargarine is OLEOMAKGAKINE. 19 produced — that there has to be a regular formula; that there is a chemist maintained at the expense of the Government, who examines samples; that representatives of the Internal-Revenue Department stand in the doorway of every oleo manufactory; that they know exactl}^ what comes into the building- and what goes out of the build- ing. But at the same time there is lingering to-day in the public mind an impression that there is something unclean or unwholesome in the product itself. The Acting Chairman. That question is not raised here, I think, Mr. Gardner. Mr. Gardner. I do not think that it is raised here. It was, how- ever, strongly urged by the advocates of the bill in the House, and it is for that reason that I refer to it. There is testimon}^ here also with reference to its effect upon inmates of poorhouses and asylums in England. AVhether the question is raised before the committee, or will be raised before the committee, I have no way of knowing. It was raised by innuendo certainly before the House committee. Then the second reason that is alleged for the necessity of this act is that oleomargarine is fraudulently sold as butter. To a certain extent this is true. There is no doubt but that retailers, unscrupulous retailers, do occasionally sell oleomargarine, pretending that it is but- ter, just as they sell the imitation of everything else which they carry in stock, pretending that it is the article that it purports to be. But we do claim here that there is less fraud in the sale of oleomarga- rine as butter than there is in the sale of most imitations, and that that elimination of fraud has been procured by the rigid Government super- vision, and can be extended by an even more rigid Government super- vision, which ever}" honest manufacturer of oleomargarine is anxious to submit to, and, so far as it lies in his power, to secure. But the statements which are made with reference to the amount of the fraudulent sales of oleomargarine in imitation of butter are abso- lutel}^ groundless. The author of the bill, in advocating its passage in the House, said that not one pound in a thousand of this substance was sold as oleomargarine, liut that nine hundred and ninety-nine pounds out of every thousand were sold as butter. Another advocate of the bill said that 90 per cent of the product was sold as butter. Another advocate of the bill said that it was never put upon the market except as butter. All those statements were made in the advocacy of the bill in the House of Representatives, and all those statements doubt- less had their effect upon those who had not investigated the testimony. After looking* through the testimony which was taken before the House committee very thoroughly, the only evidence which I find in support of those assertions is that out of twenty -five hundred dealers in Illinois two were found who had made a fraudulent sale of this product and the affidavits of a certain party, or perhaps parties, in Philadelphia that on several occasions they had purchased in one market or at one place oleomargarine for butter. I believe that that was absolutely the only evidence which was sub- mitted in substantiation of these wild charges. What w^as the evidence to the contrary? The late Commissioner of Internal Revenue has stated that, in his judgment (and there is no man who had such oppor- tunities to form any judgment, he being charged with the regulation of this lousiness), not 10 per cent of this product was sold anywhere for anything else except what it actually is, oleomargarine. 20 OLEOMAEGAKINE. Who sells this oleomargarine as butter? I say, and I say without fear of contradiction, that no manufacturer of oleomargarine sells one pound of oleomargarine for anything else except oleomargarine. It is utterly impossible for him to do it. It is against his own interests to do it. Possibly members of the committee know the kind of super- vision which is exercised over the manufacture of this substance; that inspectors of the Internal-Revenue Department take account of every pound of material which goes into a factory and see that every poiuid of oleomargarine which can be produced from that material goes out of the factory. There is absoluteh" no opportunity for any manufac- turer, if he wished, to send out oleomargarine as butter. Then, nobody has an}^ occasion to go to that factory for anj^hing except oleomargarine, because nothing except oleomargarine can be sold at that factory or manufactured at that factory for sale. The inspec- tion is rigid. The penalties, involving the forfeiture of the manufac- turer's entire plant, are so extreme as to render absolutely untenable the supposition that any manufacturer, however dishonest he might desire to be, should sell this product for anything but oleomargarine. I do not know how it may be with the great packing houses with whom my clients have no connection, but we say that three-quarters of our entire product is sold by the manufacturer directly to the consumer. I think I am right. Mr. Mathewson. You are correct, Mr. Gardner. Approximating three-quarters of the entire product is sold directly by the manufacturer to the consumer in the original package, usually a 10-pound package. Now, if the Congress of the United States are to legislate to prevent the keeper of a boarding house from giving his guests some imitatation food product they have under- taken a contract. What the head of a family does, whether a husband deceives his wife and his children, or a wife deceives her husband as to the nature of the product which he puts upon the table, we do not know. Whether the keeper of a boarding house deceives his guests as to what they are eating, we do not know. That is not a matter of purchase and sale. It is not anything which by this bill can be con- trolled. We make the assertion that by the manufacturer there is no violation of the law whatever; that every pound of oleomargarine pro- duced at the factory is sold as oleomargarine; that he desires that it should be sold as oleomargarine; that he is making a reputation for his factorj^, and that the necessities of his business and his own self- interest require that he should do it. And as a matter of fact, with the people whom I represent, the great proportion of the product is sold by them directy to the consumer. I shall have to take up this question regularly, and I will go over it as quickly as possible. I do not know whether the committee deem it essential that I should finish what I have to sa}^ absolutely this morn- ing. I have, I think, less than twenty minutes left. Senator Bate. It is about 10 minutes to 12. The Acting Chairman. We shall have to adjourn at 12. Senator Warren. I suggest that we fill in what time there is left, and then if Mr. Gardner wishes to present further facts to the com- mittee the opportunity will be given to him to do so. Mr. Gardner. I do not think I shall want to occupy a great deal more time. OLEOMARGARINE. 21 The Acting Chairman. If agreeable to the committee, we will con- tinue the hearing to-morrow. Senator Foster. Certainly. Senator Allen. Let us meet at 9 o'clock in the morning. The Acting Chairman. You have only about ten minutes left, and I will ask you a question. Can you inform the committee as to the average price of the manufacture of oleomargarine — the cost of pro- duction ? Mr. Gardner. I should say about 12 cents — from 12 to 13 cents — but my client can answer that question better than I. Mr. Mathewson. The selling price of our goods runs from 12^ to 13i packed in tub, and the average profit will average less than a cent a pound — barely half a cent a pound from the day we commenced manu- facturing up to the present time. To substantiate that statement our books are open for the inspection of any member of this committee, or the members of a subcommittee of this committee. Mr. Gardner. That is what I understood. Senator Foster. Is there any residuum ^ Have you anything else except oleo left? Mr. Mathewson. The only residuum you can speak of are some by- products which come from the rerendering of the scrap of leaf lard and the refining of a certain amount of grease which goes out on the floor, which passes off into soap grease. Senator Bate. What ingredients are put into oleomargarine before you sell it? Mr. Mathewson. The ingredients that go to make up oleomargarine are oleo oil, neutral lard, lard made from the leaf, and nothing but the leaf. Mr. Gardner. You buy the leaf? Mr. Mathewson. We buy the leaf and make the lard ourselves. It is made from absolutely pure leaf. Senator Bate. What are the proportions? Mr. Mathewson. Cotton-seed oil, cream, milk, salt, and coloring. The Acting Chairman. What is the proportion of cream and milk ? Senator Foster. Is there a secret in your formula? Mr. Mathewson. Oh, no; there is no secret about it. There is absolutely no secret as far as the making of oleomargarine is concerned. The three ingredients of oleo — oil, lard, and cotton-seed oil — make from 75 to 80 per cent of the whole. Senator Bate. Of equal proportions? Mr. Mathewson. The proportions vary according to the seasons of the year and according to the climate. Senator Bate. Of those three articles? Mr. Mathewson. Of those three articles. The other 20 per cent is made up of cream, milk, salt, coloring, and the natural gain which comes from the churning of the article, the same as in butter. The Acting Chairman. There is not enough milk and cream in it, however, to give it a butter color? Mr. Mathewson. Under this bill we should be absolutely unable to use any butter, because all butter is colored, and we would be indicted for using butter. The Acting Chairman. I understood Mr. Gardner to say that but- ter was universally white when first manufactured. Senator Bate. In winter. 52 OLEOMARGARlT^E. Mr. Gardner. I stated that it was ordinarily so. I do not think I said that was universally the case; but in point of fact butter at most seasons of the year is practically white. It is slightly colored. The Acting Chairman. And you said there was some slight color to oleomargarine when iirst manufactured. Mr. Gardner. There is some slight color to it. It would be very difficult to distinguish the ordinary butter of commerce at this time of the year from uncolored oleomargarine. One bears as much resem- blance to the other as can possibly be. The Acting Chairman. The two articles would be on all fours until properly treated with coloring matter? Mr. Gardner. Absolutely on all fours; and, as I said, the danger of the first section is that the manufacturer would manufacture a product that would look like butter. Senator Warren. That is to say, if a creamery was getting milk from a dairy where the cows were fed through the winter on grain, the butter might take a high color, but if butter was made by a farmer who had three or four cows who were eating hay alone it would be nearly the color of your oleomargarine 'i Mr. Gardner. That is what my clients have told me. Mr. Mathewson. That is the fact. Senator Bate. What kind of food is it that gives butter a yellow color ? Mr. Mathewson. Grain, ensilage, grass, and carrots. The color depends on the food. The Acting Chairman. Why do you color oleomargarine ? Mr. Gardner. I was going to speak of that, later, but I am willing to answer the question. We color it to meet the public taste — for exactly the same reason that the manufacturer colors butter. We can not sell it unless we color it. Senator Foster. Butter is colored through the cow, and oleomarga- rine is colored after it is made. Mr. Gardner. Butter is colored after it is made. The Acting Chairman. So when a gentleman sits down at a table with butter before him he does not know whether it is oleo or butter. Mr, Gardner. If he is living at a boarding house he trusts, perhaps, to the honesty of the person with whom he is living. Senator Foster. What is the difference in value between butter and oleo? Mr. Gardner. Cheap butter, renovated butter, resurrection butter, as we call it, made up of old rancid butter which has been melted and made over and then colored, can be produced cheaper than oleomarga- rine can be produced. Then butter runs up to any cost which taste and luxury call for. Senator Warren. For creamery butter they would charge a price twice as much ? Mr. Gardner. Yes; and oleomargarine never under any circum- stances comes in competition with it. It has not the taste and has not the flavor. Senator Bate. You did not answer my question. I want to know what kind of food produces white and what kind yellow butter? Mr. TiLLiNGHAST. As I am something of a farmer perhaps I can answer that question better. Senator Bate. What kind of food affects the color of butter? OLEOMAKGARINE 23 Mr. Mathewson. One of the members of j^our committee has already explained that, I am not a practical farmer, and I do not pre- tend to know so much about it probably as some of the other gentle- men, but in a general way when a herd of cows is kept on an ordinary farm, ordinary country stock, not Jerseys, or Alderne3^s, or Guernseys, not hig-h grade, but kept in an ordinary barn during the winter and fed on hay and fodder, the butter will come out very nearly white. Now, if you go from that to a herd of high-grade Jerseys, or Guern- seys, or Alderneys, any of the high-grade cattle, and they are fed on grass or on grain, or carrots, or ensilage, or anything of that kind, they will produce a butter more highh" colored, but it will not be even then of the shade of that which is ordinarily served on the tables. Every section of the country has a different color, and that color is obtained in butter 'the same as it is obtained in oleo, and it could riot be gotten an}' other way. Senator Bate. Cows that are fed in winter upon hay, etc., produce white butter? Senator Heitfeld. On dry food. Senator Bate. On dry food? Mr. Mathewson. Yes, sir. Senator Bate. Suppose those same cows are grazed in summer on grass, how does that affect the color of the butter? Mr. Mathewson. That would give it a different color — more of a 3"ellow shade. Senator Warren. It generally makes a difference whether the cow is fresh or not. The butter is more highly colored soon after calving. Senator Foster. Mr. Mathewson, do vou use oleomargarine on your table? Mr. Mathewson. I use both. My family is not large. The Acting Chairman. You know the difference when both are on the table? Mr. Mathewson. I think I do. I use the best creamery butter which I can buy, and we never have claimed that oleomargarine was in competition with that grade of butter; that is, on the table. For all other purposes in m}- family I use oleomargarine. Senator Warren. For cooking. Mr. Mathewson. For cooking and for the dressing of meats, fish, pastry, and every other purpose. Many a time have I sent from my table butter that cost 35 and 38 cents a pound and asked them to bring oleo in place of it. The Acting Chairman. It is not necessary that it should be colored for cooking purposes? Mr. Mathewson. That is not necessary for cooking pui*poses. The Acting Chairman. I think it is the aim of Congress to under- take in some manner to inform the hundreds of thousands of people who are boarding at boarding houses and hotels as to exacth' what they are eating, whether it is butter or oleomargarine. They have no way of ascertaining that fact. Mr. Mathewson. You can not inform them hj this bill. On motion of Senator Bate (at 12 o'clock meridian), the committee adjourned to meet to-morrow at half past 10 o'clock a. m. 24 OLEOMARGARINE. Thursday, December 20, 1900. The committee met at 10.30 a. m. Present: SiMiators Proctor (chairman), Hansbrough, AVarren, Foster, Bate, Monej^, Heitfeld, and Allen. Also, Hon. William W. Grout, a Representative from the State of Vermont; Hon. W. D, Hoard, president of the National Dairy Union; C. Y. Knight, secretary of the National Dairy Union; Hon. William M. Springer, representing the National Live Stock Association; Frank M. Mathewson, president of the Oakdale Manufacturing Company; liath- lione Gardner, representing the Oakdale Manufacturing Company; Frank W. Tillinghast, representing the Vermont Manufacturing Com- pany; Charles E. Schell, representing the Ohio Butterine Company; John F. Jelke, representing the firm of Braun & Fitts, of Chicago, 111., and others. PERSONAL, EXPLANATION. Senator Allen. Mr. Chairman, before the hearing progresses further I desire to make a brief statement, to be entered on the record as a part of the proceedings of the committee. During the last three days I have been in receipt of numerous tele- grams from different gentlemen in my State to the effect that it is reported in Nebraska that I am opposed to this so-called Grout bill and strongl}' urging me to support it. I have never, either publicly or privately, given utterance to anything from which any man could infer that I was either for or against the bill; but yesterday I had occasion to ask General Grout some questions, from which it was inferred, I suppose, by the lobbyists present in favor of the measure, that I was opposed to it; and during the night and this morning I have received numerous telegrams to that effect. There is but one conclusion to be drawn from the situation, and that is that telegrams were sent out yesterday to the State of Nebraska, after the conclusion of the hearing before the committee, to the effect that I was opposed to this bill and urging persons there to flood me with telegrams to support it. I want to enter my protest against this cheap- John peanut political method. It is an old and threadbare scheme to undertake indirectly to bring pressure upon a Senator to support a measure regardless of its merits b}^ the implied threat of a withdrawal of support at home if he fails to do so. I have no words to express my utter contempt for this method and for those who would engage in it. The lobbyists who are supporting this l)ill are doing it more injury than its open and avowed opponents. This method can have no effect upon my action. If after the hearings are concluded 1 become con- vinced that the bill ought to be supported and become a law, I will support it, regardless of public sentiment in my State or elsewhere; and if, on the other hand, I become satislied that it ought not become a law, I will oppose it and vote against it, regardless of any pressure that may be brought to bear in its support. 1 desire to add, in conclusion, that if any more reports are sent out to the effect that I am opposing the measure or supporting it, and if I am the recipient of any more letters or telegrams which I may have rea- son to believe emanate from the lobbyists in favor of or against this measure, I shall ask that these hearings be private and that no one but OLEOMARGARINE. 25 the particular individual who is giving testimonj^ shall be present at any time. I want again to denounce, in the severest language I am capable of using, the sneaking and cowardly method that has been pursued in respect to this measure. The Chairihan. Mr. Gardner, you may proceed. STATEMENT OF RATHBONE GARDNER— Continued. Mr. Gardner. Mr. Chairman, at the time of the adjournment yester- day I had partly completed my argument, and with the permission of the members of the committee I will resume it. 1 was engaged at the time of the adjournment in the endeavor to support the proposition that there were no existing conditions to-day which demanded the passage of legislation of this character in the interest of any legitimate industr}". I was considering somewhat in detail the reasons which have been advanced by the advocates of this measure for its passage. I had referred to the claim heretofore made, and now I think practi- cally abandoned, that oleomargarine is an unwholesome substance which it is proper, in the interest of the public health, to legislate against. In this connection I desire to refer to one piece of evidence which I did not mention yesterday. The Chairman. May I ask you a question right there? I do not know anything about this business, I will state in advance, and I want to learn about it what I can. Presuming what you say to be true, and I have no reason to question it, that oleomai'garine is, as now made, wholesome, I want to ask if it is not possible, it being a combination of various materials, I suppose, to introduce ingredients that are in themselves unwholesome — whether, in other words, an unscrupulous dealer might not put in unwholesome ingredients and so conceal them that the final consumer would not be able to know it? Mr. Gardner. I will answer that question as well as I can, Mr. Chairman, not being thoroughly familiar personally with the methods of manufacturing oleomargarine. The Chairman. You appear as counsel? Mr. Gardner. I appear as counsel. In answer to your question I would say that while I presume it is possible in the manufacture of any compound to introduce elements which are deleterious to the pub- lic health, I believe that there is no product in which it is so difficult, so well-nigh impossible to do it as here. The manufacture of this prod- uct is under the control of the Government. The Department of Internal Revenue have provided the most stringent regulations. They keep in every factory, I think, an inspector whose dut}' it is to know what comes into that factoiy and what goes out of the factoiy. Noth- ing can go out of that factory except oleomargarine, and everything that goes into that factory is to be used for the manufacture of oleo- margarine. If any substance of that kind is taken into the factoiy it must l)e known. Moreover, the Government of the United States maintains an expert chemist to whom the articles of this manufacture can be submitted without cost for analysis and for constant inspection as to their component parts. So I believe if it can be said of any com- modity that it is impossible to introduce deleterious substances into it that can be said of this commodity. The Chairivian. That answers my question. 20 OLEOMAKGARINE. Mr. Gardner. And I think that to-day there is no question made by any person whose judgment is worth anything, there is no question by anyone else than those who hurl epithets, who call it grease prod- uct and that sort of thing, that the product is in any degree unwhole- some. In this connection I desire to ask the careful attention of the com- mittee to the report with reference to oleomargarine which is con- tained in the findings of the committee of the Senate which was appointed to consider the question of the adulteration of food prod- ucts. Such a consideration will show to the members of this com- mittee that that committee has certified, as every competent authority has certified, that oleomargarine is probably the one purest compound which is manufactured for human consumption. Senator Hansbrough. Let me ask a question. Do 1 understand you to say that the Government keeps an inspector, or agent, or expert, in each of the oleomargarine factories in the country? Mr. Gardner. I think so. If not constantly in each of the oleomar- garine factories, certainl}^ in each district where there is an oleomar- garine factory, whose duty it is to visit the factory. Senator Hansbrough. Can you tell us how many oleomargarine factories there are ? Mr. Gardner. I am informed that the manufacturers make every month a sworn return of every item of material which goes into the manufacture of oleomargarine, and that there are in each district inspec- tors of the internal revenue department who investigate the facts from time to time to ascertain whether these returns are correct. Senator Hansbrough. Can you inform the committee how many oleomargarine factories there are in the United States, approximately ? Senator Bate. And where located? Mr. Gardner. I shall perhaps refer that question to some gentle- man engaged in the business. Mr. Jelke. The Internal Revenue Department in the last report state that there were twentj^-seven oleomargarine factories in the United States on the 1st of last July. Since then there have been some new establishments opened. Senator Hansbrough. So there are several of them in an internal- revenue district? Mr. Jelke. In several of the internal-revenue districts there are a number. Senator Hansbrough. Do I understand that the inspector in each district depends upon the man at the factory for the report to his Department, and that he has no personal supervision ? Mr. Jelke. Our factory is visited almost daily by some internal- revenue deput}^, and I have personally taken the new deputies who have come to visit us over the factories and let them see every nook and corner. The Chairman. What is your factory? Mr. Jelke. I represent Braun & Fitts, of Chicago. Senator Bate. Can you tell us where the factories are located, or will you submit it in writing, so that we may know in what States they are located? Mr. Jelke. I can do so. Senator Bate. I do not ask you to stop to do it now. Mr. Jelke. The Internal-Revenue Commissioner's report gives each one in detail. I will furnish that if it is desired. OLEOMARGAKINE ^7 Senator Hansbrough. There is but one Government chemist, how- ever, who is authorized to inspect the ing-redients ? Mr. Jelke. I understand there is one head chemist. Senator Foster. He has several deputies? Mr. Jelke. He has several deputies. Senator Heitfeld. Are you compelled to submit this product to the chemist? Mr. Jelke. Whenever he calls for it we submit to him an3^thing-. Senator Hansbrough. He has no personal supervision over the con- stituent parts that go into oleomargarine? Mr. Jelke. If he desires it he can have. It is his privilege to investigate every part of the manufacture, and our factory is as open to him as it is to any employee of the establishment. The Chairman. You will resume, Mr. Gardner. Mr. Gardner. I had then taken up the claim of the advocates of the bill that oleomargarine is to a great extent fraudulently sold, not as oleomargarine, but as butter. I had endeavored to show that while undoubtedly there is a certain element of fraud in the sale of this arti- cle, as there is in the sale, it seems to me, of every food product, the element of fraud is much less than has been claimed, and that it con- sists entirely in the transactions between the retailer and the consumer. I had considered at length, and I hope established to the satisfaction of the members of the committee, that there is and can be no fraudu- lent sale of this product by the manufacturer; that the manufacturer sells nothing else at his establishment; that he is not allowed by law to keep for sale in his establishment anything else, and that anyone who comes to purchase any substance there comes to purchase oleo margarine and nothing else, and that there is no fraud on his part. That is the point at which I left my argument yesterday, namely, the assertion that whatever fraud there is in the sale of this article for something other than what it is is confined entirely to the transaction between the retailer and the consumer. The manufacturer, gentlemen, is just as anxious to prevent fraud as anyone possibly can be, and he must be so in the nature of things. He is a manufacturer of olemargarine. He himself is obliged, as I have shown you, and as Mr. Grout admitted yesterday, I think, to sell it as oleomargarine, and nothing else. It is for his interest that oleomar- garine should have a legal and a respectable standing as a food product, and every fraud that is practiced with reference to it through <^he retailer, every prosecution that is instituted upon the ground of a fraudulent sale, is an injury to the article which the manufacturer has to sell. Anything which this committee can possibly devise, which shall make it more difficult, if that may be possible, for the retailers to practice fraud in this respect upon his customer will be welcomed b}' the manufacturer. I make another assertion, gentlemen. I make the assertion, with- out fear of successful contradiction, that all the fraud which exists in the sale of this product is due to the passage in the different States of laws forbidding the sale of the product for what it is — for oleomargar- ine. As was suggested here yesterday, in some 32 States laws have been adopted which forbid the sale of colored oleomargarine. There- fore, in those States oleomargarine can not be sold as oleomargarine; and 1 make the statement here and now that in those States which per- mit the sale of oleomargarine as oleomargarine it is practically never sold for anything else but oleomargarine. 28 OLEOMAKGAEINE. As I have said, 1 appear here simply as an attorne}^, simpl}" as an advocate, without a special knowledge of this business. Upon this point, however, I can appear as a witness, for I know the condition of affairs which exists in my own city of Providence. The State of Rhode Island has a law which provides that oleomargarine when it is sold shall be branded as such. That is all the hxw upon the subject in the State of Rhode Island. The result is that in the State of Rhode Island the sale of oleomargarine is a legitimate business. It is sold as oleomargarine, and it is sold as nothing else. Our wholesale and our retail dealers advertise in the papers that they have this, that, or the other brand of oleomargarine for sale, and as you walk up and down our streets you will see upon the placards in front of our grocery stores this or that brand o^ oleomargarine at such a price. The busi- ness is advertised as widely as it can be advertised. When you enter the stores you will see the same signs. You will see the Oakdale oleo- margarine or the Vermont oleomargarine or Swift's oleomargarine for sale side by side with process butter, and side by side with creamery butter, and it is sold for what it is. It is undoubtedly the fact that at the inception of this industry unscrupulous dealers saw an opportunity for large profits, and that they sold this substance for butter. As district attorne}- of the United States for the district of Rhode Island, I had occasion, twelve years ago or so, to prosecute many such persons, and prosecutions were insti- tuted and most vigorously carried on by the Internal-Revenue Depart- ment of the United States. Under the stimulus of the possibility of a legitimate business with a fair profit into which high-minded business men can enter, that condi- tion of afi'airs has absolutel}' disappeared. I state, gentlemen, that to-day in the one city with which I am familiar, as a result of the fair treatment of this business, the business is conducted fairly and honestly. This article is sold simply for what it is, as honestly as any other article of food is sold for what it is. I assert as a corollary to this proposition that almost every item of fraud of which the advocates of this bill complain is due to the enact- ment in very many States of unjust and unwholesome laws forbidding its sale for what it is — laws which have no backing in public opin- ion, and which interfere with what otherwise would be a legitimate business. Let me refer to what is the condition of things in Massachusetts, a neighboring State which does forbid absolutely the sale of colored oleomargarine even as oleomargarine. The condition there follows perfectly naturally, it seems to me, from what we must all understand to be the circumstances. We all know that there is no more universal demand than the demand for butter or something to take the place of ])utter. Butter is not a luxury. Butter is a necessity of life to-da}'^, and there is a demand on the part of all classes in the community for a pure butter at a reasonable price, or a pure butter substitute at a reasonable price. Creamery butter is undoubtedly the best which can be used or which can be purchased, but, as we all know, the great mass of the community can not pay the price which is charged for creamery butter. They go to the person from whom they buy their butter in Massachusetts, where the sale of oleomargarine colored is forbidden, and they tell him that they want a pure butter, a good but- ter, at a reasonable price. OLEOMARGAEINE. 29 This dealer has upon his shelves the process butter, or the renovated butter, to which 1 shall refer in a few moments. That he is allowed to sell by the laws of Massachusetts without let or hindrance. He offers it to his customer, and perhaps his customer buys it. He goes home and tastes it and finds that when he uses it it takes the skin off the roof of his mouth. He comes back the next time he requires but- ter, and he says to the dealer, "We can not use that stuff you sold me." There is a demand which this dealer is tempted in some way to supply. He has oleomargarine. He knows that if he sells oleomar- garine to this man at the same price or a little higher price than he paid for his process butter this man will be a satisfied customer. He does sell it to him. He sells it to him as butter; and why does he sell it to him as butter? Not because the man is not perfectly willing to take it as oleomargarine, but because if he sells it as oleomargarine he violates the law of the State of Massachusetts. He does not dare to trust the customer, who may appear as a witness against him, and for that simple reason, instead of selling this substance for what it is, oleo- margarine, he sells it for butter, which it is not, and to that extent he perpetrates a fraud upon his customer. It is the most innocent of all frauds so far as the customer is concerned, for the customer gets what he wants, a pure article of good flavor, which satisfies his needs. But he does buy it upon the statement, perhaps under the impression, that it is something else than what he asks for, and that is a fraud. Senator Allen. What do you call process butter ? Mr. Gardner. Process butter, as I understand it, is a butter which is produced in this way: Butter which has become unmarketable — ran- cid butter, butter which is old and left over, which for any reason can not be used in the trade^ — is purchased, and it is melted over. It is treated; it is rechurned; it is colored, and it is put upon the market as butter. Senator Allen. What ingredients enter into process butter? Mr. Gardner. I do not think that any ingredients enter into it. It is the original butter spoiled and made over again. Senator Foster. Flavored over? Mr. Gardner. Flavored over and washed with acids, as my clients inform me. Senator Allen. How do jou remove the tainted taste? Mr. Gardner. I will ask some of my friends here to answer the question. Senator Foster. It is sterilized? Mr. Jelke. It is removed by aeration and washing in acid. Senator Allen. What acid? Mr. Jelke, Sulphuric acid. Senator Allen. Something injurious to the digestion ? Mr. Hoard. 1 should like to ask a question. Do you know that renovated butter is washed with sulphuric acid? Mr. Jelke. I have known it. Mr. Hoard. How do you know it? Mr. Jelke. Because I have been in the butter business years ago, Mr. Hoard. When was the renovated butter process instituted? Mr. Jelke. The recent improvements in process butter have been adopted within the last five or six years. Mr. Hoard. Do you know of any establishment making renovated butter that uses sulphuric acid ? 80 OLEOMAKGAEINE. Mr. Jelke. Ill water; yes, sir. Mr. Hoard. Where? Mr. Jelke. They have used it in Chicago. Mr. Hoard, In Avhat establishment? Mr. Jelke. I do not think it would be proper for me to say. Mr. Hoard. All right. The Chairman. I did not understand 3^our question, Governor Hoard. Mr. Hoard, I was speaking of the manufacture of process butter, so called. The gentleman says that it is treated with sulphuric acid. There is no occasion whatever to treat it with sulphuric acid or anj/ acid. Senator Allen. How can you remove the taint? Mr. Hoard, The taint is in the casein content of butter, not in the butter fat. The whole process of albuminous fermentation is in the casein content, and the acid does not take out the casein. The simple method of making process butter is that it is melted, boiled, clarified, skimmed, and the elements taken out of it. It is then reincorporated into milk and separated by centrifugal separation, the same as )>utter fat is separated from ordinary milk. It is then taken and put into creamery vats and subjected to the same process of ripening that the process of creamery butter is subjected to. I know of no introduction of acids in its treatment, and I was asking the gentleman what he knew, that is all. The Chairman. I did not quite catch the question that the gentle- man declined to answer. Mr. Hoard. I asked him what establishments he knew were treat- ing it with sulphuric acid. So far as that is concerned, the testimony before this body in 1880 was aT)undant as to the use of sulphuric acid in oleomargarine. Senator Allen. I do not think the question is yet answered as to how you eliminate the rancid taste or the decayed taste of the butter fat from process butter. Mr. Hoard. By boiling and clarifying, and in that manner taking the casein content out of it. Senator Allen. But the fat itself is decayed, is it not? Mr. Hoard. No, sir; not at all. Senator Allen. It is in process of deca}^ ? Mr. Hoard. You can not decay butter fat chemically. The only process by which it can be deca^^ed is through what is known as albu- minous fermentation, and albuminous fermentation is imparted to it by the casein content, which is almost pure albumen or protein. Any person who is a student of these things will readily know that this process butter is not a fraud or counterfeit in any sense. It is an imposition if sold for other than it is. Therein constitutes the wrong- doing. Senator Allen. You say that the butter fat itself is not affected or tainted by the process ? Mr. Hoard, No, sir. The whole process of rancidity and distaste which you have in rancid butter is not the butter fat itself but is in the casein content which may be left in the butter. Senator Allen. Is that the case with any other decaying animal substance ? Mr. Hoard. I do not know. OLEOMAKGARINE. 31 Mr. Mathewson. May I have the privilege of asking the gentleman a question ? The Chairman. Yes, sir. Mr. Mathewson. He says the only fraud in the question of process butter on the market is that it is not marked or branded. Mr. Hoard. No; I did not say so. Mr. Matheavson. That it is sold for what it is not. Mr. Hoard. I say in case it is sold for what it is not is a fraud. Mr, Mathewson. Is it ever sold for anything else ? Can you tell the committee of a case where it is sold for renovated or process butter? Mr. PloARD. I do not know anything about the sale of process but- ter at all, because I have had nothing to do with it. 1 am simply rea- soning abstractly on the proposition as to wherein the process lies to the extent that the butter fat in process butter is original butter fat and not another kind of animal fat. Mr. Mathewson. I understand you to state to the committee that the butter fat from which process butter is made is not tainted and is perfectly sweet. Mr. Hoard. I did not say that the butter was sweet. Mr. Mathewson. The butter fat? Mr. Hoard. The butter fat, when boiled and clarified. Mr. Mathewson. How is it clarified ? Mr. Hoard. By boiling. It is steamed. Mr. Mathewson. Are you familiar with the process? Mr. Hoard. I am, somewhat. Mr, Mathewson, And you know that this boiling and steaming absolutely clarifies that fat? Mr. Hoard. Certainly; 1 know that. Mr. Mathewson. I shall have to differ with you, because I have seen the process time and time again, and I know that that is not the case. Mr. Hoard, Very well; I ask for information. What do 3"ou know, please ? Mr, Mathewson. I know that the fat extracted from old butter — butter that has become putrid, or strong, or rancid — is thoroughly scented with that same odor. No amount of boiling — you can boil it from now until doomsday — will ever remove that rancid smell. Mr. Hoard. What is done to remove it? Mr. Mathewson. It has to be treated in other ways. Mr, Hoard. In what way ? Mr. Mathewson. There are several ways. I am not a manufacturer of process butter myself, so I do not know, and in such factories as I have been in they have tried, I think, not to let me see the whole process. Mr, Knight, If you want information, I am thoroughly familiar with the matter, I have been through the largest factories in the United States, and I know the manufacture of process butter very thoroughly. If the committee want the information, I can give it at an}^ time. Senator Allen, I would like to have it. The Chairman, I presume that Mr, Gardner may be in some haste to conclude. I suggest that we allow him to proceed. Senator Heitfeld, We will be glad to hear Mr, Knight later on, Mr, Gardner. I will endeavor to close my argument as qidckly as 32 OLEOMARGARINE. I possibly can, and in anything I may state which may require investi- gation or answer the answer, perliaps, can be reserved. The point which I was trying to make was that absolutely the only occasion for the fraud which the advocates of this bill complain of is the passage in so many States of laws which make it impossible for a dealer to be honest, however much he may desire to be so, if he is to sell this product at all, which actually supplies a demand. I say that if the advocates of the bill are consistent and desire that oleomargarine should stand in the market solely upon its own merits and should not come into competition with butter, they can accomplish this purpose by procuring the repeal of those laws. They would do so if they knew where their own interests lay. It is simply by making it illegal to carry on this business as it ought to be carried on that there is a temp- tation offered to carry on the business as it ought not to be carried on. But what does this bill do? The bill proposes that upon the States which under the influence of wiser counsels have not enacted such laws — laws which have occasioned fraud — there shall be imposed the same con- ditions which exist in the States where those laws have been enacted, and in those States where it is desired to do an honest business to make it possible only to do a fraudulent business. Let me point out, further, that the bill does not seek to stop such fraud. The bill only seeks to make the carrying on of that business more expensive. The bill allows oleomargarine to be manufactured and to be artiflciall}' colored so as to resemble butter. It simply pro- vides that when it is so colored as to resemble butter it shall pay a tax of 10 cents per pound instead of paying a tax of 2 cents per pound. Now, let us suppose it to be true — I assert that it is not true, but it is the basis of the whole argument of the advocates of the bill — let us suppose it to be true that this substance when artificially colored does come into competition with the best, or with good creamery, butter. That is what they assert. They say that it can be sold for 28 or 30, and in some instances for 35 cents a pound. Let us suppose that to be true. Then oleomargarine which sells to-day at 15 cents a pound at retail, after the tax of 2 cents a pound has been paid, would sell, after the passage of this bill, to secure the same profit to its manufacturer and its retailer, at 8 cents a pound more, or at 23 cents a pound. If it does come into competition with creamery butter at 25 and 30 and 35 cents a pound it will come into competition still, and if the dealer wants to make his profit he will simply have to press the sale of it harder. There is to be a profit of 7 or 12 cents a pound in the perpe- tration of this fraud, even after the passage of the bill, if the statement of the advocates of the bill is even approximately correct that it can be sold as pure creamery butter of the highest type. Therefore it appears that the advocates of the bill do not offer any remedy for the fraud of which they complain, but that upon their own hypothesis they are only making the fraud more expensive to the man who carries it on; and the bill is utterly inadequate for the purpose for which it purports to be drawn. Senator Hansbrough. How would it do to make the tax 20 cents a pound? Mr. Gardner. That would be more effective. A tax of a dollar a pound would l^e more effective still. But you come right liack to the proposition which I laid down at the start, that this is legislation which seeks to prohibit the sale of oleomargarine, and if you want to prohibit OLEOMARGARINE. 33 it, 3^ou should adopt the suggestion which has been made and put the tax so high tliat it can not be sold at all to anybody. Senator Hansbrough, If there were no State or national law on the subject, would the manufacturers of oleomargarine seek to color their product? Mr. Gardner. If there were no State law? Senator Hansbrough. Yes. You complain of the existence of State lav/s. Mr. Gardner. I do complain of the existence of State laws, not of the existence of national laws. Senator Hansbrough. You say that is the way to get rid of the fraud ? Mr. Gardner. Yes; to repeal the State laws which say that colored oleomargarine shall not be sold as oleomargarine. Senator Hansbrough. And to have no laws whatever? Mr. Gardner. I beg your pardon; I do not wish to have no laws whatever. I say, have the most stringent possible laws to provide that it shall be sold simply as oleomargarine and as nothing else. Have the most stringent laws possible, but no laws forbidding the sale of colored oleomargarine. The United States law to-day is strin- gent. Ever.y manufacturer is glad that it is stringent. Every manu- facturer would like to have it made more stringent in the direction of securing the sale of this article simply for what it is. Senator Hansbrough. If denied the privilege of coloring the product, would the volume of the product diminish? Mr. Gardner. It would diminish, absolutely. There would not be any sold at all, in my judgment. Senator Hansbrough. Would that be the case with butter, if there should be a law enacted that butter must not be colored? Mr. Gardner. If people could not get any yellow substance to eat on their bread they would take white, undoubtedly; but as long as there is a yellow substance on the market, as I will argue to the committee in a few minutes, people will not take white. Now, the next reason advanced why this legislation ought to be enacted is that yellow is what is called the butter trade-mark. That phrase was used by the advocates of this bill in the House. It was said that butter has some sort of a trade-mark or copja-ight upon the color yellow. That matter has been hashed out at great length, and it is not necessary for me to go into it in detail very much; but I do want to call the attention of the committee to these considerations. It has already, I think, sufficiently appeared by the admissions of the author of the bill made here yesterday that there is no such thing as a uniform butter color. The color of natural butter, the color of butter before coloring matter is artificially applied to it, varies with every change of circumstance. It varies at different seasons of the year. It varies in different places. It varies at different times. It varies in accordance with the way in which the animal from which the base of the product comes is fed and cared for. There is no such thing; no tint can be pointed at or referred to as the tint of butter. Ordinary butter — butter the year round, butter under the usual cir- cumstances of its manufacture — is nearly white. It is slightl}' off' the color of white, with a slight yellow tingle. Even before the invention of the great creameries, and l>efore the use of the substance which has now been ad()])ted for coloring it, butter has always been artificially S. Kep. 2048 3 34 OLEOMARGAKINE. colored. It has been colored for the reason which has been referred to, happily, I think, in this argument by the advocates of the bill, in the phrase that "the eye might aid the palate." It is colored to meet the demand— the taste of those who use it. It is colored in different tints for the different localities in which it is to be sold. It has always been colored. The housewife has colored it in her churn with carrots, and the manufacturer has colored it as he deemed proper to meet the demands of those to whom he was to offer it. 1 call the attention of the committee to the fact that there was no one substance used for the coloring of butter — there was no standard coloring matter — until after the manufacture of oleomargarine had been commenced. The manufacturers of oleomargarine colored their substance also. The manufacturers of oleomargarine were inventors. The manufacturers of oleomargarine, or those who advised them, were scientists looking for the best substances which could be used for each and every purpose which they desired to accomplish; and they discov- ered, or found, or invented — I do not know which — a substance which is called annotto, and they used it for the coloring of their product as the article best adapted to that purpose. Senator Allen. Do the creameries use the same coloring matter? Mr. Gardner. That is what I am informed; absolutely the same substance. Mr. Hoard. May I ask the gentleman a question ''( Is he certain that he is historically correct when he states that the oleomargarine men invented annotto? Mr. Gardner. I do not say that they invented it. I do not know whether they invented it or not. They discovered and adopted it as the article best fitted for the purpose, it not having been used before for that purpose. Mr. Hoard. I beg 3"our pardon. I was a cheese manufacturer forty- five years ago in New York, and I used annotto. Has oleomargarine been in use that long? Mr. Gardner. I am arguing from the evidence before this commit- tee. I understand the evidence taken by the House committee is here, and I am arguing upon that evidence. The truthfulness or the untruth- fulness of the persons who gave the evidence I can not vouch for, but as an attorney I take the evidence as here and argue from it. There certainl}^ is evidence, and the strongest evidence, to the effect that after the manufacturers of oleomargarine had shown the desirability of this substance for this purpose the manufacturers of butter adopted it, and that the manufacturer of butter to-day, who previous to 1886 used all sorts of different substances in attempting to color his butter as he desired to have it colored, is using annotto and nothing else. Yet, it appearing by the evidence that the manufacturer of oleomargarine first called this possibility to the attention of the manufacturer of butter, the manufacturer of butter to-day claims the tints which are produced b}^ this coloring matter as his trade-mark. That is a fair argument, at least from the evidence, and the truth or falsity of the evidence Senator Allen. Do you claim to have used this coloring matter before the creameries used it ? Mr. Gardner. That claim is made, as I understand. That is in evidence. Senator Warren. I think it will develop that the substance called annotto was used many years ago in a crude way for coloring butter. OLEOMAEGAKINE. 85 I think it will also develop that by an admixture of ingredients a new and better coloring- has been adopted by the oleomargarine manu- facturers and that that coloring has been purchased and used in creameries. Mr. Gardner. That is probably the case; but annotto is too broad a term, perhaps. Senator Warren. As Governor Hoard has said, annotto, or a sub- stance under that name, was used many years ago in coloring both butter and cheese. Mr. Gardner. My statement is that the substance which is used now by the manufacturers both of oleomargarine and of butter to color their products was first used by the manufacturers of oleomargarine and afterwards adopted by the manufacturers of butter. Now, how is it with reference to the coloring of oleomargarine? The natural color of oleomargarine is nearly white, very near the nat- ural color of ordinary butter. For precisely the same reason that the manufacturer of butter colors his product, in order that the eye may aid the palate, in order that it may be attractive to his customers, for the ver}^ same reason that he colors it sometimes a very light yellow, sometimes a very deep yellow, because in order to carry on his busi- ness successfully he finds it necessary to meet the demand — for pre- cisely those reasons the manufacturer of oleomargarine colors his product, and he colors it all sorts of shades to meet all sorts of demands. For a certain trade he gives it but a slight tint; for other trade he gives it a deeper tint. For some of his trade, his export trade, he colors it a deep rich red or brown, because the people of the country where that oleo is sent demand that the article which they put upon their food shall be of that color. He colors it a color which would make it absolutely impossible to sell one ounce of it in any part of the United States of America, and from which you or I would turn away with loathing, simply because there is somewhere a demand for a butter substance of that color. It is for simply that reason that he colors it for sale in the United States the same color that the manufacturer of butter colors his product; and, as I have previously said, the color which in the vast majorit}^ of instances is used is a color the desirability' of which was first found out and was first applied by the manufacturer of oleomar- garine. The next reason given for the passage of this proposed act is that the sale of oleomargarine will destroy the dairy industr}^ of the United States. I say that that is absurd. I say, in the first place, that oleo- margarine, no matter how it may be colored, can never compete with high-grade, high-priced creamery butter. We need something besides color to enable us to do that. The author of this bill here yesterday dropped a statement which it seems to me is of the very greatest value. He said that in judging of the grade, or quality, or value of butter color pointed for 5, while taste pointed for 50. Now, coloring maj' make oleomargarine look like l)utter, coloring ma}' make people think that oleomargarine is butter, but neither coloring nor anything else can make oleomargarine taste like the high-grade creamery butter. A man may be deceived once into purchasing it; he is not deceived twice into purchasing it, and the man who deceives him does not receive his custom. It is absurd to say that this substance, which can not under an}' conditions have the flavor which is the item of value in high-grade 36 OLEOMARGARINE. creamery butter, competes with high-grade creamery butter. There- fore it seems to me that that is out of the question. 1 will show in a moment that, as it seems to me, there is no reason why it should not compete with low-grade butter for what it is. Further than that, it appears from the testimony taken before this committee that the total sales of oleomargarine during the period covered by the last report of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue amounted to 1 per cent of the total sales of butter of all kinds. If we take the statement of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, who, as I argued yesterday, is best fitted to judge, not more at any rate than one-tenth, 10 per cent of the oleomargarine which was sold, was sold as butter. Therefore not more than 10 per cent of the total sales of oleomargarine came into competition with the sales of butter; and from that it is mathematically evident that the total sales of oleomargarine as butter amount to only four-tenths of 1 per cent of the total sales of butter in the United States. Mr. Knight. What do you call the total sale of butter, please? Mr. Gardner. It is given in the report as 2,000,000,000 pounds. Mr. Knight. Upon what authority? Mr. Gardner. Upon, I think, the estimate of the Commissioner. Senator Warren. The estimate of the Agricultural Department is 1,500,000,000 pounds. Mr. Knight. The estimate of the Agricultural Department is 1,500,000,000 pounds as the production, not the amount put on the market. Only about 50 or 60 per cent of that goes on the market. Mr. Gardner. By some possibility, taking the gentleman's own figures, it might make the sales of oleomargarine at the outside 1 per cent of the sales of butter. It could not bring it above that. Another fact, which I think is established by the evidence and which I think I can truthfully assert without successful contradiction, is that in spite of and in the face of the use and sale of oleomargarine the price of butter is higher to-day than it has been in twelve years, and that in spite of the use and sale of oleomargarine the percentage of increase in the sale of butter to-day is greater than the percentage of increase in the sale of oleomargarine. Therefore the assertion that whatever unsatisfactory condition ma}^ exist in the butter industry is or can be due in any large extent to the sale of oleomargarine is an assertion which has no foundation in fact. Mr. Knight. Ma}- 1 ask upon what you base your claim that the sale of butter has increased over the sale of oleomargarine? Where do 3^ou get your statistics ? Mr. Gardner. As I stated to the committee yesterday, I have taken this matter up since last Monday and I have not read through this i-eport. I can not tell in what item of the report that is found, but that statement is made to me, and if necessary (I hope my friend will make some memorandum of these questions) it can be substantiated. Those are all the reasons which I have heard urged for the passage of this bill. Not one of them is valid. It is said that oleomargarine is unwholesome. There is no substance sold to the consumer in the United States of America to-da}^ which is so absolutely certain of being wholesome or the healthfulness of which is certified to by such high authority. Mr. Hoard. May I ask the gentleman one question ? I understood you to say, sir, that an inspector is at the oleomargarine factory to see that no unwholesome ingredient is introduced into oleomargarine ? OLEOMAEGAEINE. 37 Mr. Gardner. To see what ingredients go into oleomargarine. The manufacturer is required to make a monthly statement, under oath, of every pound of ingredient lie uses in the manufacture. It is the duty of the inspector or the deputy inspector, as I understand it, to verify that report and under oath to say that the manufacturer's statement is correct or incorrect. Mr. Hoard. Do you believe that the manufacturer always states the truth concerning the ingredients of oleomargarine? Mr. Gardner. Yes, sir; the manufacturers of which I know any- thing. That is my belief; it is not worth much one way or the other. Mr. Hoard. The department of agriculture of New York has found by chemical anal}\sis 11 per cent of paraifin in oleomargarine. That is a substance which no known acids have any effect upon. Do you believe that the manufacturer made a return to the Government that his product contained paraffin ? Mr. Gardner. What I believe in that particular is of very little importance. The Chairman. I suggest that Mr. Gardner be allowed to conclude, and then we will hear from some of the men who are actually engaged in the business. Mr. Hoard. All right. Mr. Gardner. As I said, that, it seems to me, is not a valid reason. The other reasons which I referred to are no more valid, the reason of the small amount of fraud, which can be prevented if the manufacturers of butter see lit to prevent it, the reason which is claimed, that yellow is the trade-mark of butter, the reason that the sale of oleomargarine will destroy the butter industry. That is negative. I have met, so far as I was able, all the claims of the advocates of this bill. Now, affirmatively, 1 do claim these as reasons why the bill should not be passed. I assert, in the first place, that the passage of the bill would absolutel}^ destroy the oleo industry, which during the past six- teen years under the sanction of the Government of the United States has been built up at a vast expenditure of money. I assert that the advocates of this bill intend that that shall bo the result of this legislation; that it is not intended by this legislation merely to prohibit the sale of colored oleo and to make that impossible, but it is intended by this legislation to make the sale of any oleomar- garine impossible. And I subjnit that if the members of this com- mittee will read carefully the argument of my friend on my left and the argument of the gentleman on my right and the argument of the author of this bill, they will see that determination stamped upon every sentiment which those gentlemen have uttered. My friend upon the left was obliged, I believe, to present a letter or an affidavit, which was read during the discussion of this matter in the House, saying that he had not expressed the sentiments which were attributed to him by the report. Mr. Hoard. No, sir. Mr. Gardner. Then some one. Mr. Hoard. I never made any affidavit that I know of. Mr. Gardner. Then I think a letter from Governor Hoard was read. Mr. Hoard. No, sir; no communication of the kind was ever made by me. Mr. Gardner. Then I withdraw that. 38 OLEOMAEGAEINE. Mr. Knight. Somebody forged my name to a letter, and I denounced it. Mr. Gardner. I do not know, but, according to tlie report in the Congressional Record, a letter was read, I thought, from Governor Hoard. Of course I accept his statement. The letter stated that he was incorrectly reported in what he said before the committee. Mr. Hoard. I submitted my argument in writing, so that whatever I said was correctly printed. Mr. Gardner. Besides the allegations made by the advocates of this bill, what they have done in the States where they had the power to carry their theories into effect shows that they intend to destroy this industry. In the State of Vermont there is a law which requires that no oleomargarine shall be sold unless it is colored pink. Mr. Hoard. No; that was the law in the State of New Hampshire. Mr. Gardner. That is said to be the law in the State of Vermont and in the State of West Virginia. Mr. Knight. The New Hampshire law has been repealed. Mr. Gardner. The New Hampshire law has been repealed, and it is the law of the State of Vermont to-day. Senator Hansbrough. It is in the report here. Mr. Gardner. It is in the report. Mr. Knight. I guess that is true. Two States have that law. Mr. Gardner. Occasionally I do make a statement which is accepted to be true by my friends on the other side. Mr. Hoard. It is news to me. Mr. Gardner. There is a good deal that is news to you, no doubt, but it is true, notwithstanding, that in the State of Vermont, the State which is represented in Congress by the author of this bill, there is a law which requires that all of this substance which is sold shall be colored pink. Now, this substance can not be colored pink without introducing an element into it which makes it a menace to human health, which makes it a deleterious substance. The State of Vermont has, therefore, legislated not to regulate tins industry, but to destroy it. It is absolutely certain that no man would spread upon his bread any pink substance. Senator Warren. Those laws have been repealed in some of the States. Mr. Gardner. I do not care whether the law is in force or not; I do not care whether the law is operative or inoperative; it shows the pur- pose which is entertained by the people who are here advocating this bill; a purpose not to regulate this industry, but to destroy it; a pur- pose not to have oleomargarine sold as 'outter, but not to have oleo- margarine sold at all. That is the purpose which is evidenced by the words; it is the purpose that is evidenced by the action which, is louder than words, and whether it is the purpose or not it is the inevitable result. It is the inevitable result for this reason: Oleomargarine can not be colored and pay a tax of 10 cents a pound and be sold in competition with cheap butter. I have previousl}^ argued to you, and I will not repeat myself, the reasons why it seems to me that it can not be sokl in competition with high-grade butter. It can not be sold in competi- tion with butter which costs over 22 or 23 cents a pound. It can not be sold in competition with cheap butter. Oleomargarine, which to-day pays a tax of 2 cents a pound, retails at from 13 to 15 cents, with a profit, I assert, of much less than 1 cent OliEOMARGAEINE. 39 per pound to the manufacturer, and with a profit to the retailer at the lowest rate at which he is willing to handle it, because where he sells his oleomargarine it sells in the strictest competition with other oleo- margarine. Remade butter, renovated butter, process butter, resur- rection butter, as it has been called, the method of manufacture of which I understand the committee is to inquire into, it is shown, I I think, b}^ the evidence, can be produced for 13 or l-i cents a pound. It pays no tax, and oleomargarine, which can only be retailed, as it evidentl}^ can be retailed, after the payment of a 10-cent tax, at not less than 21 or 22 cents a pound, has got to come into competition, if it is sold colored, with this made-over, acid-treated butter, which can be sold at a profit at 15 cents per pound. Therefore, colored oleomarga- rine is absolutely driven out of the market. Mr. Knight. I beg your pardon, but where do you get the figures which show the price of renovated butter? Mr. Gardner. 1 get those from statements which will be made here, if they have not already been made. My clients say that reno- vated butter is sold to-day in the city of Providence for 15, 16, and 18 cents per pound, and colored oleomargarine can not possibly be sold at less than 21 or 23 cents a pound if taxed ten cents a pound. But gentlemen will say to me that oleomargarine can still be sold uncolored. Gentlemen, it can not. We come back to the old ques- tion of the eye aiding the palate. The attempt to sell oleomargarine uncolored runs counter to a law which is more universal in its opera- tion and stronger in its action than any law of Congress — a law of human nature — the law of conformity to custom. The people of the United States have been accustomed to spreading upon their bread a yellow compound. The manufacturers of butter realize it. The author of this bill said here yesterday that he considered it was silly and foolish and unwise for people to demand an artificiall}" colored butter; but he admitted that people did demand an artificially colored butter, and that a butter which is not artificially colored, no matter how excellent it may be in any other respect, can not be sold in market to-day in competition with a butter which is artificially colored. It is exactly the same with oleomargarine. No matter though the purchaser may be convinced that oleomargarine is absolutely pure, no matter though his taste may inform him that it is palatable, if an attempt is made to make him use it when it bears a color absolutely distinct and different from that which belonged to the article which he and his fathers have used for the same purpose he refuses to use it. The illustration was used here yesterday with reference to the coat of a gentleman. When the author of this bill was asked why the manu- facturers of butter colored their product, he said they did it to meet the demand; that they did it to comply with a law of conformity to custom, and he illustrated it by saying that a member of this committee was wearing to-day a black coat. He did it because black suited his taste. If it were proposed to-day to a member of this committee that he should purchase either a black coat of poor quality and high price or a bright pink coat of the very best quality at a low price, the poor black coat at a high price would be purchased and the excellent pink coat at a low price thrown aside. It is silly; yes, it is silly; but it is a law of custom which exists more vividly and with greater effect in that which we eat than it exists anywhere else. We may violate it in the 40 OLEOMAEGAKINE. matter of dress; we can not violate it, our ej^e will not allow us to vio- late it, our education will not allow us to violate it, in regard to what we eat. It is absolutely impossible to force upon the market at any price a white substance to be used as butter, and therefore if it is pro- posed to insist that this substance shall be sold in its natural condition and without any coloring- matter you force it absolutely out of sale entirely. Now, gentlemen, the manufacturer of oleomargarine does not color his product in order that it may resemble butter. He wants to sell it as oleomargarine. He can not sell it as anj^thing else. When a sale for it as oleomargarine is established his business increases and his business becomes reputable, but it is absolutely impossible for him to carry on that business if he is compelled to put up his product in a form in which the public will not take it. We color our oleomargarine for exactly the same reason that the manufacturer of butter colors his but- ter. As the author of the bill said yesterday, the manufacturer of butter must color his butter in order that the people who are accus- tomed to spread that yellow substance upon their bread may spread it. When we send oleomargarine to South America we color it, as I have said, a deep blood red or dark brown, because the people of that coun- try like to spread that kind of substance upon their bread. Senator Hansbrough. Is that the color of their butter down there? Mr. Gardner. I do not know whether it is the color of their butter or not; it is what they demand. It is the color of taste. It is a sub- stitute for something else that they use as butter. Senator Bate. The color and not the taste governs the sale alto- gether, then? Mr. Gardner. No, sir; I think not. The color is a necessary ele- ment, but the taste is even more important. We can not sell yellow butter which is rancid because it is yellow, neither can we sell good butter which is white because it is good. Both elements must concur if we are to make a sale of the product. Now, I want to say to you, gentlemen, on behalf certainly of one manufacturer whom I represent, and I believe on behalf of every other manufacturer, that the manufacturers of oleomargarine, welcome any legislation which will render it more difficult and which will make it absolutely impossible to sell this substance for anything except what it is. We welcome the suggestion that oleomargarine shall be placed within the provisions of the pure-food bill which it is proposed to adopt. But we do protest against the destruction of our industry. There is, I think, now before this committee a bill (it was here at the last session) entitled "A bill to define renovated butter, also imposing a tax upon and regulating the manufacture, sale, importation, and exportation thereof." That bill is upon the files of this committee. If that bill is left to slumber upon the tiles of the committee, if this substance is not included within the provisions of the bill which is now before this committee, then the result of the legislation is to drive absolutely away and out of commerce an article which is acknowledged to be pure and wholesome and for which there is acknowledged to be a demand, and to force upon the whole comnumity as a substitute for it an article which is acknowledged, I think, to be deleterious. The manufacturers of oleomargarine can manufacture process butter if they are driven to do it; but process butter is an article which should not under any regulations be permitted to be used as food. OLEOMAKGAKINE. 41 Mr. Knight. If you will give me just a second, let me ask a ques- tion. You represent the Oakdale Manufacturing Company? Mr. Gardner. I do. Mr. Knight. Are they satisfied with the present law on oleomar- garine ? Mr. Gardner. Yes; they are satisfied with it. Mr. Knight. Do they comply with the provisions of it? Mr. Gardner. They do. Mr. Knight. That is all. Mr. Gardner. In concluding, gentlemen, it seems to me that I ought to apologize for all the time that 1 have taken up this morning. I have argued this morning largely upon the question of expediency. I have not endeavored to meet, as perhaps I ought, and as perhaps I must meet, the matter which has been referred to this morning by a member of the committee — a matter which is so familiar to us all — that this legislation is urged upon this committee and urged upon Con- gress because it is stated that 5,000,000 people engaged in agriculture in the United States desire it. It ought not to be a balancing of the numbers who desire it or who do not desire it. It ought to be a matter of principle. But it is perhaps necessary to meet arguments of that character, and if it is necessary to meet them I ought perhaps to take the time to show that not only the interests of a few manufacturers and dealers in oleomargarine are here concerned, but that the interests of very many other producers in this country are indirectly concerned. Oleomargarine is not produced b}^ magic. Into oleomargarine have to enter various substances which are the product of the agricultural industries and interests of this country. The raiser of hogs, the raiser of cattle, and the producer of cotton-seed oil are all interested in the growth of the oleomargarine business. The neutral lard which is used in the manufacture of oleomargarine, and which comes from the hog, is a product which sells at 2i cents per pound higher than the only other alternative product which could be made — lard itself — and 8 pounds of this substance are produced from the hog. That shows that for all the hogs that can be utilized for this purpose there is an added value of 20 cents to each hog. The report of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue for the year ending June 30, 1899, when the pro- duction of oleomargarine was considerably less than it is to-day, shows that 31,297,251 pounds of neutral lard were used in the manufacture of this product. Senator Money. What is neutral lard? Senator Heitfeld. Leaf lard. Senator Foster. How many pounds do 3^ou state were used? Mr. Gardner. Thirty-one million two hundred and ninety-seven thousand two hundred and fifty-one pounds in that year. So there is a vital interest on the part of the farmers who are engaged in the raising of hogs that this industry shall not be wiped out of existence. Senator Foster. What part of beef enters into it? Mr. Gardner. Oleo oil is a product of the beef, and it sells at a much larger price than any other product. Senator Allen. What would become of these elements if they were not used in the manufacture of oleomargarine? Mr. Gardner. They would have to be sold at lower prices for other purposes — tallow in the case of beef. 42 OLEOMAEGARINE. Senator Money. Will you allow me to ask you a question ? Mr. Gardner. Certainly. Senator Money. As I came in I heard you speaking about the rights of the producers of butter, oleomargarine, renovated butter,^ and so on. Have3'OU said anything to the committee about the rights of the people who use these things — the consumers? Mr. Gardner. I did at considerable length yesterday. Senator Money. Excuse me, 1 will get it in your printed remarks. Senator Bate. The hearing will be printed. Mr. Gardner. There were also during that same year about four and a half million pounds of cotton-seed oil used, forming a very large outlet for that industry. I wish to call once more the attention of the committee — — Senator Foster. How much oleomargarine was made that year? Mr. Gardner. Ninety-one million pounds. Mr. Knight. Eightj^-three million pounds, I guess it was. Mr. Gardner, It is given as 91,000,000 pounds. 1 do not know. If you dispute the report of the Commissioner I can not help it. Mr. Knight. You have not got the right report. Mr. Gardner. 1 have the report for the year ending June 30, 1899, and 1 have read the figures correctly. Mr. Knight. You have read the ingredients and not the product. Mr. Gardner. In this connection I wish to call the attention of the committee once more to the precise wording of the proposed act which is before the committee. It authorizes any State to forbid by law not merely the manufacture of anj^ oleomargarine containing coloring matter, but any oleomargarine containing an ingredient which makes it resemble butter, or look like butter, in the language of the act. I am informed that there is a slight tinge to cotton-seed oil which makes oleomargarine manufactured from cotton-seed oil a little off the white, and which to that extent makes it look like butter. Therefore, if this act is left as it is, it is going to have the effect, or it may have the effect, if States see fit to comply with the terms given them in the act, to forbid the manufacture of any oleomargarine containing cotton- seed oil. I do not know whether any substitute for cotton-seed oil which is absolutely colorless can be found or not. The bill would make it perfectly possible for the legislature of the State of Vermont, or the legislature of an}^ State of this Union, to say, "Manufacture your oleomargarine if you can, but do not put any cotton-seed oil into it." Mr. Grout. Do you refer to the proviso to the first section?, Mr. Gardner. Yes, sir. Mr. Grout. That, allow me to state, is the language of the Supreme Court in deciding the Plumley case, and it was incorporated into this bill. That first section went through the House four years ago. It was incorporated in the bill on the motion of Mr. Williams, of Missis- sippi, who then said it made that section of the bill satisfactory to him, and that language was taken from the decision of the Supreme Court. It is Mr. Justice Harlan's language. Mr. Gardner. I ask the lawyers on the committee to read that section and tell me if the inference which I have drawn from it is not correct. Senator Warren. I understood j^ou yesterday to say that butter and milk also tend to color oleomargarine. OLEOMAEGAEINE. 43 Mr. Gardner. Butter and milk do tinge oleomargarine. Cotton- seed oil doe.s tinge oleomargarine. Therefore, if cotton-seed oil is allowed to enter into it the State can pass a law which forbids the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine at all. Gentlemen, 1 ought to have concluded long ago. I should have done so if it had not been for these interruptions, which I have been very glad to answer as far as I can. In concluding, I should like to ask you to forget all these questions of expediency. I should like to ask you to forget that there are 5,000,000 people who are mistakenly call- ing for the passage of this legislation, 5,000,000 people who, during the pendency of these different bills, have been told for the last six years that everything that is unsatisfactory in their condition is due to oleomargarine, people whose condition can not be benefited at all by the passage of this act, but people who believe that it can. I should like to ask you to forget that those people are demanding it. 1 should like to ask you to forget also that the people whose circumstances are to be injuriously affected by the passage of the act are protesting against it, and I should like to ask you to go back and simply and absolutely consider nothing else but the principle upon which this act is based, which we considered yesterday, that it is an act which pretends to be a revenue act; that as a revenue act under the Constitution of the United States you have a right to pass it; that as a revenue act, unless the real purpose of it appears too grossly" upon the face of the act itself, the Supreme Court of the United States would perhaps uphold it; but that it is not a revenue act; that every gen- tleman who appears here in advocacy of it says that the revenue which it is calculated to produce is not entitled to any consideration, but that it is an act simply and solely to affect competition between two legiti- mate articles of manufacture and trade. That is avowed by everyone. As such an act, as an act with that purpose, it is an act which those who regard the Constitution of the United States as sacred would not be induced to pass by any considerations of expediency or by any demands of selfish private interests. The Supreme Court may say, as they have said before, that they can not impugn the motives, purposes, or intentions of the legislative branch of the Government. But no less than the members of the Supreme Court have the members of Congress taken an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, and the members of Congress to-day who are authorized by the Constitution of the United States to levy taxes for the purpose of paying the debts of the United States and providing for the maintenance of the General Government know in their own consciences that they have no right to levy a tax for the purpose of regulating competition between different industries. Gen- tlemen, it does seem to me (I can not throw it away or get it out of my mind) that the Congress of the United States is asked absolutely to disregard the highest obligation which they have assumed. I appear here to-day as an advocate. 1 appear as an attorney. I ask no more belief in my statements, no more consideration for my argument, than is due to the statements and the argument of a paid attorney. But to-day, as I contemplate the possible results of this act, as I see the possibility of any class of our citizens or persons engaged in an}^ kind of trade who i3elieve that their interests in that trade ma}' be injuriously affected by some new rival coming time and time again to the Congress of the United States and asking that that 44 OLEOMARGAEINE. new industry may be taxed out of existence, as 1 see what legislatioi of this kind is likely to lead to, it seems to me that I must throw oil for the time being- the character of advocate and appear Isefore this committee merely as a citizen, and that 1 must ask them not to make a precedent by which the Congress of the United States, under the guise of internal-revenue taxation, is legislating in order to destroy one industry for the benefit of another, or to affect competition between two industries which have both legitimate rights. I thank 3^ou, gentlemen, very kindly and heartily for your attention. ^ The Chairman. 1 may say that the committee join me in thanking you for the very clear and lawyer-like statement of j^our views. I wish to ask you one question. As I understood you, you made the claim, or admitted, that if this article were to be sold in its natural ' color it could not possibly be sold; that as to the ingredients, it might be known what they are; that they are all healthful and good, but that if left in its natural color it could not be used; that such a restriction would destroy the manufacture. Is that the ground? Mr. Gardner. That is my belief. Senator Money. You said something about the necessity of coloring butter in order that it may be sold. Mr, Gardner. I say that as long as there is in the market something which people want and which they have been accustomed to use you can not sell them something which they do not want and which they are not accustomed to use. Do not misunderstand me, please. If all butter was left uncolored and if all oleomargarine was left uncolored, of course both oleomargarine and butter would sell, and they would sell upon the same plane. People would still have something to put on their bread, although they could not get what the}^ wanted. But butter is not left uncolored. Butter is artificially colored yellow. The author of this bill insisted yesterday that that was absolutely necessary in order to meet the demand. I say as long as there is in the market, even at a higher price, or as long as there is in the market even a lower grade of the kind which the consumer wants, that will sell as against what he does not want. The Chairman. Your clients take the ground that not the material, but the color, sells the product? Mr. Gardner. No, sir. I beg your pardon; my clients take the [^ ground that both material and color sell it. They can not sell it without good material; they can not sell it without color. Neither one will sell it; it must be both. Senator Money. You take the same position as to white butter, too? Mr. Gardner. Precisely. I do not mean to say that people would go absolutely without white butter if the butter manufacturer would not give them what they wanted. But the butter manufacturer will give them what they want. I simply say that when the manufacturer of any article attempts to run counter to demand, to taste, to custom, he gets left. I think there is a small demand for very light colored butter. The Chairman. In some countries I have seen very light butter. Mr. Gardner. Precisely. The Chairman. It was the fashion, and it was good. Mr. Gardner. In some countries perhaps uncolored oleo could be sold. We know that in some countries practically black oleo can be sold and the people want it; but where the demand is for yellow, neithei white nor black can be sold. OLEOMARGARINE. . 415 ORDER OF PROCEDURE. Senator Allen. Mr. Chairman, I move that the sessions of the committee be continuous during the holidays, to the end that the com- mittee may be fully prepared to report promptly on the bill upon the reconvening of Congress after the holiday recess. The Chairman. I will state that I have told parties who wish to be heard, and 1 have told those representing some of the Southern inter- ests, that they might be heard as late as the 3d of January. Senator Allen. I make the motion because if the report runs over to the middle or the latter part of January there is no possibility of the bill being considered at the present session of Congress. Senator Money. In the first place, there will be no one here during the holidays to hear these gentlemen except the chairman. The Chairman, 1 was going to say that I thought there would be a subcommittee here, and any members of the committee who will be here I will name as a subcommittee. Senator Money. There will not be any members of the committee here but yourself. Senator Bate. I hold in my hand some telegrams in regard to the matter, and other Senators I know have received similar telegrams, and the parties ask that they may be heard here at some time by the committee as late as the 15m of January. These parties are from Texas, Tennessee, and other States. They did not expect any hearing during the holida3^s. Then let us fix the very latest date. They want to come here as a committee or a delegation on this question. I may differ with them, but, notwithstanding, I think they are entitled to be heard. The Chairman. Quite a number of dispatches have been received, and, curiousl}^ they all seem to name the same time, as though there was a little concert. They name the 15th of January. But that is no matter. I have replied to them that it would be impossible to postpone the hearing as long as that date. Several Senators spoke to me yesterday on the subject, and I told them that I could not make any promise to extend the hearing after the 3d of January. Senator Allen. I will modify my motion and move that the hearing be concluded by the 10th of January. The Chairman. That gives almost three weeks' notice, and it strikes me that it is reasonable. Senator Bate. But the holidays intervene. The Chairman. But the parties can be preparing their statements. We have had a very good one this morning. After that time we shall have the appropriation bills, the army bill, and all the other measures pressing upon us. We do not know exactly what will be the state of the public business. Of course we want to treat everybody fairly, but it seems to me that that is the latest time. When the time comes, if there is good reason for it, the committee can change their view, \ but I think it would be unwise now to name a later time. 1 Senator Money. In the first place, I think it is unwise to fix a day I at all. There ought not to be a termination to information. I do not think the conmiittee is likely to be too well informed upon this sub- ject. It is very much more important than merely the regulation of a competitive struggle between the manufacturers of butter and oleo- margarine. There are some millions of people in the United States 46 OLEOMARGARINE. who can not buy butter and who can buy oleomargarine. I think we ought to hear all who want to be heard, if they have anything to state. Of course we are not to be expected to protract needlessly the ses- sions of the committee, but I do not think we ought to fix a time for reporting the bill or to terminate the hearing. The session goes off on the -ith of March. If the Senate considers this measure to be of the importance it is supposed to have by some members of the com- mittee, it will give us a hearing, and it is very much better that it should be argued out right here than on the floor of the Senate, as far as the speedy passage of the bill is concerned. Therefore I would prefer, if the Senator from Nebraska will be] patient, that he withdraw his proposition and let us determine about a day later on when we have heard further and can see what else there is to be heard. It is not necessary that we should agree thus far in' advance to stop the hearing on the 3d or on the 10th of January. Senator Allen. If we should undertake to hear all who wish to be- heard on this question we would not get through in three months.^ Why not have four or five or half a dozen men selected on either side to address the committee? Senator Money. When we have heard them we can then judge' whether we want to hear an}^ more. We ought not to shut ourselves out from the opportunity of being enlightened on the subject. Senator Allen. If we extend the hearings beyond the 10th day oi" January there is not the shadow of a possibility of acting upon the bill at this Congress. Senator Money. As far as that argument goes, it is not worth any- thing to me, for I would kill it to-day if I could. I am only talking for fair play for both sides. Senator Allen. I am talking for fair play, too. Senator Warren. I presume we will be able to get through entirelj by the 10th of January. 1 would say, however, if we should get along to the 9th of January, and there should be a considerable num j ber of the committee who wanted further light or information, we could extend the time. I do not want to tie my hands in the matter. Senator Foster. I second Senator Allen's motion. The Chairman. The question is upon the motion of Senator Allet' that the hearings be concluded by the 10th day of January. The motion was not agreed to; there being on a division — ayes 4: noes 4. Senator Allen. Let us have a yea-and-nay vote. Senator Hansbrough. I move that we close the hearings on the 3ci of Januar}^ Senator Allen. I wish it to appear of record that I made a motior to close the hearings on the 10th. The Chairman. Shall I put the motion again ? Senator Warren. I move that the committee adjourn. Senator Hansbrough. I am not inclined to be factious. The Chairman. Will you change your vote? Senator Hansbrough. I am opposed to extending the hearings beyond a reasonable length of time, because we can get all the infor mation we may require out of the hearings before the House committee, The Chairman. It is moved that the committee adjourn until halJ! past 10 o'clock to-morrow. Mr. Tillinghast. Do I understand that after to-morrow the hea ings will adjourn until the 3d of January? OLEOMAEGARINE. 47 The Chairman. No; that is not decided. The motion was agreed to; and (at 12 o'clock and 5 minutes p. m.) the committee adjourned until to-morrow, Friday, December 21, 1'JOO, hlatlO.SOa. m. Friday, Decemher 21, 1900. The committee met at 10.30 a. m. Present: Senators Proctor (chairman), Hansbrough, Warren, Bate, Money, and Heitfeld. Also Hon. William M. Springer, of Spring- Held, 111., representing the National Live Stock Association; Frank W. Tillinghast, representing the Vermont Manufacturing Company, of C.Providence, R. I.; Charles E. Schell, representing the Ohio Butter- (jiue Company, of Cincinnati, Ohio; W. E. Miller, representing the Armour Packing Company, of Kansas City, Mo.; John C. McCoy, of .i Kansas City, Mo.; G. M. Walden, President of the Kansas City Live ! Stock Exchange; Philip E. Mullen, of Kansas City, Mo., representing dthe Armour Packing Company; II. H. Armstrong, of Washington, jD. C, representing the Armour Packing Company, and others. J "The Chairman. Who wants to be heard this morning? J Mr. Miller. Mr. Chairman, I represent the Armour Packing Com 'pany, of Kansas City. \ Senator Hansbrough. As a manufacturer ? y Mr. Miller. Yes, sir. The Chairman. You may proceed, Mr. Miller. STATEMENT OF W. E. MILLEE. Mr. Miller. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee: Our iiobject in asking for a hearing before this honorable committee to-day 'liis to make a final appeal to you and members of the Senate not to kill the butterine industry by passing the Grout bill. We shall endeavor ^not to reiterate anything given in our testimony before the Agricul- tural Committee of the House, which we ask yon to consider seriously, together with what we present to-day. " The butterine business is one of the valuable branches of our pack- ing house, in which we have thousands of dollars invested, and have ■ispent years of valuable time in placing it where it is to-day. We desire to impress upon this committee that manufacturers can not Ijiexist under the Grout bill. In the first place, uncolored butterine is 'ilpractically unsalable. It is unsightly and does not appeal to the eye [|!of even the poor man. : This product has a creamy appearance, and although the laws in I many States legalize its sale, yet when we endeavored to sell it in two 'States, viz, Iowa and California, we had to defend our dealers in suits i brought by the dairy commissioner and prove that it was not artifi- ! dally colored, the slight color coming from the materials. After hav- I ing won these cases in the lower courts, we were assured that such persecution would continue as long as we offered uncolored butterine. Therefore we gave up these States altogether. In our opinion, a large •number of States under the Grout bill would take similar action. The intention of the dairyman is not to regulate the sale of this product, but to kill the industry, both on colored and uncolored butterine. It is unreasonable to suppose that we could pay 8 cents additional tax and sell this product. The main object which prompts a man to 48 OLEOMAEGARINE. bu}^ butterine is because it is just as ^ood and a great deal cheaperJ than butter. One grade of butterine we make in our factory costs 14^ cents a pound; add to this 8 cents additional tax, and you bring it to] within 3 cents of the cost of Elgin creamery. Butterine is user^ almost exclusively by the poorer class of people. It retails all ove the West at from'l2| to 15 cents a pound for low grade, and 18 to 2< cents a pound for high grade. We speak of the West because we are more familiar with that section. The Chairinian. What makes the difference in the grades? Mr. Miller. There is a difference in the materials used. In some grades we put more creamery butter than we do in others. The Chairman. That is the main difference, is it — the quantity o: butter that is put in ? Mr. Miller. Yes, sir. Instead of killing our industry, we are perfectly willing that you should enact any law whatsoever which will prevent fraud, providing the tax is not increased or the privilege denied us of making it attractive in appearance. We favor the Wadsworth or the substitute bill, which we considered in the House, or any other ])ill regulating the marking or branding of our product, so that it can not be sold for butter, an' we will assist the Internal-Revenue Department in enforcing same to the letter. At this juncture we would like to introduce as evidence an articl from Experiment Station Record, United States Department of Agri culture, on the nutritive value of oleomargarine: "The nutritive value of margarin compared with butter E. Bertarelli {Biv. Ig. e San. Fabb., 9 {1898), Ms. U, pp. 538-5^5; 16, pp. 570-579). — Three experiments with healthy men are reported in which the value of margarin and butter was tested when consumed as part of a simple mixed diet. In one experiment the value of a mix ture of olive oil and colza oil, which is commonly used in Italy in th( neighborhood of Turin, was also tested. The author himself was the sub ject of one of the tests. He was 24 years old. The subjects of th other tests were 2 laboratory servants, one 27 years old, the other 32 years old. The coefficients of digestibility and the balance of income and outgo of nitrogen in the different experiments were as follows: Digestion experiments with margarin, butter, and oil. Time. Coefficients of digestibility. Protein. Fat. Carbo- hydrates. Nitrogen. In In In food, urine, feces. Gain. Laboratory servant, P. G.: 500 gm. white bread , 270 gm. veal , 70 gm. butter, iSU-iiOO cc. wine Laboratory servant, P. G. : 500 gm. white bread, 250 gm. veal, 70 gm. margarin, 250-300 cc. wine. Author: 450 gm. white bread, 250 gm. meat, 70 gm. butter Author: 450 gm. white bread, 250 gm. meat, 70 gm. margarin Laboratory servant, F. D. : 824 gm. white bread, 250 gm. meat, 61.6 gm. butter , Laboratory servant, F. I).: 859 gm. white bread, 250 gm. meat, 61.6 gm. margarin Laboratory servant, F D.: 910 gm. white bread. 250 gm. meat, 61.6 gm. olive and colza oils Days. 5 5 6 6 5 5 5 Per cent. 81.75 79.50 81.85 77.80 85. 32 82. 92 83.27 Per cent. Per cent. 92. 67 97. 25 93.90 94. 25 93.78 95. 80 95. 33 95.82 97.07 97.35 96.70 97. 38 97. 24 97. 56 0ms. 15.7 15.7 13.5 13.5 16.5 16.9 Gins. 9.6 10.3 10.1 9.6 13.2 12.5 Gins. 2.6 3.2 2.6 3.1 2.9 3.4 3.5 Gms. 3. 2, OLEOMARGARINE. 49 '"The principal conclusions follow: When properly prepared, mar- garin ditfer.s but little from natural butter in chemical and physical properties. On an average 93.5 to 96 per cent of fat was assimilated when margarin was consumed and 94: to 96 per cent when butter formed part of the diet. The moderate use of margarin did not cause any dis- turbance of the digestive tract." I also submit the report of the Illinois live-stock commission inves- tigation regarding tuberculosis. It is as follows: "We have before us the fourteenth annual report of the State board of live-stock commissioners for the year ending October 31, 1899, and in addition there is a bulletin devoted to the question of tuberculosis and the tuberculin test, containing a full statement of every tuberculin test conducted by the board during the year. In connection therewith also excerpts from the writings of scientific investigators with rela- tion to the nature of tuberculosis, its contagion and methods of trans- mission. It also contains the report of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Chicago upon the milk taken from 41 cows that had reacted under the tuberculin test, with a view of ascertaining what percentage of the milks under investigation contained or transmitted tubercule bacilli. The report shows that tuberculo bacillio were found to exist in the milk of 16 different animals out of the 41, or over 39 per cent. The conclusions of the scientific investigators in charge of this experi- ment were as follows : "First. Prolonged searching of the concentrated milk from cows showing tuberculosis, but with sound udders, will reveal bacilli in about 35 per cent of the cases, ' 'Second. Bacilli are found with about equal frequency in the sediment and in the cream. "Third. This milk, when concentrated, will produce tuberculosis in the guinea pig in about 25 per cent of the cases. "Fourth. Not much dependence can be put on the physical appearance of the milk in cases where the udder is not demonstrably involved. "Fifth. While the large number of cases in which pus cells were found in the milk would indicate that there was beginning involvement of the udder, there is no question but what the search for lesions in these udders was far more careful than will ever be possible on the living cow, and therefore the udder appearances can not be accepted as a safe guide. "The report also shows that during the period from May 17 to Novem- ber 1, 1899, the board tested with tuberculin 3,651 dairy and breeding cattle of all ages, of which number 500, or 15.32 per cent, were con- demned or destroyed and 41 were isolated or held for retest. "In several cases which the board investigated there was positive proof of the transmission of the disease through the milk to the calves. The board also gives an account of the official investigation and test of the herd of Mr. H. B. Gurler, of De Kalb, 111, ''■He began testing for tuberculosis in 1895, and all the cattle that reacted were destro3'cd and the premises were thoroughly disiiifected. Since that date the dairy has been conducted on strictly sanitary regu- lations; and, also, animals for the dairy are tested hy the tuberculin test and all that successfully passed the test were admitted to his herd. Tests were also carried on during the years 1896, 189T, 1898, and 1899. None of them were found to be afi'ected, excepting during the 1899 test some calves were found to be affected. As there were no other aui- S. Rep. 2043 4 50 OLEOMAEGARINE. mals that responded to the test the question was how those calves had been affected, and it was found that they had been fed on milk pro- cured from a near-by creamery, and the inference was that the creamery milk was the cause of the indication. "The same cause apparently was found in the case of calves at the Kane County almshouse farm, where none of them responded to the test, neither of the older cows or the young, excepting six yearlings and one yearling bull, and upon the post-mortem examination after the test they were found to be diseased. It was proved by a letter from the superintendent, Mr. Keyes, that these calves had been fed on milk that had been bought at a butter factory." I also submit resolutions against farther legislation on Ijutterine, which are not in the records of the proceedings before the House. NEW YORK BUTTER MARKET. Receipts of butter and cheese for six days ending December 11, 1900. Cheese. Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Monday Tuesday , Total six days Last ■vveclc, six days Same week last year Receipts since ISIay 1 Receipts same time last year Packages. 4,120 3,206 5, 357 3, 463 7, 297 10, 083 Boxes. 3,066 7, 015 5, 112 5,258 3, 005 12, 483 33, 526 29, 363 25,949 1,376,189 1,307,365 35,939 30, 173 18,853 1 , 148, 985 968,566 Senator Bate. How many pounds are there in a package 'i Mr. Miller. It is supposed to be 60 pounds. The creameries always estimate that a package is a tub of 60 pounds. We contend that the manufacturers of butter do not need protection. AVe regret that it is impossible to get the complete figures on the amount of butter produced in the United States. From reports which are made public the business is prosperous and increasing. Reports from both Missouri and Kansas show a good increase over last year. The following, from the New York Produce Review and American Cream- ery of Deceml)er 12, show the healthy condition of that market: "Conditions affecting the general market have not changed materi- ally since our last review, except that we have had an increase of fully 4,000 packages in the week's receipts. The good prices ruling here have attracted a larger part of current productions, and several car- loads of storage butter have come forward from Western refrigerators. On the whole, trade has been quieter. Consumption has been lessened by the full prices asked h\ retailers, and the distribution to out-of-town buyers has been quite moderate. This has brought the supply and demand closer together and convinced operators that the safety of the market lies in very conservative action until after the holidays. Of course much depends on the available supply. We have probably reached the lowest point of production, and in some sections of the country the make is on the increase. Beside this, the home demand is lighter, farmers' rolls being more plenty and of better quality, and these are going to a good deal of the trade in the local towns and to the OLEOMARGARIlsrE. 51 patrons of the creameries; this results in larger shipments of the fresh product. Then, too, there is still a large stock of refrigerator butter not only here but at other storage centers, and holders feel that the time has come for disposing of as many of these goods as possible. Naturally, the freezer butter tills a large place because of the difference in price, and this is urged as a reason why no further advance should be attempted. In view of the conditions prevailing, we regard our market as quite high enough for safety." I will also read the following from the Elgin Dairy Report, D. W. Willson, editor, under date of November 15, 1900, indicating increased business in Chicago, New York, Philadelphia, and Boston, which are the four largest butter markets in the United States. The Elgin Dairy Report is supposed to be the organ of the creamery people in Illinois. This is an article on the increased consumption of butter. It says: ""Inquiry in Chicago, New York, Philadelphia, and Boston indicates an increased consumption of butter by the people who depend upon those sources of supply. The reason given for this increased con- sumption varies according to the opinion of parties giving the same. '"'The New York people claim that the increase in population and the better class of goods arriving on the market and the better condi- tions prevailing among mechanics and working people has increased the consumption of butter in their city. " Boston people Hny about the same thing. However, whatever the cause may be, it is a gratifying result to all interested in the developing and upbuilding of the dair}^ industr}'. We have contended for many 3^ears that improvement in the quality of butter placed upon the mar- ket will induce greater consumption. We all know that if on our own tables or on the tables of hotels or boarding houses the butter is good we will use more than if the butter is poor. " We call attention to the readers of the Report to this increased consumption as reported by parties who are handling the goods, that it may be an inducement to the makers to put more skill and more care into the manufacture of their goods. While the proportion of good butter has increased during the past ten years, it is not yet what it should be. The reason of this large proportion of medium to poor Initter placed upon the market is a problem that the education and enlightenment that has been promulgated through the dairy press and the dairy associations has not solved." Mr. Chairman, good butter needs no legislation to give it a price. Good oleomargarine asks no legislation against chemically mixed and chemically purified butter. The makers of butter and the makers of oleomargarine ought to be equal before the law. Each industry should thrive or decay because of its own merit or demerit. Those who wish to bu}^ oleomargarine because it is as wholesome and cheaper than butter should be free to do so. The dairymen have obtained protec- tion against oleomargarine interests because they are more numerous. They are protected at the expense of the people, not because they are more deserving, l)ut because they are stronger. It is a system of might against right, which, if extended, will soon deprive honest American citizens of their liberty or hope for constitutional redress. The prejudice of the masses comes from the jealousy of the farmer. Because of the fear that he might be injured by the production of oleo- margarine, the press of this coimtry have given columns to the conten- tious of the agricultural interests whenever its representati^•es went to 52 OLEOMARGARINE. State capitals for the purpose of wiping- out the oleo side and fostering its own, and on few occasions has it said a friendly word for oleomar- garine. Public opinion, biased by this ex-parte work of the press, falls into line, and casting upon it eyes of scorn, pins its faith upon butter. No unprejudiced person can view our establishment and fail to notice one absolute characteristic, cleanliness — such cleanliness that the far-famed Holland housewife is put to shame. No one can visit the so-called dairies that dot the rural districts and fail to note that cleanliness is not a characteristic. Were the oleomargarine manufac- turers, the packers, the cattlemen, and the cotton-seed oil producers animated ]\v the same strong feeling of self-interest which seems to permeate the very being of our farmer friends, and did we use our influence with the press of the country, the masses would gain an entirely different view. Warner Miller, of New York, who was the champion of the butter interests when the tax of 2 cents a pound was put on butterine, some time afterwards visited Chicago and was incidentally taken through our butterine factory, which was then in operation. He had never seen butterine made, but the New York dairymen had told him what filthy, vile stuff it was. We took special pains to show him every detail of its manufacture, and when he had comprehended it all, espe- cially its purity and cleanliness of manufacture, he was introduced to Mr. P. D. Armour. Senator Miller understood the general conspiracy of which he was the deluded victim, and he confessed to Mr. Armour that if he had known as much about butterine the year before he would have fought such a measure instead of being its champion. Our product has been so maliciously misrepresented that many who are opposed to it now might also change their views upon close investi- gation, as did Senator Miller. Butterine is pure, wholesome, and economical; therefore we appeal to you in the name of justice, equity, and right that you allow us to exist under the present law or under one similar to the Wadsworth or substitute measure discussed in the House. Just here I would like to call the attention of the comuiittee to the methods pursued by the so-called National Dairy Association. They found it impossible to win by fair, honest competition. Therefore they formed a political organization with Boss Knight, who dictated the policy, and also dictated who should come to Congress. Anyone w^ho would not agree to vote for the Grout bill was boycotted, maligned, and abused. All sorts of vile literature was sent out from Chicago by Boss Knight into the district in which the candidate was located. Ask Congressman Wadsworth, of New York, or Long, of Kansas, or Cowherd, of Kansas City, something about this. I will say just here that Congressman Cowherd, from our district, was the nominee on the Democratic side, and Brown on the Republican side. About two weeks before the election a committee from the Produce Exchange visited Mr. Cowherd and asked him how he stood on the Grout bill. He said he was against it and would vote against it. They also visited Mr. Brown, and Mr. Brown tacitly gave them to understand that he would vote for the bill. Of course the friends of Mr. Cowherd in Kansas City did not think it would be policy for him to favor this bill, as there are six or eight packing houses located there, se^'eral of them manufacturing butterine. Therefore he did not think it was in OLEOMARGAKINE. 53 his interest to support the bill. These dairy people sent out commit- tees in all the precincts and all this territory, and did all sorts of things to try to defeat him. The same thing is true of Congressman Long. Any one not believ- ing ni}' statement can consult these three men and find that this was the truth. Ail sorts of vile literature was sent out through the district, and I am told that it all emanated from Boss Knight, of Chicago. In fact, most of the literature which Congressmen and Senators have been flooded with emanated from one source. They are printed and the language of each is the same. I understand that some postal cards have been sent here which were originally sent out by Knight asking for the sig- natures of four or five men in the neighborhood. That one party would sign for four or five men, and these cards would be sent here to Con- gressmen and Senators. We feel just this way: Whenever we have got to organize a political association to defend our product, the Armour Packing Company, for one, will go out of business. We can use our factory for some other part of our business. I should like to read these resolutions The Chairman. Before doing so let me ask you a question: Can this difi'erence in the two grades of butterinebe detected by the taste? Mr. Miller. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Readily? Mr. Miller. Yes, sir. The better grades have, of course, more but- ter flavor than the cheaper grades. Senator Bate. Because you put in more butter? Mr. Miller. Yes, sir; butter and cream. The Chairman. I thought it was claimed that it could not be detected from the best daily butter anyway. Mr. Miller. The best grades you can not tell from the best grades of butter. The Chairman. You could ? Mr. Miller. 1 could. But it would be very hard for anyone to detect the difference between the lower grades and the good grades of dairy butter. Senator Hansbrough. It requires a cultivated taste, does it not? Mr. Miller. Yes, sir; for an inexperienced person it would be very hard to distinguish the diflerence. Senator Hansbrough. So a low grade could be palmed ofl" on an inexperienced or tasteless person as a high grade? Mr. Miller. Yes; it is very hard to distinguish between the two. The Chairman. What do you say is the difference in price between these two grades of butterine? Mr, Miller. I simply mentioned one grade. I said we manufac- tured one grade that costs us about 14 cents. The Chairman. That is the wholesale price? Mr. Miller. Yes, sir. Senator Bate. That is the lowest grade? The Chairman. It is a higher grade. Mr. Miller. That is one of the highest grades we make. We have a lower grade that costs a little less than that. The Chairman. How much less? Mr. Miller. Well, a cent and a half to two cents. 54 OLEOMAEGAEINE. Senator Bate. But to increase the tax on it to 8 cents would take it practically out of the market? Mr. Miller. It would make it practically unsalable. Mr. Springer, What percentage of pure butter do 3'ou put in oleo- margarine ? Mr. Miller. That varies — 25 to 30 per cent. Mr. Springer. What are the other ingredients? Mr. Miller. Oleo oil, neutral lard, coloring. Senator Bate. What coloring do you use? Mr. Miller. We use coloring that is manufactured by the Wells- Richardson Company, of Burlington, Vt. That is coloring that is sold quite universally over the United States. Senator Bate. What is the technical name of it? Mr. Miller. I do not know the composition of it. We simply buy it as improved l)utter coloring. Their process, I think, is secret. I do not think they give to the public the formula for making it. Senator Hansbrough. That is purchased also by dairymen? Mr. Miller. Yes, sir. Senator Hansbrough. It is the same coloring matter that is used by dairymen ? Mr. Miller. Yes, sir. I would sa}^ just here that the Creamery Package Company have offices in all the large cities in the United States, and Senator Bate. Where is the head of that establishment? Mr. Miller. In Chicago. They have offices all over the United States, and of course they supply the creamery men as well as the l)utterine manufacturers. I asked their manager in Kansas City one day what coloring he handled, and he said that he handled several grades, but he had no call for any but the Wells-Richardson improved butter coloring, and that was used exclusively by the butter makers as well as by the butterine manufacturers. Mr. Springer. Let me ask a question. Do you know whether the manufacturers of creamery butter use oleo or neutral lard in their manufacture of butter? Mr. Miller. I could not say as to that. I know that we would refuse to sell a creamery any materials that they would tiy to mix with creamery butter. We would not care to be a party to a fraud of that kind. The Chairman. What grade of butter would be used in the best quality of butterine? Mr. Miller. The very best creamery butter that we can buy. The Chairman. Because a less quantity of it will answer? Mr. Miller. Of course it is to give it a fine flavor. I would say just here that it has been a fact that the manufacturers for years have endeavored to put the very best materials in their butterine; not the cheapest, but the very best they could get. We can not use any of the baser fats of the steer in the manufacture of oleo oil, because it would give it a rank, tallowy taste. We use the very choicest fats of the beef. Senator Proctor. Can not the cheaper lower grades of fats be puri- fied so as to conceal the grade? Mr. Miller. They are perfectly pure, but of course they have a very tallowy taste. The Chairman. And that taste can not be corrected^ OLE OM AKGARINE . 5 5 Mr. MiLLEE. No; not without injuring- the quality of the oil. Mr. TiLLiNGHAST. Do } ou know anything- about the use of paraffin in the making of oleo? Ml'. Miller. As I stated before the House, that is unreasonable. I can not see how any sane man could believe that for a minute if he ever investigated the question. I investigated this fact last winter. Good paraffin costs 14 cents a pound, and I can not see any object in putting- it in butterine. It would not give it any flavor; it would not add to the texture; and we can get materials that do not cost us 14 cents a pound to put in the product. Therefore I can not see any object whatever in using it. I have never heard but one test made, and that was made in New York — the one that the dairy people have made so much stock of — and 1 expect that that sample was prepared by some dairyman. If there was any object to be accomplished, if we could decrease the cost of our butterine, if we could improve the flavor in any way by using paraffin, some unscrupulous manufacturer might do it, but there is no reason for it. There is nothing that would be gained by using it. Mr. TiLLiNGHAST. Then, as a matter of fact, in your establishment at least you know positivel}'^ that it is not used? Mr. Miller. We have never had a pound of paraffin in our factory. Senator Warren. Are there any other factories that you either know or suspect of using it? Mr. Miller. None whatever. Last winter, when that question came up, I got a sample of butterine from eveiy manufacturer in the United States, and I had our chemist examine the samples for paraffin, and he said he found no trace of it. Senator Hansbrough. You do not know of any creameries which use butterine or oleomargarine in connection with their product? Mr. Miller. Well, it has been currently reported that they did, but I do not know of any instance. Senator Hansbrough. Current report, of course, is not very good testimony. Mr. Miller. No. Senator Bate. Tell us what are the proportions of the elements, the ingredients with which you make j^our material, butterine. Mr. Miller. Of course those are trade secrets, more or less. Senator Bate. I do not want you to state the secrets, but I wish to know how much butter and how much cream you use in manufacturing your product. The Chairman. Are j^ou not required under the internal-revenue laws to state the ingredients? Mr. Miller. Of course, but it is given collectively. Senator Warren. It is given in the report of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, and is in the evidence taken before the House as it came from the Internal-Revenue Department. Senator Hansbrough. The specific ingredients? Mr. ]\liLLER. Yes, sir. Senator Bate. Then what objection is there to giving them? Senator Warren. He may not be authorized to give it, but it is important that some one should file it. Mr. Miller. Such a paper was filed, giving all the materials used in all the factories. That would be the average for all the factories. Senator Bate. You speak of that which was given in the House? 56 OLEOMARGARINE. Mr, Miller, Yes, sir. Senator Bate, Do you know in whose testimony it will be found? Senator Warren. You will find it more quickly by looking for the table. It is tabulated matter. Mr, Miller, There was a resolution passed by the House calling on the Secretary of the Treasury to give the materials used for the past year in butterine. You will lind that given by the Secretary of the Treasury. It was not in the testimony given by the manufacturers. Senator Bate. But when you are silent upon the subject, it may create the impression that you have a different formula from what is given there. Mr, Miller. None whatever. . I will say that it ranges about this way: We use about 35 per cent, or say 30 per cent, of oleo oil and 30 per cent of neutral. The balance would be cream, butter, and salt. Mr, TiLLiNGHAST. Cotton-sced oil? Mr. Miller, Cotton-seed oil in the cheaper grades. Senator Bate. What about beef fat? Mr, Miller. That is oleo oil. Oleo oil comes from beef. Senator Bate, Do you mix the fat from lard and the fat from beef? Mr, Miller, Those are all churned together. The Chairman, Those are the later products of the lard and tallow ? Mr, Miller, Yes, sir. Senator Bate, Do you use steam in pressing them, or how do you press them? Mr, Miller, The materials? Senator Bate, Yes, sir. Mr, Miller, They are all heated to a temperature of about 155 to 160 degrees. Senator Bate, Fahrenheit? Mr, Miller. Yes, sir. Professor Wiley, the Chief Chemist of the Agricultural Department, made a statement before the House com- mittee to the effect that this temperature is sufficient to kill any germs whatever that might be in these materials. The Chairman, What do you use to harden them, to make them solid ? Mr. Miller, The oil is heated to a temperature of about 155 or 160 degrees. ^ Then it is placed in presses, and we get two products from it, oleo oil and stearin. Stearin is used in the manufacture of candles We do not use stearin at all in the manufacture of butterine. The Chairman. The latter oils are tallow and lard ? I would not suppose that they would have the consistency, that is, they would not be solid enough to stand for hard butter, and I understand that oleo keeps well in a hot climate. Is there not something used to harden it? Mr. Miller. All these materials are churned together, and when taken from the churn they are in a liquid form. It is run into vats filled with either ice-cold water or cracked ice, and after it has been stirred for some time it congeals. The Chairman, And remains solid? Mr, Miller. Yes, sir. Senator Bate, And then it is put in a mold? Mr, Miller, Yes, sir; it is then placed in tubs and made in prints and rolls. This is a petition from the South St, Paul Live Stock Exchange: "To the honorable the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States: OLEOMAKGAKINE. 57 "Your petitioner, the South St. Paul Live Stock Exchange, respect- fully represents to your honorable body that it is an association of live- stock dealers engaged in buying and selling, feeding and shipping, and slaughtering live stock, and was organized, among other things, for the purpose of promoting the best interests of the live-stock industry of the Northwest, jealously guarding the interests of the producer and consumer alike. "Your petitioner, in behalf of its constituency, desires to enter its emphatic protest against the enactment of House bill No. 6, introduced by Mr. Tawney, providing for a tax on the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine. In support of this protest, a few of the man}^ reasons that might be mentioned are hereinafter set forth," I will say just here that this petition was drawn when the former bill, the Tawney bill, was before the House more prominently than the Grout bill. That bill was practically the same as the Grout bill, and the petition would of course apply to any further legislation on butterine. The CiiAiRiNiAN. That we will print with the rest. Mr. Miller. Yes, sir. The Chairman. There is no need to read it unless you care to do so. Mr. Miller. Very well, if the committee would not like to hear it. Senator Bate. I think that 3^ou had better read it. Mr. Miller. All right. The petition proceeds: " The measure is a species of class legislation of the most dangerous kind, calculated to build up one industry at the expense of another equally as important. It seeks to impose an unjust, uncalled-for, and unwarranted burden upon one of the principal commercial industries of the country. Manufacturers can not assume this added burden and continue to sell their product in competition with butter. The passage of this measure would throttle competition, render useless the immense establishments erected at a great expense for the manufacture of oleo- margarine, deprive thousands of employees of the opportunity to gain a livelihood, and deny the people, and especially the working people, a wholesome article of diet. "The butter fat of an average beef animal for the purpose of man- ufacturing oleomargarine is worth from $3 to $4 per head more than before the advent of oleomargarine. This has increased the value of the beef steer and consequently to the profit of the producer. " To legislate this article of commerce out of existence, as the pas- sage of this law would surel}^ do, would compel slaughterers to use this fat for tallow, and depreciate the market value of beef cattle of this country $3 to $4 per head, which would entail a loss on the producer of this country of millions and millions of dollars. "The use of this fat for the purpose set forth is an encouragement to the producer to improve his herd and raise a class of thoroughbred cat- tle capable of carrying the fat, and thus resulting in a benefit to all. " The rights and privileges of the producers of beef cattle should be as well respected as those of others, and as they are the beneficiaries in the manufacture of this wholesome article of food the}^ should not be burdened with unnecessary special taxes levied avowedly for the purpose of prohibiting its production. "The product of the beef steer should receive at the hands of Con- gress no greater exactions than are imposed on competing food prod- ucts. The manufacture and sale of oleomargarine is already surrounded 58 OLEOMAKGARINE. with numerous safeguards which Congress in its wisdom has seen fit to provide. "Experience has taught us that it is just what a large majority of the people in this country want, and in behalf of the producers and con- sumers of the great Northwest we do solemn]}^ protest against the enactment of legislation calculated to ruin a great industr}^ "Charles L. Haas, ^'President South St. Paul Live Stock Exchange. "H. B. Carroll, " Secretary South St. Paul Live Stock Exchange.'''' These are resolutions passed by the Texas Cotton-Seed Crushers' Association: "Dear Sir: At a meeting of the Cotton-Seed Crushers' Association, held in Dallas on Tuesday, November 14, 1899, T. P. Sullivan, of Jef- ferson; R. K. Erwin, of Waxahachie; W. R. Moore, of Ardmore, Ind. T., and Robert Gibson, secretary, of Dallas, were appointed a committee to draft resolutions expressive of the sense of the meeting on the matters discussed. The resolutions as submitted were unanimously adopted, and are as follows: "Marion Sansom, Chairman: "The undersigned committee appointed ))y you beg leave to submit the following preamble and resolutions: "Whereas the line of industrial business represented by this asso- ciation is coextensive with the entire area of the cotton cultivated zone of our Southern States, and in conjunction with cotton in its various uses, represents the wealth of the South; and "Whereas Texas represents over 30 per cent of the cotton and cot- ton seed annually produced in the United States, any embargo placed b}^ legislation on the growth and development of our industry is detri- mental to the vast interests committed to our care. It is therefore of most vital necessity that all avenues leading to the sale and con- sumption of our cotton-oil products should be free and unrestricted, and inasmuch as cotton oil is used to a large extent in the manufac- ture of butterine, which is a most wholesome and healthful substitute for butter; and W^hereas a tax at present exists of 2 cents per pound on the manu- facture of this most healthful article of food, and that it is contem- plated to introduce at the next session of Congress an increased tax of 10 cents per pound on same: It is, therefore, ''''Resolved., That this association enter its protest against the existing tax of 2 cents per pound on butterine and ask for its abrogation and repeal, and against the introduction or adoption of any future tax on same as an article of food, as it directly affects our great industry both at home and on the continent of Europe, where a cheap and wholesome article of food, such as butterine, is appreciated, ''^Resolved., That we believe the imposition of a special tax of this nature is class legislation and should be combated by all the means at our command, and that our Senators and Representatives in Congress are hereby requested to give us all the necessary aid in this behalf; and it is further ^''Resolved., That the secretary of this association transmit a copy of these resolutions to each cotton-oil mill in the South, with the request OLEOMAKGAKINE. 59 that they interest their Senators and Representatives therein, and also to our Senators and Representatives in Congress from Texas. "T. P. Sullivan, Chairman^ Jefferson^ Tex. "R. K. Erwin, Waxahachie^ Tex. "W. R. Moore, Ardmore, Tnd. T. "Robert Gibson, Secretary.. Dallas., Tex.'''' Senator Warren. May I ask a question at that point? You are exporting oleomargarine to some extent? Mr. Miller. Yes, sir. Senator Warren. Can you give us some idea of the percentage of the total amount manufactured that is exported ? Mr. Miller. About 3,000,000 pounds were exported last year. Senator Proctor. Out of what quantity ? Mr. Miller. Out of 107,000,000 pounds. Senator Bate. Where does it go ? Mr. Miller. Most of it to southern tropical climates. It is sold in countries where the climate is too warm to permit butter to keep. We can pack butterine in hermetically sealed tins, and it will keep for two or three j^ears perfectly sweet. Senator Warren. Have you been exporting it right along? Mr. Miller. We have been doing some export business for the last few years. Senator Warren. Is that business growing or is it not growing ? Mr. Miller. It is not growing very rapidly. The territory, of course, is limited. Mr. Springer. Do you get a rebate of the tax when 3^011 export it? Mr. Miller. Yes, sir. Senator Warren. I wish to ask another question which is not in connection with that point. Mr. Miller. All right. Senator Warren. Have you ever given the matter any attention as to the sensibility of the product which you manufacture and that of butter in taking in the odors of impurities that are surrounding it; for instance, in some close mining camp or outpost. Butter, as we all know, takes on any odor that ma}^ be existing and becomes rancid very quickly from exposure. Do you claim that oleomargarine is more hardy or less so ? Mr. Miller. It is much more so. It will, perhaps, take up for- eign odors. For instance, if you ship a tub of butterine in a car of oranges, of course, by the time the butterine reaches its destination it will taste like oranges instead of butterine; but it will keep much longer than butter. You can put a package of butterine in a room and let it sta}' there for three or four months, and it will be perfectly sweet. It never gets rancid. It may have lost the butter flavor, but it is still sweet. The Chairman. How about kerosene? Does not that taint it? Mr. Miller. Oh, yes, sir. The Chairman. And veiy quickly. I suppose. It will taint either butter or butterine. Senator Bate. What do you mean by the rebate 3"ou were asked about ? Mr. Miller. We pay 2 cents a pound tax, j^ou understand, on domes- tic goods. Of course, in case we ship out of the countiy we get the 2 cents a pound back. 60 OLEOMAKGARINE. Senator Bate. On what principle — the reciprocity treaty ? Mr. TiLLiNGHAST. It is a provision in the original oleomargarine act. Mr. Miller. It is in the original oleomargaine act of 1886. Senator Bate. You get a rebate under that act^ Mr. Miller. Yes, sir; it is simply a drawbacii of 2 cents a pound. Senator Bate. Then, in point of fact, j^ou pay no tax on it? You get the tax back? Mr. Miller. No, sir; we pay no tax on the export. Senator Bate. And you pay a tax of 2 cents a pound on what _you sell here? Mr. Miller. On all that is sold for domestic use. Senator Bate. But you do not have to do that on exports? Mr. MiLi.ER. No, sir. Senator Warren. It is the reverse of the ordinary tariff. Mr. Miller. As a matter of fact, it is a fine of 2 cents imposed by the daily interests on the article sold here, while when exported it does not interfere with the dairy interests and we get a rebate. Senator Bate. The law is more lenient to the man who lives abroad than at home. Mr. Springer. It is the same as the internal-revenue tax on whisky. That tax is taken off of whisky when it is exported. Mr. Miller. This is a resolution passed by the Sioux Cit}^ Live Stock Exchange: "Whereas a bill has been introduced in the House of Representa- tives known as House bill 6, providing for an amendment of 'An act defining butter, also imposing a tax upon and regulating the manufac- ture, sale, importation, and exportation of oleomargarine;' and "Whereas such a bill, if enacted, is calculated to build up and restore one industry at the expense of another by means of uncalled- for and unjust taxation; and "Whereas the destruction of the oleomargarine industry would greatly impair the market value of beef cattle, and would thereby deprive the producer of a large amount of revenue: Therefore, be it '■"Besolved, That the Sioux City Live Stock Exchange of Sioux City, Iowa, emphatically protests against the enactment of the law proposed in House bill No. 6. "Witness the signatures of the president and secretaiy of said exchange and the official seal thereof affixed at Sioux City, Iowa, December 28, 1899. "J. H. Nason, Fresident. " Wm. Magivny, Secretary.'''' The Chairman. If you have other resolutions, will it not answer your purpose to have them inserted in the record and printed without reading them? Mr. Miller. That will be satisfactory. These are resolutions passed by the superintendents of the oil mills of North and South Carolina: superintendents of oil anLLS IN NORTH AND SOUTH CAROLINA. Resolutions against oleomargarine tax offered at meeting of cotton- oil mill superintendents. "Charleston, S. C, Jidy 6. "Cotton oil superintendents from South Carolina and North Carolina met yesterday at the Calhoun Hotel for the purpose of organizing the cotton-oil mill superintendents' association. OLEOMAEGAKINE. 61 "After the constitution and by-law.s were read and adopted, the fol- lowing resolutions were offered by A. A. Haynes: ^'''' Resolved^ That this association, representing millions of dollars of invested capital in the South, strongly protest against national class legislation which aims directly at the destruction of competition in the manufacture and sale of wholesome and healthful articles of food. " ''Resolved^ That we protest strenuously against the passage by Con- gress of the Grout oleomargarine bill, which proposes to tax oleomar- garine 10 cents per pound, and thus to drive it from the market. " ''Resolved^ That this association implores Congress not to destroy an industry which now uses nearly 10,000,000 pounds of the best grade of cotton-seed oil annually, and thus kill that quantity of our most profitable output. " ''Resolved^ That we urge the legislatures of South Carolina and of other Southern States to remove from their statute books the anti- oleomargarine legislation thereon, because such acts are onl}' in the interest of the renoA^ated and process butter factories of the North and Northwest, and against the hog fats, beef fats, and cotton-seed-oil products grown on our Southern farms. " 'Resolved^ That a copy of these reselutions be sent to the National Provisioner, of New York and Chicago, the indomitable champion of the cotton-oil interests, for publication, and that the members of this association proceed to secure, if possible, the repeal of the obnoxious State laws above referred to. " ''Resolved, That this association will do what it can to cause the defeat of the Grout antioleomargarine bill in Congress during the coming session.'" This is a resolution passed by the Mercantile Club of Kansas City, Mo. Senator Bate. They are all to the same pui-port? Mr. Miller. Yes, sir. eansas city, kans., mercantile club. The Mercantile Club, Kansas Clty^ Kans.^ March IJf.^ 1900. At a recent meeting of the Mercantile Club the following resolution was adopted: "Whereas bills have been introduced in the Senate and House of Representatives as follows: H. R. No. 6, bv Mr. Tawney, of Minne- sota; H. R. No. 43, by Mr. Davidson, of Wisconsin; H. R. No. 3717, by Mr. Grout, of Vermont; H. R. No. 6445, by Mr. Glynn, of New York; H. R. No. 2049, by Mr. Allen, of Nebraska, increasing the present tax of 2 cents a pound on butterine to 10 cents per pound; and "Whereas such legislation, if enacted, is calculated to build up one industiy at the expense of tearing down and ruining another, and will in effect amount to the giving of a monopoly to the industry sought to be benefited b}^ such legislation at the expense of another b}' means of uncalled-for taxation; and "Whereas the destruction of the oleomargarine or butterine indus- try would greatly impair the market value of beef cattle, doing great injustice to cattlemen of Kansas, and would be a severe blow to the manufacturing interests of Kansas City, United States of America: Therefore, be it 62 OLEOMARGAEIlSrE. ''Eesolved, That the Mercantile Club of Kansas Cit}-, Kans., protest against the enactment of the law proposed in said bills, to the end that just competition in the manufacture and sale of food products be maintained."" We ask your careful consideration of the same, believing, as we do, that the subject is one of great importance. The sale of butterine is already regulated by the act of 1886, and an increase in the tax would simply kill a great industry, in which millions of dollars are invested and many thousands of meii employed. Therefore, we feel confident that on examination you will find many more people benefited by the furnishing to them of a wholesome and attractive substitute for butter than could possibly be benefited by the giving of a monopoly to the dairy interests. Yours, very truly, W. E. Griffith, Secretanj. Here are resolutions passed \>\ the Commercial Club of Kansas City: KANSAS CITY, MO., COMMERCIAL CLUB. "To the hmiorablc the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States: "The Commercial Club of Kansas City respectfully represents that it is an organization composed of over 700 business men of Kansas City, Mo.; that the business interests represented by its members comprehend the principal jobbing and manufacturing plants of Kansas City. The population of Kansas City and its adjacent territory, com- prising one commercial city, is nearly or quite 300,000, and within a radius^of 100 miles there is a population of 3,000,000. Kansas City occu- pies the tenth place in the amount of l)ank clearings in this country. We have nine States and Territories that regard Kansas City as then- banking center. The commercial organization is constantly watchful in advancing the commercial interests of Kansas Cit}^ and seeks to protect these interests when threatened by adverse legislation. As an associa- tion it desires to enter its emphatic protest against the enactment of H. R. bill No. (), which was introduced in the House of Representatives December 1, 1890, by Mr. Tawne}", of Minnesota, providing for an enactment of 'An act defining butter, also imposing a tax upon and reg- ulating the manufacture, sale, importation, and exportation of oleo- margarine;' that this measure, if passed, will build up one industry at the expense of tearing down and ruining another industry, and will in effect amount to the giving of a monopoly to the industry sought to be benefited by such legislation; that the bill above referred to, if it becomes a law, will reduce the value to the farmers and raisers of cattle an average of %-2 per head and a corresponding decrease in the value of hogs. "The use of the fat of beef, as well as the use of thousands of gallons of milk daily, and the other fats used in making oleomargarine, not only increases the value of every beef animal, Ijut every milch cow and ever}'^ hog, and acts as an encouragement to the owner and raiser of cattle and hogs to improve his herd and raise the grade of his live stock so that they will carry more of this animal fat and will in the end raise the standard and the grade of cattle and hogs throughout the entire United States. The farmers and cattle raisers of the United States are directly interested in such legislation as depreciates the value OLEOMAEGAKINE. 63 of eveiy animal that they now own and eveiy animal that should be raised hereafter. "It is but just that the ricrhts and privileges of the producers of cat- tle and hogs should be duly considered and respected as well as should the desire of a certain class whose only object and purpose in legisla- tion of this kind is to decrease the supply of butter substitutes, thereby increasing the demand for l)utter and the price thereof. " Oleomargarine, as now manufactured, is just as wholesome as but- ter, and many chemists have declared it to be even more so. It is sur- rounded by the numerous safeguards which Congress has seen tit to provide, and it is a cheap, pure, and wholesome substitute for butter. Its cheapness in price allows it to become a sul)stitute for expensive butter, and it is used by millions of poor people in the United States who are una])le to pay the price demanded for creamer}^ product. "Oleomargarine has by experience proven to be just what a great majority of the people in this country want, and in the name of the pro- ducers of cattle and of hogs we do solemnly protest against the enact- ment of legislation calculated to cheapen the price of cattle and hogs, ruin the manufacture of oleomargarine, and deprive countless thousands of poor people from the use of a cheap but wholesome, nutritious, and acceptaljle article of food. "E. M. Clendening, Secretary. "March 8, 1900." Are there any further questions that any Senator would like to ask me? Mr. ScHELL. You spoke a moment ago of a resolution in favor of the dairy interests emanating from the same source. Mr. Miller. Yes, sir. Mr. SoiiELL. Is that true of these resolutions which you are offering ? Mr. Miller. No, sir; they were spontaneous. Senator Hansbrough. Nonpolitical? Senator Bate. How is that? I did not get 5^our question. Mr. ScHELL. I asked whether the same rule applied to these resolu- tions that Mr. Miller had said applied to the resolutions emanating in favor of dairy interests, all from one source. He said no, that they are from different sources and are voluntary. Senator Hansbrough. Congressman Tawney, in a speech in the House, said very positively that the most strenuous efforts were made in his district to defeat him on account of the fact that he was a friend of the Grout bill. Mr. Miller. I will say that I am thoroughly familiar with all that has gone on among butterine manufacturers, and there ncA'er was an effort of anj^ description exerted in Mr. Tawney's district to defeat him. Senator Hansbrough. It is simply a question of veracity between Mr. Tawney and j^ourself. Mr. Miller. I do not think we have a friend located in Mr. Tawney's district. There never was a letter written that I know of, or any influence brought to bear upon a man in opposing him. Senator Bate. There was in other districts, I suppose? Mr. Miller. None whatever. We have no political organization to try to elect members to Congress who are in favor of our interests — none whatever. 64 OLEOMARGAEINE, Senator Hansbrough. What would have happened to Mr. Cowherd in Kansas City had he proclaimed himself in favor of the Grout bill? Mr. Miller. I do not know what would have happened. I know if the packers had not come to his rescue he would have been hopelessly snowed under. He was the only Democrat elected in the county. We were taking no part in electing any candidate on either side, but as Mr. Cowherd had expressed himself as favoring our interests we felt it our duty to come to his rescue. The Chairman. You voted, I hope, for some one, did you not? Mr. Miller. Yes, sir; I did; but we made no attempt whatever in the last year to elect any one to Congress who favored our interest. Senator Bate. Then you voted for 3^our interest, not on principle, in that case? Mr. Miller. Yes, sir; in that particular case we did. STATEMENT OF JOHN C. M'COY. Mr. McCoy. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee- Senator Hansbrough. Do you represent a manufacturing industry, or do you appear as attorney for a manufacturing industry? Mr. McCoy. No, sir; I am not an attorney. I am simply an indi- vidual — a private citizen — and I am here, as 1 will state to you directly, in two capacities. I will say that I have been handicapped all my life by the misfortune of not being able to express my feelings in pul)lic the way I should like to do. I am not a public speaker, and I therefore ask the privilege of reading what I have prepared on this subject. The Chairman. Certainl3\ Mr. McCoy. I will say also that I have been very badly handi- capped since I left Kansas City a few days ago, as I have been quite sick ever since, and I have had very little time to make any prepara- tion whatever. I wish to say, gentlemen, that I appreciate the honor of being per- mitted to appear before your committee, and regret my inexperience and lack of ability will prevent me from presenting my views on this important subject as I feel them. I am here before you in a dual capacity — as an individual, a Western farmer, stock raiser, a commis- sion merchant for the sale of cattle, hogs, and sheep, and as a repre- sentative of the Kansas City Live Stock Exchange, the members of which handled during this year of 1900 over 6,000,000 head of live stock, valued at over ll25, 000,000. I feel that the importance of the industry with which I am connected and the most important bearing the bill under discussion will have on it should be sufficient apology for my trespassing upon your time. I am at a loss, however, gentlemen, to know what to say to you. Since the first introduction of the Grout bill in the House up to the present time the matter has been so thoroughlj^ discussed in the public press, before committees, by a flood of literature of all kinds, that it does not seem possible that a newarguuient could be presented, though I know there are man}^, like myself, desirous of doing all possible to prevent what seems to us so unjust a measure. Because I have taken such a deep interest in the matter the field seems to have been thoroughly covered. A large number of the most celebrated chemists of this country, including Prof. H. W. Wiley, Chief Chemist of the United States Department of Agriculture, have OLEOMARGARINE. 65 testified that the ino-redients of oleomarg-arine are healthful and nutri- tious and that the product contains nothing deleterious to health. The same gentlemen have also testified that the coloring matter used in its manufacture is the same that is used by the makers of butter all over this country, and it is used by both for the same purpose. The manufacturers of the article have testified under oath time and again as to what ingredients go to make up the product until it has become known to almost every intelligent man in this country. Its purity and cleanliness are, I believe, unquestioned, even by its opponents, the creamery butter manufacturers, and a committee of your own body, the United States Senate Committee on Manufactures, of which the Hon. W. E. Mason was chairman, after a most thorough investigation of the subject, reported '"'that the product known as oleomargarine is healthful and nutritious, and no further legislation is necessary," and the great mass of testimony taken by that committee is available to this committee. All of this being well known to your honorable bod}^, or at least mat- ters of public record, what can I add to the argument why this bill should not become a law ? Possibly nothing but to add my vigorous protest in the name of the stock raisers of the great West against the passage of such selfish, unjust, and ultra class legislation. I admit that we of the West are hardly up with the times and are slow to take hold of and adopt all the new-fangled notions that are so rapidly brought forth in this age of progress, but having been taught from our infancy to love our country and honor the Constitution, God for- bid that we should ever cast aside the clause that "gives equal rights to all and special privileges to none" and take up with the spirit of class legislation such as is attempted and exemplified in this bill. 1 do not think there is any sane man who has given this bill any serious consideration whatever but believes that this bill is aimed at the life of the oleomargarine industr}^, to legislate it out of existence, so as to give the butter makers (and by the butter makers I do not mean to say the great mass of farmers and farmers' wives who make butter, for they cut little figure in this matter) exclusive right to produce an article of diet to be spread upon l)read to make it more palatable, to gain a monopoly on one of the most valued necessities of life. It has been asserted by those that have investigated the subject that in the average household butter comes second in the expense list for provisions. It is larger than the outlay for bread or coffee or sugar, and is exceeded only by the meat bills. One of the most serious problems before the American people to-day is the one of trusts and monopolies. However much political economists and intelligent men ma}' differ on that great subject, most serious consideration should be given before a way is prepared whereby such an important article, one that comes into the daily life of the rich and poor alike, whether it be upon the dainty rolls of the millionaire or the coarse but wholesome corn bread of the laborer, can be made the subject of absolute control in the hands of mercenar}^ men. Legislate out of existence practicallv their onl}^ competitor, oleo- margarine, and would not the creamery interests be able to control the supply of butter in this country as it is now claimed the}'' are able to control the price of creamery butter^ A more thorough organization nor a more extensive one does not S. Rep. 2043 5 66 OLEOMARGARINE. exist to-day than that of the creamery associations, as we have dis- covered by their work in favor of this bill out West, The gentleman who just preceded me has told you of the methods that have been used by the creamery interests in furthering their own interests by mixing into politics. 1 know it to be a fact that almost every little creamery on the prairies of Kansas and Nebraska has been flooded for a year with all sorts of literature and postal cards urging them to write to their Congressmen and Senators to support this Grout bill, and if the members of this committee are flooded with requests of that character from their constituents they may know exactly where they have emanated. Senator Hansbrough. Where have they emanated ? Mr. McCoy. From the National Dairy Association headquarters at Chicago. Conscious of their power and organization I think the gentlemen deserve credit for not framing their bill as follows: "j5e it enacted hy the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all articles known as oleomargarine, gravy, goose grease, or any substance to be spread upon bread to make it palatable, as good as butter or cheese, not the usual product of the dairy and not made exclusively of pure and unadulterated milk and cream shall be absolutely prohibited," etc. Although this bill is aimed at the life of the oleomargarine industry, we believe that it will if enacted into a law seriously cripple one, with which by comparison both oleomargarine and its opponent butter pale into insignificance, that of the live-stock industry. Neither myself or the people I represent are directly interested in the manufacture of oleomagarine or of butter, and interested only so far as our interests areaft'ected and our inherent love of personal liberty and freedom, but we ask you gentlemen not to allow one great industry to be ground between the warring factions of these two opposing industries. It has become a matter of genei'al information, and is also in evidence before this committee, that the two principal ingredients of oleomargarine are the caul fat of the beef steer and the leaf fat from the hog. Senator Bate. What do 3^ou mean by caul fat? Senator Warren. It is kidney fat, the best qualit}'. Mr. McCoy. It is kidne}" fat, and, as Mr. Miller, who just preceded me, explained, it is purer fat, a higher grade of fat. Senator Bate. That is what he said, but he did not give it the name of caul fat. Mr. McCoy. The average beef steer contains about 50 pounds of caul fat, and the average hog about 8 pounds of leaf fat. The market price to-da,y for caul fat for oleomargarine purposes is about 10 cents per pound, while tallow is worth about 6 cents; and the leaf fat for oleomargarine purposes 8^ cents per pound, and for lard onl}^ 6 cents. Those are xqyj close approximate values. There has been slaughtered in Kansas City since January 1, 1900, to date over 1,000,000 cattle, producing, approximately, 50,000,000 pounds of oleo oil, worth to-da}^ for oleomargarine purposes 10 cents per pound, or $5,000,000. Were it not for the demand the manufacture of oleomargarine has created for oleo oil, this product would have been sold for tallow at 6 cents per pound, netting $3,000,000, a difference of $2,000,000, or |2 per head for each animal slaughtered. During the period just mentioned there were slaughtered at Kansas OLEOMAEGAEINE. 67 City approximately 3,000,000 hogs, producing about 24,000,000 pounds of leaf fat, worth for oleomargarine purposes, at 8i cents per pound, $2,040,000. The demand for this product as an oleomargarine ingre- dient removed, it would have been sold for lard at 6 cents per pound, or $1,440,000, a difference of $600,000, or 20 cents per head for each hog slaughtered. Had it not been possible to use these two products for oleomarga- rine purposes instead of tallow and lard, it would have cost the farm- ers marketing their stock at Kansas City this year $2,600,000. The same is true at all the principal live-stock markets in proportion to their receipts. The five large Western markets — Chicago, Kansas Citv, St. Louis, Omaha, and St. Joseph — have handled since January 1, 1900, to date, 6,500,000 cattle and 16,300,000 hogs. Of that number at least 75 per cent of the cattle, or 4,875,000, were slaughtered, and practically all of the hogs. A difference of $2 per head on the cattle and 20 cents per head on the hogs would mean a loss to the Western farmers on their marketing of cattle and hogs for the vear 1900 of $13,000,000. But, gentlemen, carry the reasoning still further. The Government report shows that on January 1, 1900, there were in the United States 27,610,000 cattle other than milch cows, or cattle avail- able sooner or later for beef. A depreciation of $2 per head on them would mean $55,220,000. The same authority gives the number of hogs in theUnited States on January 1, 1899, approximately, 38,650,000. The Chairman. Would it reduce the value of the milch cow to have the manufacture of oleomargarine stopped? I thought you included all the cattle. Mr. McCoy. No, sir; I included only the cattle other than milch cows. The Government makes a distinction. It would reduce the value of the milch cow, because the ultimate destination of all cattle is the block. Milch cows are used for a long time for milk purposes, but unless they should happen to die of old age, which the farmer generally sees is not the case, the ultimate destination of the milch cow is the block. Senator Warren. You have entered into a calculation as to the price of cattle other than cows. We assume, without your stating* it, that when a cow comes to the block she brings relatively that much more, whether $2 or $1. Now, on the other side of the question, 1 want to get your opinion as to what the effect is liable to be upon the price of cows if the manufacture of oleomargarine is continued or if it is discontinued. Would the discontinuance of the manufacture of oleomargarine raise the price of cows; and if so, how much^ Would the continuance of the present amount manufactured, or double the amount, we will say, reduce the price of cows, and how much, in your opinion ? Mr. McCoy. In my opinion it would reduce the value of the milch cow at the same time that it reduced the value of the beef steer. Senator Warren. No; 3'ou misunderstand me. I want to know whether the manufacture of oleomargarine reduces the price of the cow. Mr. McCoy. No, sir. Senator Warren. In other words, do you consider that through the manufacture of oleomargarine 3^ou are reducing the price of butter on the market to a point that will reduce the price of the cows that pro- duce the butter i Mr. McCoy. I think I can answer that question, if the Senator will allow me, by a statement on that line that 1 made before the House committee. 68 OLEOMARGARINE. Senator Warren, In the concrete, I want to know if the sale of oleo- margarine is lowering the price of butter, or displacing the sale of butter, or reducing the price of cows. Mr. McCoy. You mean the price of cows instead of the price of butter ? Senator AVarren. Yes; a reduction in the price of butter through the manufacture of oleomargarine would, of course, reduce the price of cows naturally. Mr. McCoy. 1 think this will answer the question: The Orange Judd Farmer, published in the State of New York, an agricultural journal of exceptionally high standing, and one that has enjoyed the confidence of the agricultural community for a decade, in a recent issue says: "Cows are worth 50 per cent more now than during the ten years preceding 1897, and are fully as high as during the boom of 1884—85." Is that along the point '^ Senator Warren. That is along the point, but it does not touch it exactly 3^et. Mr. McCoy. The article proceeds: "Last summer cheese got back to old-time prices. Butter has of late sold much above the quotations of four or five years ago. Even milk sold in market is stiffening in prices and may go up to those of the early eighties, and will go there with organized persistency by producers and reasonable cooperation from the trade." Senator Warren. That, I understand, is with reference to the con- dition of the business, but not with reference to the effect of the manufacture of oleomargarine. That is from some reports Mr. McCoy. No. ' ' But during the period when we had a boom and increased the value of milk and butter and cows" Senator Warren. What are you reading from, please? Mr. McCoy. I am reading an extract from the Orange Judd Farmer, and that same paragraph or article is in the report of the House com- mittee. Senator W^ arren. W^hat is the pamphlet from which you are reading ? Mr. McCoy. It is a statement of evidence before the House com- mittee. A reduction of 20 cents per head on the hogs of the United States would mean a loss of $7,730,000. Thus it will be seen that if this bill becomes a law the stock raisers of this country will suffer a deprecia- tion in the value of their property of $62,750,000. By what course of reasoning can the creamery interests ask us to suffer a depreciation of almost $63,000,000 in our property that they may gain an advantage over a fair and honoi'able competitor^ Wh}' should my State, the State of Missouri, suffer a depreciation of $2,776,230 on its beef cattle when it has only 659,731 milch cows all told ? And so, gentlemen, each member on this committee, I care not from what State he comes, can take the number of cattle in his State and in two minutes figure what the loss to his cattle-growing constituents would be. I ask you, gentlemen, in all candor and fairness, is it right that this Government should come in by its lawmaking power and legislate in favor of one section as against the other ? For the cattle-growing States and the dairy States are almost as clearly defined as if the one was red and the other blue on the map. Or should they legislate in favor of one agricultural industry as against the other? For every ingredient OLEOMARGARINE. 69 that enters into the manufacture of oleomaragarine is as much a prod- uct of the American farm as is the milk from which cow butter is made. If a precedent is set by the enactment of this bill into a law, will not our friends from the South introduce a bill at the coming ses- sion of Congress as follows? ^" Be it enacted hy the Senate and House of Representatives^ etc.^ That all sugar known as beet sugar, or any substance in the semblance of sugar not the usual product of the old, time-honored sugar cane, be taxed 2 cents per pound unclaritied and 10 cents per pound when clarified a beautiful white in imitation of genuine cane sugar, as it is now clarified to meet the tastes of the consumer," Or wmU not the rubber manufacturers ask that the manufacturers of celluloid goods be prohibited from making any article in imitation of rubl)er? And so, gentlemen, where will such legislation end? These gentlemen ask you to prohibit us from using three or four of the pure, healthful, and nutritious products of our farms and ranges, blend- ing them into a palatable article of diet to be used, when a man wants to do so, in the place of cow butter. And j'et the same gentlemen, or rather the principal dairy States, will take the cotton and wool that we raise and, b}^ dipping in certain solutions, so change its texture that it can be woven into most beautiful fabrics that they send to us unso- phisticated people out West to be used in the place of silk. The gen- tlemen object very strenuously to the use of the "word "butterine"" as tending to deceive, and yet they call this beautiful slick and shiny goods ''silkaline." The advocates of this bill object to taking the same ingredients that enter into the composition of cow butter (though in a different form) and compounding them into an article of food in every way as good, but the same gentlemen will take a small portion of the wool from our Western sheep, mix it with a very large proportion of Southern cot- ton, and send it back to us gullible Westerners as being all wool and a yard wide. Much has been said on both sides of this question in regard to the color in oleomargarine and in cow butter; and 1 believe it has been conceded that both interests use the same material for that purpose, and both use it to accomplish the same ends — that of giving to the consumer something that he wants, something that the Constitution gives him as a free-born American citizen the right to use, so long as it does not injure him nor trample upon the rights of others, and some- thing that will make his bread go down with that pleasing sense of satisfied taste so essential to good digestion and preservation of health and life. To assert that food taken to nourish does not have to be pleasing to the eye as well as to the taste seems ridiculous and reflect- ing upon the common sense and intelligence of this committee. If it were not so I will ask the gentlemen on the other side why they do do not use the good old-fashioned brown sugar, usually a good, rich, dark brown — the color of mahogany — that possesses strength and flavor far bej^ond the clarified pure white sugars of the present day. I will guarantee our friends here, the advocates of this bill, have used none other than the pure white sugar for 3'ears. You all know vfhj they use it, and so do they. They prefer it of that color as being more pleasing to their taste and better satisfying their pride. People want oleomargarine and butter colored yellow for the same reason. 70 OLEOMAEGARINE. There is one subject on which I may be able to give the committee some information, and that pertains to the purity and healthfulness of the two principal ing-redients of oleomargarine — that of the cone fat and the leaf fat. Under the most excellent system of governmental inspection inaugurated a few years ago by the Bureau of Animal Industr}^, the liability of diseased cattle and hogs being used for food has been reduced to a minimum. On our market, and the same is true at all other large abattoirs (except in Chicago a little different but I believe a more stringent method is used), Government inspectors who are under a chief, who has to be a graduate of a veterinary college and stand an examination, go through the stock yards and take from the cattle received all such as show signs of any disease or as in any manner unfit for human food. As cattle are sold and go to the scales two of these inspectors examine them as the}^ pass between them and cut out and condemn all that in their judgment should be. After the cattle go to the slaughtering establishment they are again given an ante-mortem inspection. After they are killed they are again given a post-mortem inspection, and if found healthy and free from any disease that would be injurious or a menace to the public health, a cer- tificate of inspection is placed on each carcass. The same is true of hogs, except the certificate is not placed on the carcass. So I am here to-day, gentlemen, to assert with all the force that I am able to command that when either our cow-butter friends or the agrarian party in Germany, both of whom seem inclined to strike a blow at the cattle products of this country, claim an inferiority or unhealthfulness of those two principal ingredients of oleomargarine or the meat products of this countr}", they perpetrate a base slander and not warranted by the facts. Your own Department of Agricul- ture in its Yearbook published January 1, 1899, said the health of animals and of men is very largely dependent upon the use of sanitary precautions and the enforcement of sanitary regulations. As a certain disease (therein named) in animals is reduced, so will that disease in man be proportionately decreased. Along that line we are ready to meet our butter and creamery friends at any time, I understand that the present tax of 2 cents per pound on oleomargarine brings in a revenue to the Government of about $2,000,000 per annum. Oleomar- garine destroyed, the factories closed, it having become so generally known that the cool fat from every steer and the leaf fat from every hog can be so used by an}^ ordinary intelligent man, would not our creamery operators, if not a large number of farmers, take advantage of the situation, oleomargarine be still extensivel}" made, and the Gov- ernment l)e deprived of the revenue ? What means will be taken to see that it is not done ? The cattle growers of this country have never but once, so far as 1 know, had to appeal to the Congress for protection of their industr}?^, and that was a few years since when we appeared before the agri- cultural committees of both Houses to ask for relief against foreign embargoes on American meats. I am glad to say that I see here to-day several members of this committee that were present at that hearing. But I say, gentlemen, that the cattle-growing States of this country, which are largely of the West and South, are watching with anxious eyes the outcome of this measure. They would keenly feel the effect of such legislation, and I do not believe our creamery friends, or, to put it more plainly, the dairy States, are in a position to thus injure us. OLEOMAEGARINE. 7l Germany and several other European countries have already shut out our canned meats and seriously hampered the free importation of our cattle and dressed meats. They have a measure now before the Reichstag- to exclude American wheat, which would seriously touch the hearts and purses of farmers of Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Nebraska, Kansas, Idaho, the Dakotas, and California. And as they are gradually shutting out one of our great industries after the other, can our butter-producing people expect to escape for very long? Fights between competing industries are not desirable at this time, but rather a united people, for in union there is strength, and it will take, within the next few years, the united efforts of the producing portion of this most wonderfully productive country to combat the jealous and selfish interests of the less favored nations on the globe. Let us be fair and just to one another, and be the better prepared to combat a common enemy. Mr. Chairman, I just wish to file the resolutions and the memorial of the Kansas City Live-Stock Exchange, of which I am a represent- ative. The Kansas City Live-Stock Exchange, Kansas City^ Mo. , Fehruary 8, 1900. The following preamble and resolutions were unanimously adopted by the board of directors of the Kansas City Live-Stock Exchange at a regular meeting held February 6, 1900: " Whereas certain bills have been introduced in the House of Rep- resentatives of the United States looking for the enactment of a law, by way of taxation, whereby the manufacture, sale, importation, and exportation of oleomargarine will be ruined; and ''Whereas such bills, if passed and allowed to become laws, will build up one industry at the expense of tearing down and ruining another, the logical effect of which will be the granting of a monopoly to the industry sought to be benefited; and "Whereas the destruction of the oleomargarine industry will reduce the value of cattle and hogs to the farmers and raisers thereof, as well as work a hardship upon millions of poor people who are unable to pay the fancy prices asked for butter: Therefore, be it Resolved., That the Kansas City Live-Stock Exchange, of Kansas Cit}^, Mo., earnestly protest against the enactment of the law pro- posed relating- to oleomargarine; and be it further Resolved, That the board of directors of this exchange be requested to memorialize the Congress of the United States against the passage of a law or laws inimical to the live-stock industry, and that a copy of these resolutions be sent to the honorable the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States." Respectfulh', yours, W. S. Hannah, President. We have addressed the following to the honorable the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States: "The Kansas City Live-Stock Exchange, located at Kansas City, Mo., respectfully represents that it is an association composed of raisers, owners, and buyers and sellers of live stock, whose interests extend to and cover a great portion of the West and Southwest of the United States, and whose business, as represented by the individual members 72 OLEOMARGARINE. of the association, deals almost exclusively in tlie live-stock industry. As an association it desires to enter its emphatic protest against the enactment of House bill No. 6, which was introduced in the House of Representatives December 4, 1891), by Mr. Tawney, of Minnesota, pro- viding for an amendment of 'An act defining butter, also imposing a tax upon and regulating the manufacture, sale, importation, and expor- tation of oleomargarine.' That this measure, if passed, will build up one industry at the expense of tearing down and ruining another industry and will in effect amount to the giving of a monopoly to the industry sought to be benefited by such legislation. That the bill above referred to, if it become a law, will reduce the value, to the farmers and raisers of cattle, an average of $4 per head and a corre- sponding decrease in the value of hogs. "The use of the fat of 'beef,' as well as the use of thousands of gal- lons of milk daily, and the other fats used in making oleomargarine, not only increases the value of every beef animal, but every milch cow and every hog, and acts as an encouragement to the owner and raiser of cattle and hogs to improve his herd and raise the grade of his live stock so that they will carr}^ more of this animal fat, and will in the end raise the standard and the grade of cattle and hogs throughout the entire United States. The farmers and cattle raisers of the United States are directly interested in such legislation as depreciates the value of every animal that they now own and every animal that should be raised hereafter. "It is but just that the rights and privileges of the producers of cattle and hogs should be duly considered and respected as well as should the desire of a certain class whose only object and purpose in legislation of this kind is to decrease the supply of butter substitutes, thereby increasing the demand for butter and the price thereof. "Oleomargarine, as now manufactured, is just as wholesome as but- ter, and many chemists have declared it to be even more so. It is sur- rounded b}' the numerous safeguards which Congress has seen fit to provide, and it is a cheap, pure, and wholesome substitute for butter. Its cheapness in price allows it to become a substitute for expensive butter, and it is used by millions of poor people in the United States who are unable to pay the price demanded for creamery product. "Oleomargarine has, by experience, proven to be just what a great majority of the people of this country want, and in the name of the producers of cattle and of hogs we do solemnly protest against the enactment of legislation calculated to cheapen the price of cattle and hogs, ruin the manufacture of oleomargarine, and deprive countless thousands of poor people of the use of a cheap but wholesome, nutri- tious, and acceptable article of food. "Board of Directors of the KA.NSAS City Live Stock Exchange. "By W. S. Hannah, President. "Attest: "R. P. Woodbury, Secretary.'''' ORDER OF procedure. The Chairman. Who is ready to proceed to-morrow morning? Mr. Walden. Mr. Chairman, if you will allow me just a moment, I will not take any of your time. I desire to be heard extensively on this subject. I came quite a long distance for that purpose, and as OLEOMARGARINE. 73 the time for adjournment is just at hand I should like to be heard after the holidays on this su))ject. I represent such a vast interest — the Kansas City Live Stock Exchange, of which I am the present presi dent, with perhaps some 400 members, that loan millions of dollars annually to the cattle growers, feeders, etc.— I say the interest is so large that the few moments allowed now before adjournment will not give me time to present the evidence. The Chairman. Allow me to interrupt you. As you have come such a long distance, would it not be better that you should be heard now 'i We shall be still more busj^ after the holidays. We can give you a hearing this afternoon or to-morrow morning. The Senate will probably adjourn quite early to-day. Mr. Walden. Unfortunately, I am here on another mission that will require all my time during to-morrow. Senator Hansbrough. What length of time would you like to have? Mr. Walden. Possibly an hour or more. The Chairman. I have just learned of the death of the wife of the President pro tempore of the Senate, and it is quite likel}' that the Senate will adjourn immediately, and we can come right back here. Mr. Springer. If that is so, it adjourns you over the holidaj^s ? The Chairman. Certainly. Senator Money. But it does not adjourn this committee. The Chairman. The committee may remain in session. I will appoint a subcommittee. We shall pro))ably meet this afternoon. I suggest to Mr. Walden that he appear at 2 o'clock this afternoon. Mr. ScHELL. Ma}' I ask whether the conmiittee will sit during the holidaj's ? The Chairman. Certainly; it will be obliged to do so. Mr. ScHELL. 1 leave for Cincinnati this afternoon. I want to be heard, and 1 should like to be heard some time between January 3 and 10. The Chairman. We shall have a hearing on the 3d of eTanuary, but the state of business is such that our hearings then will have to be hurried. It will not be possible to give the time then that we are ready to give now and during the holidays, so that matters will have to be put in writing and go into the record without reading to a con- siderable extent. The army bill is of pressing importance, and that measure will come up immediataly after the holiday recess. Three members of this committee are upon the Committee on Military Affairs. So you can see the urgency which compels us to close this hearing as soon as possible after the 3d of January. Mr. ScHELL. Youv honor, I see all that, and I appreciate it. How- ever, there is one thing that is apparent to me and apparent to every member of the committee. It is that there is no organized opposition to this bill. Everybody comes in and talks at random. That condition will continue unless we are allowed some time to organize and get together. We will not be before this committee properly unless we are allowed some time to get together and agree on the objections that should be urged and agree on somebody to present those objections. The Chairman. Well, we shall have a hearing the 3d day of Janu- ary. We want to give you all the time we possibly can, 3'ou know, and to be just as liberal in that respect as possible. It was for that purpose that I thought we had better have the committee open during the holidays. But still we shall have a hearing on the 3d of January. 74 OLEOMARGARINE. Senator Bate. Mr. Chairman, will you not agree to have hearings later than that date ''i The proposition yesterday was to keep the hear- ings open until the 10th of January, and we differed about it. I wanted to have the time extended to the 15th. I have telegrams waiting to be answered, and the parties desire to he heard the 15th of January. The Chairman. I do not think it would be right to give that time; that is only six weeks before final adjournment. Senator "Bate. Then what time shall 1 indicate to them? The Chairman. I think they should appear here on the 3d of Janu- ary; probably we shall not finish the hearing on that date, but we will continue it. I think everybody should be here the 3d of January. Senator Bate. Between the 3d and the 10th? Senator Money. I have answered the dispatches 1 have received to the effect that the parties should come at once; that nobody knew when the hearings would close. I received dispatches of the same tenor. Senator Bate. I expect that I had better state to them that they must be here between the 3d and the 10th, because the proposition of Senator Allen yesterday was to close the hearing on the 10th. Mr. Walden. Am I to understand that the hearing will be contin- ued between the 3d and 10th of January ? The Chairman. It w411 be open on the 3d and continue as long as we think we can give you time — not later than the 10th, but I think it will be concluded that week. The 3d is on Thursday, and I hope to conclude it that week — in three days. Senator Bate. But let us understand that, Mr. Chairman, and see what gentlemen desire. I want to know it myself. No one will be shut out or excluded up to the 10th of the morith, and if we can get through before the 10th we will do it. Let us have that understood. The Chairman. I am not prepared to say that. There will be nobody excluded up to some date, say the 6th, covering the 3d, Ith, and 5th. We shall have to be able to close it in that time, because the hearings have been very full before the House, and anyone can appear during the holidaj's and have all the time he wants. Senator Hansbrough. Do I understand that it is the intention of the Chair to appoint a subcommittee to sit during the holidaj^s? The Chairman. I will appoint a subcommittee now, consisting of yourself. Senator Dolliver, and Senator Heitfeld, or any number of you, and any other members of the committee maj" come in and take an equal part. I expect to be here myself most of the time. Senator Hansbrough. I wish to ask, for information, if it is intended to postpone the hearing to suit the individual convenience of all the gentlemen who I see would like to have all the month of January in which to be heard? I do not see the necessity of appointing a subcom- mittee at all. It would be well for the whole committee to adjourn until those gentlemen get together and decide when they would like to have us consider this measure. Mr. Sohell. That would save the time of the committee. Senator Hansbrough, I say that from the standpoint of the gentle- men who desire to be heard. The Chairman. This committee is in the nature of a court, and these gentlemen are here as witnesses and advocates. Senator Hansbrough. We have not summoned them, however. The Chairman. They must come at our convenience. Senator Hansbrough. I thought so. That is right. OLEOMAEGAEINE. 75 The Chairman. Still, we wish to give them all the fair time we possibly can. Mr. TiLLiNGHAST. Perhaps 1 misunderstood the matter yesterday when it was before the committee; but I know it was my understand- ing, and it was the understanding of most of those who were here, that the hearings would be continued from the 3d until the 10th. It was, therefore, thought by most of those opposed to the bill that there would be no hearings during the holida3^s. Those who are here, like myself, are men who have a great deal to do at the end of the year, and we feel as if we must be home at that time. Of course the busi- ness of the committee is of more importance to us than our business at home, but at the same time we can not help urging that our busi- ness at home demands immediate and vigorous attention at this closing season of the year. For that reason I had anticipated that after to-day we might go home and appear on the 3d of January, when we will so consolidate our forces as to take as little time as possible before the committee. I can say for one that if I had the time from now until the 3d or 4th or 5th — along there somewhere — I would speak before the committee on some day, and I assure you now my only purpose in speaking before the committee is to be of some assistance to it. In addition to everything that has been said, I should like to have the privilege of giving my own digest of what the evidence up to date has shown, and I should also like to give, in a mathematical calcula- tion, exactl}^ the result indicated by one qviestion of the gentleman to-day, which is the result to the farmer. Senator Hansbrough. When will 3^ou be ready to do that? Mr. TiLLiNGHAST. At any time on the 3d or any day thereafter. I will take one hour. The Chairman. Of course the dairy interest is entitled to a hearing to make any rebutting statements they may wish to present after your hearing. Mr. TiLLiNGHAST. I Understand. The Chairman. I think we will settle it in this wa}^: We will give you three days — Thursday, Friday, and Saturday, the 3d, 4th, and 5th of January. I think that is a reasonable time. I will come here at night, if you wish, and hold sessions all night; I do not care. Do you not think that that is a sufficient and reasonable time ^ Mr. TiLLiNGHAST. I have no objection to that. I think it is reason- able, and I think with that time sessions during the holidays would be entirely unnecessary. However, 1 speak only for myself. The Chairman. I will ask another question. Is there anyone here who would like to be heard during the holidays or this afternoon? Senator Heitfeld. Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a word as one of the members of the subcommittee. I have not been asked whether I could be here. I will be in the city, but I could not give an hour to-morrow or Monday. Thereafter I am willing to sit as long as may be desired. The Chairman. Perhaps the subcommittee might hear anyone who is ready. Mr. ScHELL. Allow me to suggest that as far as I am personally concerned, and I think it will be the case with most of the people Avho are here, this matter came on us so suddenly that if I were to attempt to talk on the subject now and do my side of it justice it would take 76 OLEOMARGAEINE. several hours, and I think, from what I have seen of the subject, if I were given time 1 could reduce all I want to say in about a twenty- five minutes' talk. The Chairman. Is there anyone here who wishes to be heard now or during the holidays? Mr. Springer. Mr. Chairman, let me say a word. I have been informed by the president of the National Live Stock Association, which represents all these varied associations in the West, that letters have been addressed to the chairman and other members of this com- mittee requesting the privilege of that association to be heard through a committee to be appointed by them at their coming national conven- tion at Salt Lake City, and that they could not get their committee here before the 1st of February. The Chairman. That is entirely out of the question. Judge. Con- gress can not wait for the live-stock association. I think these gentle- men will admit that we are trying to be fair and to give them all the time we can. Mr. Springer. I should like to explain the reason of their request- ing that time. They are now engaged in assembling and preparing for assem])ling at a national convention at Salt Lake City on the 15th, 16th, 17th, and 18th of January. It will be a convention containing repre- sentatives of all the cattle-growing interests and live-stock interests of every kind of the West and of the whole country, really. New York State is represented, as well as others. In that convention they expect to take some definite action and appoint a committee. In the meantime I have been requested to represent the association here and ask that all the time be given to them that is possible for the purpose of presenting their views. They have never been heard as an association. They have never gone into politics nor into any business of this kind. They have stood still and watched the operations of the gentlemen who are engaged in the manufacture of oleomargarine until they see that their interests would be vitally afi'ected, stricken down in many respects, by this proposed legislation, and for the first time they desire to appear before the legislative department of the Government and present their protest against this proposed legislation, and they wish to do it in a way that will at least set forth the varied interests which this great association represents. Senator Hansbrough. When will they be ready to go on? Mr. Springer. As I stated, they meet in convention on the 16th of January. Senator Money. While dividing out time here I must claim some time for the cotton-seed oil men. Everyl)ody knows that cotton-seed oil is much better than butter, oleomargarine, beef, or anything else. You all use it on your tables as olive oil, and you ought to use more of it. While they do not want to compel the use of cotton-seed oil, at any rate they want to be heard, and they want you to give them a chance, I know. The Chairman, Certainly. Already several Southern Senators have spoken to me about that interest and I have told them that its repre- sentatives might be heard on the 3d of January. Senator Money. I will telegraph them to come on at once, and some of them will be here during the holidays. The Chairman. Some of them have expressed themselves as satisfied with that date. Judge Springer, I should like very much to accom- OLEOMAKGARINE. 77 modate you on old scores between us, but I think we do all we can consistently with proper attention to the public business b}^ postpon- ing the hearing to the 3d of January. I have communicated with the live-stock association at Denver and told them that that was the best we could possibly do. No one has given any notice to appear, and if there is no one here who wishes to be heard to-day we will adjourn the full committee luitil the 3d of January, but the subcommittee will be here subject to call. If anyone notifies the clerk of the committee that he would like to be heard during the holidays, the clerk will summon the subcommittee. The committee (at 12 o'clock meridian) adjourned until Thursd;iy, January 3, 1901, at 10.30 a. m. Thursday, January 3, 1901. The committee met at 10.30 a. m. Present: Senators Hansbrough (acting chairman), Warren, Foster, Bate, and Heitfeld. Also, Hon. W. D. Hoard, president of the National Dairy Union; C. y. Knight, secretary of the National Dairy Union; H. C. Adams, dairy and food commissioner of Wisconsin; George L, Flanders, assistant commissioner of agriculture of New York; James Hewes, president of the Produce Exchange, Baltimore, and vice-president of the National Dairy Union, of Maryland; W. A. Rogers, representing the Agricultural Society of Northern New York; F. B. Richardson, assistant commissioner of agriculture, fifth agricultural division, of New York; S. B. Medairy, of Baltimore, representing dairy interests; E. B. Norris, master of the State Grange of New York; Hon. Wm. M. Springer, of Illinois, representing the National Livestock Associa- tion; Frank M. Mathewson, president of the Oakdale Manufacturing Company, of Providence, R. I.; Charles E. Schell, representing the Ohio Butterine Company, of Cincinnati, Ohio; W. E. Miller, repre- senting the Armour Packing Company, of Kansas Cit}', Mo.; John F. Gelke, representing Braun & Fitts, of Chicago, 111., and others. The Acting Chaikman. Judge Springer will now be heard. STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM M. SPRINGER. Mr. Springer. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I appear Vjefore 3"ou in behalf of the National Live Stock Association. A list of the associations that compose the National Assotdation is printed in the hearings before the House Committee on Agriculture, which reported the pending bill, on pages 75 and 76. They number 126 associations in all, and comprise a majority of all the live stock organizations now existing in this country, and they represent a capi- tal of over $600,000,000. The association held a national convention at Fort Worth, Tex., in January a year ago. Here is a book contain- ing the proceedings of the convention at Fort Worth. Another national convention of the association will be held in Salt Lake City, Utah, on the 15th, 16th, 17th, and 18th of the present month (January, 1901). The Fort Worth convention adopted a memorial to the Congress of the United States, which is as follows: 78 OLEOMARGAEINE. "Memorial, No. 1. — Oleomargarine Legislation. " To the honorable the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States: "Your orator, the National Live Stock Association, respectfully represents unto your honorable body that it is an organization com- posed of over one hundred and twenty-five of the principal stock raisers, feeders, and breeders' organizations and those of allied inter- ests located throughout the United States, and was organized, among other things, for the purpose of promoting the best interests of the live-stock industry as a whole. "Your orator, in behalf of its constituency, desires to enter its emphatic protest against the enactment of House bill 6, introduced in the House of Representatives December 4, 1899, by Mr. Tawney, providing for an amendment to ' an act defining butter, also impos- ing a tax upon and regulating the manufacture, sale, importation, and exportation of oleomargarine,' and in support of its protest desires to record a few of the many reasons in support of its contention. "This measure is a species of class legislation of the most dangerous kind, calculated to build up and restore one industry at the expense of another, equally as important. It seeks to impose an unjust, uncalled-for, and unwarranted burden upon one of the principal com- mercial industries of the country for the purpose of prohibiting its manufacture, thereby destroying competition, as the manufacturers can not assume the additional burdens sought to be imposed by this measure and sell their product in competition with butter. The enactment of this measure would throttle competition, render useless the immense establishments erected at great expense for the manu- facture of oleomargarine, deprive thousands of employees of the oppor- tunity to gain a livelihood, and deny the people, and especially the workingmen and their dependencies, of a wholesome article of diet. "In oleomargarine a very large proportion of the consumers of this country, especially the working classes, have a wholesome, nutritious, and satisfactory article of diet, which before its advent they were obliged, owing to the high price of butter and their limited means, to go without. "The 'butter fat' of an average beef animal, for the purpose of making oleomargarine, is worth from %?> to $4 per head ufore than it was before the advent of oleomargarine, when the same had to be used for tallow; which increased value of the beef steer has been added to the market value of the animal, and consequently to the profit of the producer. "To legislate this article of commerce out of existence, as the pas- sage of this law would surely do, would compel slaughterers to use this fat for tallow, and depreciate the market value of the beef cattle of this country %?> to $4 per head, which would entail a loss on the producers of this country of millions of dollars. "The use of this fat for the purpose set forth is an encouragement to the producer to improve his herd and raise a class of grade or thor- oughbred cattle capa1)le of making and carrying this fat rather than the common or scrub animal which is so hard and unprofitable to fat- ten, and the cattle raiser or producer has come to know the value of this product, and that the amount of the increase in the market value OLEOMA EG AKINE. 79 of his matured animal depends somewhat on the value of the ' butter fat ' carried by the animal. " The rights and privileges of the producers of beef cattle should be as well respected as those of others, and as they are the beneficiaries in the manufacture of this wholesome article of food, the}^ should not be burdened with unnecessary special taxes or needless restrictions in the manufacture of this product other than is absoluteh^ necessary for the support of the Government and the proper governmental regula- tions surrounding the handling of the same. "This product of the 'beef steer' should receive at the hands of Congress no greater exactions than that imposed upon competing food products. It is already surrounded b}^ numerous safeguards, which Congress in its wisdom has seen fit to provide, stipulating severe pun- ishment for selling same under misrepresentation. It has, by experi- ence, proven to be just what a large majorit}^ of the people of this country want, and in behalf of the producers and consumers of this great country we do solemn!}' protest against the enactment of legisla tion calculated to ruin a great industry and to deprive not only the working classes but many others of a cheap, wholesome, nutritious, and acceptable article of food." This memorial was discussed in open convention and adopted by a rising vote. In order to show the spirit of the convention and the great interest manifested in the subject, I will read, with permission of the commit- tee, extracts from some of the speeches on the adoption of the memorial. Colonel Hobbs, who is the editor of the National Provisioner, a paper published in Chicago and New York in the interest of stock raisers, said: " Mr. President, I would like to make a few remarks. I do not want to be personal or talk sharp, but our chief chemist is a practical pack- ing-house chemist. He has been in packing houses of the West for the last fifteen years. We have had him analyze a large number of samples of butterine. These samples were from every Government inspected butterine or oleomargarine manufactor}" in the United States. We have done this to test the melting point. It has been said that 102 is its melting point, while the temperature of the stomach is only 98. Therefore it could not be melted in the stomach. There were many other objections raised that we wanted to investigate. I want to state that we have analyzed samples taken from trade and from factories, and that the melting point of butterine is just under 91 degrees and up to 97 degrees, the latter the highest melting point of the crudest butterine made in any Government inspected factory in the United States — and mind you, nobody else has a legal right to make it. It does not need parafiin to hold it up. " The melting point of a pound of choice dair}" butter was 91*^ and a shade over. The melting point of the best butterine is 91° and just under 91°. "In butterine is used beef and hog products and cotton-seed oil — all of the highest and best products — so that there is not an unhealthy element in it. The hog product that goes into it, the beef product that goes into it, and the cotton-seed oil are the highest and purest products. It is the same as butter — chemically the same. " If Congress passes this 10 per cent bill, it will simply kill the but- terine industry; it will hit the cotton-seed industry; it will hit every 80 OLEOMAKGAEINE. hog and every cow in this country. There is 27 per cent of milk in it. It will hit every steer in this country, and I want to ask this convention to pass this memorial with a rising vote and send it to Washington to defeat this iniquitous bill. "Butter is higher than ever before. It is now 27 cents per pound. Butter never was shorter in this country than now. Let the butter people go and stop that condition before they ask to kill an existing industry that is helping the farmers of this country. I thank you." This was followed by applause, and one delegate said "Amen," which may indicate the feeling which was manifested. Mr. Sotham, of the American Hereford Breeders' Association, of Chillicothe, Mo., said: "We have no objections, as beef raisers, to the contention of the dairymen if butterine or oleomargarine is sold for just what it is, but I think, and you all seem to, that it is wrong to put a tax on a product which is exactly the same as butter, pronounced exactl}' the same by the best chemical process; and while we would be willing to establish the product on the best footing if sold for just what it is, as butterine, we also want to see the dair3mien hold in mind a matter in which we are interested with them. Every time 3^ou get a miserable and inferior butter, of farm butter, these fellows straightway^ call it oleomargarine, w^hile the fact is the product of these packing houses to-day is better than two-thirds of the butter that is produced in this country. Any of us would rather have it on our tables." [Applause]. This fact I do not know and will not vouch for. The motion was then carried by a rising vote, there being but 3 votes in opposition to the adoption of the memorial. So that may be considered as being before this committee as the unanimous expression of those who have been engaged in cattle raising, which embraces also the hog industry and the other live-stock interests. The book containing the proceedings of the convention furnishes some valuable statistics in reference to the cattle industry of the United States. On page 82 will be found statistics of the number and value of milch cows and other cattle in the United States January 1, 1900. Milch cows, 16,292,000; average value, $31.60, and total value, 1514,812,106. Other cattle, 27,610,054; average value, 124.97, and total value, $689,486,260. The number ot other cattle exceeded the number of milch cows 11,308,800, and their value exceeded the value of milch cows $174,674,154. The National Live-Stock Association has not heretofore appeared before any committee of Congress, through its own representatives, to oppose the legislation contained in the pending bill. Several of the members of the National Association appeared before the House Committee on Agriculture, and their remarks will be found in the hearing-s of that committee which are before you. This is the volume which was laid before you by Representative Grout, and I call the attention of the committee to some of the remarks in this book, beginning on page 70. I also call your attention to the remarks of John S, Hobbs, editor of the National Provisioner, of New York and Chicago, on pages 130 to 141. It contains much valuable information on the subject now before this committee. Also to the statement of Mr. J. A. Hake, president of the Live- stock Exchange of South Omaha, Ncbr., printed on pages 167 to 166 of the House hearings, which contains valuable statistics. OLEOMARGARINE. 81 As I do not desire to repeat any of the statements which have been made before the House committee, as this committee has the printed hearings before it, I will only call attention to some of the remarks before the House committee. There is one point, however, to which I desire to call the attention of the committee, and that is the unanimity with which all those who oppose the passage of the pending bill declare that its passage will destroy the oleomargarine industry in the United States. The testi- mony on this point is so clear and emphatic that there can scarcely be any doubt of the fact. The persons who have testified upon this point are engaged in the business or have thoroughly investigated it. They know whereof they speak, and Congress ought to give their testimony the most serious consideration. But the friends of the bill declare their purpose to destroy the indus- try. They have framed the bill with that end in view, and having the framing of it with that end in view, they ought to have been able to so express themselves as to carry out their purpose. I call attention to a portion of the minorit}^ report of the Committee on Agriculture of the House, which is before you, in which Mr. Adams, the pure-food commissioner of the State of Wisconsin, in his testimony before the committee, March 7, 1900, said: "There is no use beating about the bush in this matter. We want to pass this law and drive the oleomargarine manufacturers out of the business." Mr. Adams. Mr. Chairman Mr. Springer. Mr. Adams is here and can state for himself. Mr. Adams. Will the gentleman allow me ? Mr. Springer. Certainly . Mr. Adams. I think it is proper at this time to state that the state- ment in the report of the minority as quoted, and properly read by the gentleman, is absolutely and unqualifiedly false. I made no such state- ment. There was no stenographer present at that hearing. I have never had any such idea. I simpl}^ stated that our purpose was to stop the fraud in the sale of colored oleomargarine and nothing more; that we had no purpose to stop the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine, but simply of the colored imitation — counterfeit product. Mr. Springer. I so understood the gentleman. There is no other kind of oleomargarine made except colored oleomargarine. Senator Heitfeld. Judge, did you quote from the report of the minority ? Mr. Springer. Yes, sir; it is a part of their proceedings I was quot- ing, and that has been put before the committee by Mr. Grout. I assumed it was correct or I should not have referred to it. But I have in my hand a newspaper entitled "Hoard's DaiiTman," a recent pub- lication, in which there is an extract from an address of Mr. Adams, who has just spoken to the committee, before the Wisconsin Dairy- men's Association, in which I find this statement: "Now, why do we want this tax? I will tell 3'ou wh3\ Because oleomargarine, which is colored in imitation of 3'ellow Ijutter, is a counterfeit, which the average purchaser can not detect, and it is placed upon the tables of the people and consumed by men and women who ask for butter and think they are getting it, and we want to put a tax upon the article so high that they can not place it upon the markets of this country in imitation of butter." S. Rep. 2043 6 82 OLEOMARGARINE. That I presume is correct, Mr. Adams. That is absolutely correct. Mr. Springer. That is correct. In this connection, therefore, I desire to say that I believe it will be the testimony of all those gentle- men engaged in the manufacture of oleomargarine that all the product made in this countiy is colored practically in imitation of butter. There may be some that is not colored, but the manufacturers gener- ally regard it as necessary to color it in order to make it salable. Other statements were made before the Committee on Agriculture of the House, and of similar purport to that which I have read. Mr. Knight. Mr. Chairman, if I may be pardoned, there is a state- ment credited to me which appears there that not only was never made before any committee, but it purports to be a letter written by me to a Virginia dairyman, and which was never written by me. I never heard of it and never thought of anything of the kind. If it has ever appeared it is a forger}-. I denounced it so before the House com- mittee and it appeared as such in the Congressional Record. The Acting Chairman. It has appeared in the Congressional Record ? Mr. Knight. As soon as I saw the minority report I telegraphed to Congressman Grout to lay the matter before the House, that that purported letter, if there was ever any ground for it, was a forgery. I was not prepared to say that someone in the office might not have sent it out in my absence while I was here. But at the time it pur- ports to have been written I was in Washington and not in Chicago, and I was sending out no literature from here. When I went home I questioned my clerks and assistants there and could find no record of such a letter having ever been written to anybody, or of anj^one who ever had any idea of sending it out. Mr. Springer. I, of course, assume that matters which appear in an official document are there with some responsible authority, and I usually quote them without apology; but the gentleman's statement is to be considered as controlling in this matter. Mr. Knight. The point was raised and never has been met. Mr. Springer. I do not desire to hold the gentleman or anyone else responsible for any statements which he has not made. It is a very commendable course on the part of these gentlemen that they should desire that the committee would understand exactly what they have stated, and that they should not be misrepresented. Before entering upon the discussion of the pending bill, I desire to enter ni}- protest against the course pursued by some of the gentlemen who favor the passage of the bill. I read from the argument of ex-Governor Hoard, of Wisconsin, printed on the first page of the hearings. If this is not correctly printed, the Governor is present and he can correct it. I will take it back if it is not stated correctly. This report states, as coming from Governor Hoard, the following: "The oleomargarine combine consists of less than twenty manufac- turers, who have entered into a conspiracy to break down these State laws, and, by bribing merchants, by deception of all kinds, by sub- sidizing cit}' newspapers, by employing leading politicians, to so neu- tralize the efi'ect and administration of those laws that they may force their counterfeit upon the public. These manufacturers are assuming to override all law. They stand behind all infractions of State and national laws, and furnish money for the defense of their agents when arrested. OLEOMARGAKINE. 83 "On one side stands one of the greatest of our agricultural inter- ests, together with the millions of consumers who are tired of being swindled, "On the other side stands the oleomargarine trust, engaged in manufacturing a counterfeit, depending on law^breaking, falsehood, and deception for its success, backed up with millions of capital." I do not represent the manufacturers of oleomargarine, but I do insist that neither the manufacturers of oleomargarine nor the repre- sentatives of the live-stock interest or the cotton-oil industry of the United States should be arraigned before this committee as, in the language which I have read, guilty of such disreputable practices as are alleged. Mr. Hoard. May I interrupt the gentleman 'i Mr. Springer. Certainl3^ Mr. Hoard. I will say, Judge Springer, that the statement there made is based on the testimony of the dairv and food commissioners of the United States, who have met those very propositions and facts in their work — the absolute bribery of merchants — offering to place certified checks in my own State on deposit, to defend merchants against the infraction of our State laws if the}^ would take up the sale of oleomargarine. Mr. Springer. 1 assume that I have correctly quoted you? Mr. Hoard. You have, entirely. Mr. Springer. The gentleman has not disclaimed it, as was done in the other case. But other methods have been adopted by the friends of this bill against which I desire to enter m}^ solemn protest, and that is the system of bringing undue influence to bear upon the constituents of those who have had the courage to act in Congress so as to carry out their convictions upon this great question. When the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives was a candidate for reelection at the last election, circulai's were sent into his district bearing the signature of the gentleman who is here, Mr. Knight. I will not ask the committee to consider those circulars, unless the gentleman here states that this paper emanated from him [handing paper to Mr. Knight]. Mr. Knight [examining paper]. That was a letter written to Mr. P. P. Hubbard, of Perry, N. Y. Mr. Springer. By you? Mr. Knight. Yes, sir; a letter, and not a circular. Mr. Springer. A letter ? Mr. Knight. A personal letter written to Mr. Hubbard. Mr. Springer. Mr. Hubbard was a constituent of Mr. Wadsworth? Mr. Knight. Yes, sir. He wrote to me and asked me about Mr. Wadsworth's position, and I answered it. liou have got the letter. Mr. Springer. This, then, is the answer that was given so as to rep- resent the course of Mr. Wadsworth. The letter is as follows: "The National Dairy Union, "Office of the Secretary, 188 South Water Street, ''Chicago, III, October 18, 1900. "Mr. P. P. Hubbard, Perry, JSF. T. "Dear Sir: You ask me to what extent Congressman Wadsworth opposed the Grout bill. Well, if you have ever been in court and observed a lawyer defending a criminal j'ou can understand how he fought for the oleomargarine makers. He was the most active oppo- 84 OLEOMARGARINE. nent we had in Congress. He spent more time lobbying against our bill than even the acknowledged agent of the oleomargarine makers — Lorimer, of Chicago — to whose tender mercies Wadsworth consigned the Grout bill when it was referred to his committee, that it might be smothered. "As to Wadsworth's bill, offered as a substitute for the Grout bill, it is nothing more nor less than a deep-laid plan to bi'eak down com- pletely all anticolor laws, including New York. His bill makes 1-pound packages original packages so they can be sold under pro- tection of the interstate-commerce laws by the retailer with a $48 license. Only wholesalers paying $480 can sell an original package now, and they can't sell less than 10 pounds. While no oleomarga- rine is made in his State, he has conceived a great affection for the kind of oleomargarine that is an exact counterfeit of butter, forbidden by New York, and which defrauds the public everywhere, and the only kind we are seeking to suppress. "Wadsworth's friends in Congress were amazed at his attitude in this matter. His conduct was unprecedented. No Congressman representing a Northern agricultural district has ever been known to take such an aggressive stand against the farmers of his district in face of such floods of petitions, and no support whatever from his own people in his position. "Wadsworth, with his bill, is the most dangerous eneni}- the dairy- men have in the world. As chairman of the Agricultural Committee he has certain prestige. If he is returned to Congress by the votes of the farmers of his district, thereby winning their approval of his course, it will be bad for us. His reelection, unless with a greatly reduced majority, will be a victory for the stock yards and oleomarga- rine fraud of Chicago, and a death knell to the farmer's influence in Congress. "The National Dairj^ Union, however, is not in politics, and its officers happen to be of the same political faith as Wadsworth. Our organization is merely for the purpose of urging measures in protec- tion of the farmer who keeps cows, and furnishing information to them regarding the records of Congressmen upon such measures. "Respectfully, yours, ..^^^^ Y. Knight,_ '"''Secretary National Dairy Unions The result of that election is a very emphatic protest against the methods used to defeat him. He succeeded in being reelected at this time by an increased majority of over 3,000 above the vote he received two years ago, and had 8,000 majority in his district to return him to the next Congress. Mr. Knight. Judge Springer, do you know how far he ran behind his ticket? Mr. Springer. I do not. Mr. Knight. I do. Mr. Springer. Hegotvotesenough, however, to give him a majority of about 9,000 in his district. Mr, Flanders. The official returns of the State of New York have not been printed, but the i-eturns in the agricultural papers in the State of New York show that he ran 2,000 behind. I will not state this as a positive fact, because the ofiicial returns are not in, but that is the statement made and the general understanding among the people. Mr. Springer. There were various circulars sent abroad in his OLEOMARGARINE. 85 district having as their object his defeat for the reason that he exer- cised his judgment upon this measure and used his influence to secure the passage of another bifl, to which I call the attention of this com- mittee, and which I believe will meet every objection that has really an}^ foundation in it. I desire to discuss this bill on its merits. I concede to every Senator and Representative in Congress the right to an honest difi'erence of opinion with other Senators and Members. The constituents of Sena- tors and Members of the House will recognize the right of their representatives to express their honest convictions, and all eft'orts to threaten Senators and Members of the House with popular condemna- tion should be reprobated. The Committee on Manufactures of the Senate has recently investi- gated the subject of the adulteration of food products. It has submitted an able report on the subject, accompanied with all the testimony. The report is known as Senate Report No. 616, first session Fifty-sixth Congress, and was submitted to the Senate on February 28, 1900. I call the attention of the committee to the conclusions reached b}^ the Committee on Manufactures of the Senate at this very Congress. That part of the report on this subject will be found printed on pages 7 to 9, and is as follows: "In regard to butterine or oleomargarine it is not claimed by any of the witnesses before your committee that it is in any way deleterious to public health. On the contrary all expert evidence upon this point strongly confirms the testimony of the manufacturers of this article, to the eflect that it is a healthful food product. The testimony shows that this product is the result of a combination of beef and pork fats, butter, cream, and milk with coloring matter, which is similar to that universall}^ used by farmers and dairies engaged in the manufacture of butter for the coloring of that product. As under the resolution under which this committee is operating it is made one of its duties to investigate food products and to ascertain what is sold that is deleteri- ous to the public health, your committee made every effort to obtain information upon this branch of the subject, and in addition to oral testimony there were submitted authorities of an expert character, as follows: "Henry Morton, Stevens Institute Technology, New Jersey: " 'It contains nothing whatever which is injurious as an article of diet; but, on the contrary, is essentially identical with the best fresh butter.' " S. C. Caldwell, chemical laboratory, Cornell University: ' Possesses no qualities whatever that can make it the least degree unwholesome.' "Charles P. Williams, analytical chemist, Philadelphia: ' It is a pure and wholesome article of food, and in this respect, as in respect to its chemical composition, is fully the equivalent of the best dairy butter.' "Henry A. Mott, analytical chemist. New York: 'Essentially iden- tical with butter made from cream, and perfectly pure and wholesome article.' "J. S. W. Arnold, medical department. University New York: 'A blessing for the public, and in every way a perfectly pure, wholesome, and palatable article of food.' " W. O. Atwater, Wesleyan University, Connecticut: ' It is perfectly wholesome and healthy, and has a high and nutritious value.' "Scientific American: ' Oleomargarine is as much a farm product as beef or butter, and is as wholesome as either.' 86 OLEOMAKGAKINE. "Prof. Charles F. Chandler, New York City: 'The product is palat- able and wholesome, and I regard it as a most valuable article of food.' "Prof. George F. Barker, University of Pennsylvania: 'It is per- fectly wholesome, and is desirable as an article of food.' "It has been claimed by some that the coloring- matter alluded to is a by-product of coal tar, and that if taken into the himian stomach it might be dangerous to health; but, upon the evidence taken before 3^our committee, there appears to be no foundation for prohibiting its use in the manufacture either of butter or oleomarg-arine. "As to the right of manufacturers to color their oleomargarine, it would appear from the tenor of late decisions in United States and States courts that the legislative branch would exceed its power by prohibiting the use of such coloring matter in the manufacture of either butter or oleomargarine, and in the opinion of your committee such legislation would be void, for lack of uniformity were permission granted to use coloring matter in one of these products to the exclu- sion of its use in the other. "There have been several recent decisions by the Supreme Court of the United States, the most prominent being the case of Schollen- berger y. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, in which it is held that oleomargarine has been recognized for nearly a quarter of a century in Europe and the United States as an article of food and commerce, and has been so recognized by acts of Congress. The court refers to the act of August 2, 18S6 (M Stat., 209), 'An act defining butter, also imposing a tax upon and regulating the manufacture, sale, impor- tation, and exportation of oleomargarine.' One description of oleo- margarine contained in this act includes, 'all mixtures and compounds of tallow, beef fat, suet, lard, lard oil, vegetable oil, annatto and other "coloring matter, intestinal fat, and otfal fat made in imitation of butter.' The decision in the Schollenberger case holds, ' that the manufacture of oleomargarine by the compounding of the ingredients named in this quotation from the act of August 2, 1886, is recognized by Con- gress as being a lawful business and that the oleomargarine so produced is a lawful article of commerce. ' "It was claimed b}^ some of the witnesses before your committee that the present laws are inadequate to carry out the original intention of legislatures, and that under the operation of the various laws regu- lating the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine it is sometimes sold to consumers as butter. Some of the witnesses who testified before your committee stated ' that having asked for butter, there were occa- sions when oleomargarine had been given them instead of the former article.' The examination of the retailers of oleomargarine and butter who came l)efore your committee tends to show that consumers of these articles know which of these products they are purchasing, but in many instances do not wish it known that they are using oleomarga- rine, and it is the testimony of manufacturers of oleomargarine before your committee that there is no instance of any consumer having ever brought action to prosecute dealers for having sold them oleomargarine instead of butter. This testimony has not been contradicted, nor has any proof of its accuracy been oft'ered. "There has been much evidence and argument before your com- mittee as to whether the manufacture of oleomargarine is detrimental to the interests of the farmers of the country. The evidence shows, however, that all of the ingredients entering into the composition of both butter and oleomargarine are the products of our farms, with the OLEOMARGAKINE. 87 possible exception of the coloring matter, the use of which is infini- tesimal in both cases. ''"The resolution under which this committee was appointed does not authorize investigation except: "First. What food is sold that is deleterious to the public health; and, "Second. What food is sold in fraud to the consumer. "The committee finds from the evidence before it that the product known commercially as oleomargarine is healthful and nutritious, and that no additional legislation is necessary." There is no minority report of the Committee on Manufactures upon the pure-food bill, so called. Mr. Knight. Judge Springer, may I interrupt you for a moment? Mr. Springer. Yes, sir. Mr. Knight. Senator Hansbrough will probably recall the fact that Senator Mason made a statement on the floor of the Senate toward the latter part of the last session that subsequent developments have con- vinced him that he was mistaken in the premises. That is now a mat- ter of record in the Congressional Record. He said it had developed that there was a great deal of fraud in oleomargarine that he did not know about, and he had changed his conclusions as to that matter. That you will find in the Congressional Record, and 1 will attempt to look it up. Mr. Springer. Senator Mason is a Senator, and when this matter comes before the Senate he will have an opportunit}^ of stating whether he retracts any part of the official report he has made, and it will rest on his statement. Mr. Knight, I simply desire to call attention to that fact. Mr. Springer. I have collected some statistics in reference to oleo- margarine, which will be of interest to the committee and to all others who desire to be thoroughly imformed on the subject. PRODUCTION OF OLEOMARGARINE. The report of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1900, shows that the production of oleomargarine for that year was 107,045,028 pounds, and that the tax of 2 cents a pound paid to the Government thereon amounted to $2,543,785.18. The following table of production and total receipts from all oleo- margarine sources for each fiscal year since November 1, 1886, the date the oleomargarine law took efl'ect, is interesting as showing the extent of operations in the country: Total produc- tion. Amount re- ceived. On hand November 1, 1886 Pounds. 181,090 21,513,537 34, 325, 527 35, 664, 026 32,324,032 44,392,409 48,364,155 67,224,298 69, 622. 246 56, 958, 105 50,853,234 45,531,207 67,516,136 83,130,474 107, 045, 028 During the fiscal year ended June 30 — 1887 (from November 1, 1886) S723, 948. 04 1888 864, 139. 88 1889 894, 247. 91 1890 786, 291. 72 1891 1,077,924.14 1892 1,266,326.00 1893 1,670,643.60 1894 1,723,479.90 1895 1,409,211.18 1896 1, 219, 432. 46 1897 1,034,129.60 1898 1, 315, 70S. 54 1899 1,950,618.56 1900 2,543,785.18 Total 754, 645, 50-i 18,485,886.61 88 OLEOMAEGAKINE. THE INGREDIENTS OF OLEOMARGARINE. The House of Representatives at its last session called upon the Sec- retary of the Treasuiy for information as to the kind of material used in the manufacture of oleomargarine in the United States, the amount of each ingredient, and the per cent that each bears to the total amount of oleomargarine produced in the country for the period named. In response to this resolution the Secretary, through the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, on May 14, 1900, furnished the following state- ment : Quantities and kinds of ingredients iised in the, production of oleomargarine in the United States for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1899; also the percentage each ingredient bears to the whole quantity. Material. Pounds. Percent- age each ingredient bears to the whole. 31,297,251 24,491,769 4,367,614 486,310 148, 970 110, 164 8,963 5,890 2, .550 14,200,576 6,773,670 4,342,904 1,668,319 3,527,410 34.27 26.82 Cotton-seed oil 4.77 .63 Coloring matter .16 Sugar .12 .01 Stearin .007 Glucose .003 Milk 15. .55 Salt 7.42 Butter oil 4.76 Butter 1.72 Cream 3.86 Total 91,322,260 100 Or, more definitely stated, the quantity, character, and value of ingredients used in the production of oleomargarine for the time speci- fied above are as follows: Material. Pounds. Value per pound. Total value. Neutral lard 31,297,251 24,491,769 8,700,418 486,310 148, 970 100, 164 8,963 5,890 2,550 14, 250, 576 6, 772, 670 1,568,319 3,527,410 4,342,000 Cents. 8 9 6 10 20 4 10 8 3 1 1 20 5 6 12, 503, 780. 08 2, 144, 917. 69 Oleo oil Cotton-seed oil 622, 025. 08 Sesame oil 4, 863. 10 Coloring matter . 29, 296. 00 Sugar 4, 406. 50 Glycerin 896. 30 stearin 459. 60 Glucose 76 50 Milk 142, 006. 76 67,726.70 313,663.80 176 370 50 Salt Butter Cream Butter oil 260 520. OU Average value per pound of materials, 7.09 cents. Average cost of packages (extreme), one-half cent per pound. Highest possible cost all expenses connected with manufacturing, 1 cent per pound. Internal-revenue tax, per pound, 2 cents. Total cost to manufacturer of finished product, average, 10.59 cents. Finished product quoted at from 11^ cents for lowest grade to 18 cents for highest quality, averag- ing, probably, 14 cents per pound. OLEOMARGAEINE. 89 STATES WHICH HAVE PROHIBITED OLEOMARGARINE AND THEIR POPULATION, 1890 AND 1900. I have obtained from the Director of the Census a statement of the population of the United States for the census years 1890 and 1900. The statement is as follows: [States marked with a dash (thus, — Alabama) are those in which laws have been passed forbidding the sale of oleomargarine colored in semblance of butter.] Population of the United States by States and Territories, 1890 and 1900. States and Territories. Indians not taxed, 1900. The United States . 76,304,799 63, 069, 766 -Alabama Arkansas -California -Colorado -Connecticut -Delaware Florida -Georgia Idaho -Illinois Indiana -Iowa Kansas -Kentucky Louisiana -Maine -Maryland -Massachusetts . . . -Michigan -Minnesota Mississippi -Missouri Montana -Nebraska Nevada -New Hampshire. -New Jersey -New York North Carolina . . -North Dakota . . . -Ohio -Oregon -Pennsylvania ... Rhode Island -South Carolina .. -South Dakota -Tennessee Texas -Utah -Vermont -Virginia -Washington -West Virginia ... -Wisconsin Wyoming 1,828,697 1,311,564 1,485,053 539, 700 908, 355 184, 735 528, 542 2, 216, 331 161, 772 4,821,550 2, 516, 462 2,231,853 1, 470, 495 2, 147, 174 1, 381, 625 694,466 1, 190, 050 2, 805, 346 2,420,982 1,751,394 1,551,270 3, 106, 665 243, 329 1,068,539 42,335 411,588 1,883,669 7,268,012 1,893,810 319, 146 4,157,545 413, 536 6,302,115 428, 556 1, 340, 316 401,570 2,020,616 3, 048, 710 276, 749 343,641 1,854,184 518, 103 958, 800 2, 069, 042 92, 531 Total for 45 States 74,610,523 TERRITORIES. Alaska Arizona District of Columbia. Hawaii Indian Territory New Mexico Oklahoma Total for 7 Territories . Persons in the service of the United States stationed abroad. Indians, etc. , on Indian reservations, except Indian Territory, 63,441 122, 931 278, 718 154, 001 391,960 195, 310 398, 245 1,604,606 189,670 76,304,799 1,513 1, 128 1,208 412 746 168: 391 1,837 84, 3,826 2, 192 1,911 1,427 1,858 1,118 661 1,042 2,238 2,093 1,301 1, 289 2, 679, 132 1,058 45 376 1,444 5, 997 1,617 182 3, 672 313, 5,258: 345: 1, 151 328, 1,767 2, 235, 207 332, 1, 655 349 762: 1, 686 6o: 017 179 130 198 258 493 422 353 385 351 404 896 096 635 587 086 390 943 889 826 600 184 159 910 761 530 933 853 947 719 316 767 014 506 149 808 518 523 905 422 980 390 794 880 705 62,116,811 32,052 59, 620 230, 392 89, 990 180, 182 153, 593 61,834 807, 663 145,282 1,549 597 2,297 10, 746 "i,'665 4,711 "4 '692 10, 932 1,472 2,631 'i'657 44,617 24,644 56,033 2,937 5,927 89,641 1 Including an estimated population of 14,400 for certain military organizations and naval vessels stationed abroad, principally in the Philippines for which the returns have not yet been received. 90 OLEOMAKGAEINE. According to the population of 1890 the States which have prohibited the sale of colored oleomargarine contained a population of 50,117,4-iO, while the States and Territories whose laws permit such sale, merely requiring that the oleomargarine be branded, marked, or labeled so as to distinguish it, contained a population of only 12,604,790. The Dis- trict of Columbia, with 230,392 population in 1890, is embraced in the latter list. According to the population of 1900 the States which have prohibited the sale of colored oleomargarine contained a population of about 60,000,000, while the thirteen other States contained a population of 14,671,001. QUANTITY CONSUMED IN EACH STATE. The Secretar}^ of the Treasury has furnished a statement of the quan- tity of oleomargarine shipped into the several States and Territories, and probably consumed therein, during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1899. A table showing similar information for the year ending June 30, 1900, could not be prepared in time to be of use to this committee during the consideration of the pending bill. I have marked a dash before the States in which laws have been passed prohibiting the sale of oleomargarine colored in imitation of butter. The number of the dealers in each State is given, and the per- centage of the whole product consumed in each State. The table is as follows: Quantity of oleomargarine shipped into each Slate for fiscal year ended June 30, 1899. State or Territory. No. of deal- ers. Pounds. Per cent of total. State or Territory. No. of deal- ers. Pounds. Per cent of total. 21 5 35 5 226, 053 18,080 380,389 78,767 74,923 1,123,537 134,255 40,475 816,848 590,225 495, 004 18,638,921 58,224 3. 923. 228 0.28+ .02+ .48- .10- .09 + 1.41- .17- .05 + 1 02+ .74+ .62 + 23.39- .07+ 4.92+ .19+ .10 + 2.08 + 1.87 + 1.31- .13- 2.25- 2.61 + 2.63- 1.69- 3.93 + .13+ .56- — Nebraska — New Hampshire. — New Jersey New Mexico — New York Nevada 73 19 296 12 14 1,024,985 455, 583 5,875,975 115.850 222, 788 625 110,244 7,710 8,830,969 117, 398 41,250 11, 433, 341 3,594,984 258, 159 55,432 714, 640 1,518,264 8,4.50 2,990 1,159,400 63,345 1,206,865 714, 742 39, 547 1.29- Alaska .57+ Arkansas 7.37+ Arizona .15- — California .28- 55 5 48 61 82 61 2,020 3 306 .00+ — Connecticut — Delaware North Carolina . . — North Dakota . . . — Ohio 9 18 1,005 10 3 717 333 24 4 83 162 .14- .01- 11.08+ Florida Oklahoma — Oregon .15- .05+ — Illinois . . — Pennsylvania ... Rhode Island — South Carolina . . — South Dakota —Tennessee Texas — Utah 14.35- Idaho 4.51 + Indiana .32+ Indian Territory . . — Iowa 21 ! 152,278 3 79. 922 .07- .90- Kansas 186 217 140 17 58 108 109 30 231 17 1,658,544 1,490,577 1,043,502 102, 274 1,791,950 2,083,889 2,092,521 1,343,865 3,133,313 104, 622 446, 022 1.91- — Kentucky .01 + Louisiana . . — Vermont 1 121 6 172 23 5 .00+ 1.45+ — Maryland — Washington — West Virginia . . . — Wisconsin Wyoming Total .08- — Massachusetts Michigan — Minnesota 1.51 + .90- .05- Mississippi Montana 79, 695, 744 100. 00 The information contained in this statement is valuable and instruct- ive. Itsho^vs the effect upon the consumption of oleomargarine which is produced by State legislation. In Rhode Island, having a population of 428,556 by the census of 1900, the consumption of oleomargarine for the year ending June 30, 1899. was 3,594,984 pounds. This amounted to over 8 pounds per capita. OLEOMARGARINE. 91 The Acting Chairman. Havo they a State law in Rhode Island pro- hibiting it? Mr. Springer. No, sir; in that State it is allowed to be sold, desig- nated as oleomargarine, with proper marks and brands. A gentleman who addressed the committee the other day explained how it was — that there was a sign up in the windows of every store stating that oleomargarine was sold there, and that its sale as such was understood. In Vermont, having a population of 343,641, the consumption was only 2,990 pounds, or practically nothing. The principal reason for this difference in consumption is that in Rhode Island the sale of oleomargine, colored in imitation of butter, is permitted if marked and branded as such. In Vermont oleomargarine, colored in imitation of yellow butter, is prohibited, and when sold at all it must be colored pink. In Illinois, where there is hostile legislation, yet there were con- sumed in the State during the year 1899 over 18,000,000 pounds. But the courts were generall}^ opposed to the enforcement of the law, and it was practically ignored. The production in that State for that year amounted to over 38,000,000 pounds. But in New York, where there is strongly repressive legislation, and where we may assume from the result produced the law was fairly well executed, the consumption amounted to only 222,788 pounds. The population of the State is over 7,000,000. The consumption is well-nigh completely suppressed. If the laws of New York had been the same as those of Rhode Island, the consumption might have reached 8 pounds per capita, or 56,000,000 pounds. The total production of oleomargarine in the United States for the 3'ear ending June 30, 1900, was 107,045,028 pounds. This was a con- sumption of only 1.4 pounds per capita. Without repressive laws in any of the States the consumption might have been as great per capita as in Rhode Island. This would have increased the demand for oleomargarine for consumption in the United States per annum to over 600,000,000 pounds. It is not surprising, in view of these facts, that the friends of the pending bill desire the enactment of the first section, which will place oleomargarine under the repressive laws of 32 States in the Union, with a fair prospect of securing equally oppressive legislation in the remaining 13 States. The apprehension of the dairymen of the United States that their industry will be seriously injured by the production and consumption of oleomargarine is not well founded. It is stated in the minority report of the House Committee on Agriculture on the pending bill that the production of butter in the United States at this time amounts to about 2,000,000,000 pounds per annum, and that the production of oleomargarine is l)ut little over 4 per cent of that of butter. This does not threaten serious competition. A possible consumption in the United States of 8 pounds per capita, as in Rhode Island, would not seriously injure the butter industry, for the reason that the consump- tion of oleomargarine would be confined in the main, under proper regulations, to those who do not use butter, by reason of its high price. Greater comforts would be possible with no perceptible injury to any class of our people. But even if butter should be brought into sharp competition with oleomargarine sold under proper regulations, the producers of milk and of dairy and creamery butter have no right to complain. Every iugre- 92 OLEOMARGARINE. client of oleomargarine is the product of our farms and ranches. Those who produce the ingredients of oleomargarine are just as much entitled to a fair held and open competition as are those who produce milk and butter. The consumers of the country are entitled to the best that the country affords and at the most reasonable prices that home competi- tion in production can afford. The opposition to oleomargarine is as unreasonable as is that to improved processes of production and to labor-saving machinery. The time has long since passed when the machine must be destroyed because it saves labor and cheapens pro- duction. If American genius can invent some means of producing butter or any other article of consumption which will add to human comfort and happiness, such article is entitled to equal rights before the law with all other articles of like character, even if the old is driven out of the market and the new material entirely supplants it. The Acting Chairman. Judge, is not that what would happen to the American cow? If she became more valuable for oleomargarine than for butter, would she not be driven out? Mr. Springer. Yes, that is possible; but she would go to the slaughterhouse, where she would oe utilized to veiy great benefit in feeding the hungry people of the world. A gentleman who addressed the committee a few days ago stated that all cows were sent to the block sooner or later. The Acting Chairman. Then would not the oleomargarine people be required to discover some new method of producing calves ? Senator Heitfeld. An incubator might be used. Mr, Springer. An incubator process might be invented, as sug- gested by the Senator from Idaho. But if the honorable chairman will consult those gentlemen whom I have the honor to represent here, on their ranches upon the vast prairies of the West, he will find that most of the calves which mature into beef cattle are produced by the cows on the ranches which are not used for dairy purposes. Senator Heitfeld. Judge, are you not surprised that a farmer from North Dakota does not know that daiiy cows are not those that produce the calves — that it is the range cows ? Mr. Springer. The range cows are those that produce most of them. All calves from dairy cows as a rule are sent to slaughter as soon as they are old enough to be of value as veal. The Acting Chairman, I supposed it was necessary for a cow to become a calf producer before producing milk. Senator Heitfeld. That is true, but most of the dairy calves, per- haps three-fourths of them, go right to the slaughterhouse, Mr, Springer. Those that we relj^ on to produce beeves are raised on ranches, and the cows are not used as milch cows. But, however this may be, I reassert what I stated before, that the law-making power can not interfere with the industries of the country so as to strike one down and build up another merely by reason of the fact that one of them is getting the advantage of the other by adopting improved processes of production so as to cheapen the price of the product to the consumer. That doctrine has long since been exploded, and it never will reappear again, I hope, in this country. If you want to see the fulfillment of the doctrine of repressive legislation to pre- vent improved processes go to China, and you will find a country that regards the machine as the enemy of labor. OLEOMARGARINE. 93 THE LAW OF THE CASE. I desire to call the attention of the committee to the law of this case, and 1 trust that I shall not weary your patience on a subject so impor- tant as that. I have been engaged during the past five years in interpreting the laws of my country and in enforcing them, and having occupied the position of a judge I realize more fully that it is the duty of all persons to look to the law, and, when the law points out the course, to follow it. So I shall ask this committee to follow the law as announced by the Supreme Court of the United States. Two recent opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States in reference to oleomargarine are of the highest importance in consider- ing the pending bill. To these opinions I will ask the committee to give special consideration. The first opinion was handed down in the case of Plumley v. Massa- chusetts, in 1894. The second opinion was handed down in 1898, and was in the case of Schollenberger v. Pennsylvania. The opinions were given upon the oleomargarine laws of the States of Massachusetts and Pennsylvania. The sections of those laws which were construed by the Supreme Court are as follows: THE MASSACHUSETTS AND PENNSYLVANIA STATUTES COMPARED. Massachusetts oleomargarine statute of March 10, 1891, which the Supreme Court of the United States held to be valid, in Plumley v. Massachusetts, 155 U. S. , 461-482. Decided December 10, 1894. Sec. 1. "No person, by himself or his agents or servants, shall render or manufacture, sell, offer for sale, expose for sale, or have in his possession with intent to sell, any article, product, or compound made wholly or partly out of any fat, oil, or oleaginous substance, or compound thereof, not produced from unadulterated milk or cream from the same, which shall be in imitation of yellow butter pro- duced from pure unadulterated milk or cream from the same: Provided^ That nothing in this act shall be construed to prohibit the manufacture or sale of oleomarga- rine in a separate and distinct form, and in such manner as will advise the consumer of its real character, free from coloration or ingredient that causes it to look like butter." Pennsylvania oleomargarine statute of May 21, 1885, which the Supreme Court of the United States held to be invalid, to the extent that it prohibits the intro- duction of oleomargarine from another State and its sale in the original pack- age, in Schollenberger v. Pennsylvania, 171 U. S. , 1-30. Decided May 26, 1878. "No person, firm, or corporate body shall manufacture out of any oleaginous substance, or any com- pound of the same, other than that produced from unadulterated milk or cream from the same, any article designed to take the place of butter or cheese produced from pure unadulterated milk or cream from the same, or of any imita- tion or adulterated butter or cheese, nor shall sell or offer for sale, or have in his, her, or their posses- sion with intent to sell, the same as an article of food." 94 OLEOMAEGARINE. The difference between these two sections was that in the Massa- chusetts law the phrase was, "shall be in imitation of yellow butter produced from pure unadulterated milk or cream from the same," etc., while in the Pennsylvania law, which was declared unconstitutional, the language was, "Designed to take the place of butter or cheese." An examination of the pleadings in these cases reveals the fact that the oleomargarine sold in each case was in the original package in which it was imported into the State, and that all the provisions of the act of Congress of August 2, 1886, had been complied with in each case. In the Massachusetts case it was admitted in the pleadings that the article sold was that forbidden by the statute; it was therefore made in imitation of yellow butter; but that it was marked and distinguished by all the marks, words, and stamps required of oleomargarine by the laws of Congress and those of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. In the Pennsylvania case it was conceded that the oleomargarine sold was manufactured out of an oleaginous substance, not produced from unadulterated milk or cream, and was designed to take the place of butter as an article of food; " but the fact that the article was oleo- margarine and not butter was made known by the defendant to the purchaser, and there was no attempt or purpose on the part of the defendant to sell the article as butter, or any understanding on the part of the purchaser that he was l>u3nng anything but oleomargarine." The Supreme Court, in its opinion in the Schollenberger case, refer- ring to the decision and opinion in the Plumley case, said: "This court held that a conviction under that (Massachusetts) statute for having sold an article known as oleomargarine, not pro- duced from unadulterated milk or cream, but manufactured in imita- tion of yellow butter produced from pure unadulterated milk or cream, was valid. Attention was called in the opinion to the fact that the statute did not prohibit the manufacture or sale of all oleomargarine, but only such as was colored in imitation of yellow butter produced from unadulterated milk or cream of such milk. If free from colora- tion or ingredient that caused it to look like butter, the right to sell it in separate and distinct form and in such manner as would advise the consumer of its real character was neither restricted nor prohibited. The court held that under the statute the party was onW forbidden to practice in such matters a friaud upon the general public, that the statute seeks to suppress false pretenses and to promote fair dealing in the sale of an article of food, and that it compels the sale of oleo- margarine for what it reallj^ is by preventing its sale for what it is not." The court further held — that is, the court in the Schollenberger case — in reference to the Plumley case: "It will thus be seen that the case was based entirely upon the the- ory of the right of a State to prevent deception and fraud in the sale of any article, and that it was the fraud and deception contained in selling the article for what it was not, and selling it so that it should appear to be another and a different article that this right of the State was upheld. The question of the right to totally prohibit the intro- duction from another State of the pure article did not arise, and, of course, was not passed upon." The only difference in the texts of the two statutes in question is found in these phrases: In the Massachusetts statute these words are used: "Any article * * * which shall be in imitation of yellow OLEOMAKGARINE. 95 butter produced from pure unadulterated milk or cream from the same." In the Pennsylvania statute these words were used: '"An}^ article designed to take the place of butter or cheese produced from pure una- dulterated milk or cream from the same." Or, to narrow the distinc- tion still further, in one case the words used were: "In imitation of 3^ellow butter;" in the other, ""designed to take the place of butter." Notwithstanding this finel}' drawn distinction in the meaning of the two statutes in question, the entire opinion of the Supreme Court in the Schollenburger case does substantiallj^ overrule the Plumlej' case. Attention is called to the following quotations from the opinion of the court in the Schollenburger case. I read from volume 171, of United States Supreme Court Reports. Mr. Justice Peckham delivered the opinion of the court. At the bottom of page 7 and at the top of page 8, the court stated as follows: "In the examination of this subject the first question to be consid- ered is whether oleomargarine is an article of commerce. No affirma- tive evidence from witnesses called to the stand and speaking directl}^ to that subject is found in the record. We must determine the question with reference to those facts which are so well and univer- sally known that courts will take notice of them without particular proof being adduced in regard to them, and also by reference to those dealings of the commercial world which are of like notoriety. "Any legislation of Congress upon the subject must of course be regarded b}^ this court as a fact of the first importance. If Congress has affirmativel}^ pronounced the article to be a proper subject of commerce, we should rightly be influenced b}^ that declaration." The court then proceeded, to show that Congress had recognized it as a legitimate article of commerce. The court then pointed out the various provisions of the act of Congress of August 2, 1886 (26 Stat., 209), imposing a tax of 2 cents a pound upon oleomargarine, and con- cluded its sj^nopsis of the act with the following statement, on page 9: "This act shows that Congress at the time of its passage in 1886 recognized the article as a proper subject of taxation and as one which was the subject of traffic and of exportation to foreign countries and of importation from such countries. Its manufacture was recognized as a lawful pursuit, and taxation was levied upon the manufacturer of the article, upon the wholesale and retail dealers therein, and also upon the article itself." The court then referred to the fact that oleomargarine was well known as an article of food and is dealt in as such to a large extent throughout this countr}' and in Europe. The court quoted, with approval, the following case and opinion thereon: "In Ex parte Scott and others the circuit court for the eastern dis- trict of Virginia {Q6 Fed. Rep., 15), speaking by Hughes, district judge, said: ' It is a fact of common knowledge that oleomargarine has been subjected to the severest scientific scrutiny and has been adopted bj" ever}' leading government in Europe, as well as America, for use b}' their armies and navies. Though not originally invented by us, it is a gift of American enterprise and progressive invention to the world. It has become one of the conspicuous articles of interstate commerce and furnishes a large income to the General Government annually. * * * It is entering rapidly into domestic use, and the trade in oleomargarine has become large and important. The atten- tion of the National Government has been attracted to it as a source 96 OLEOMARGARINE. of revenue. * * * Provincial prejudice against this now staple of commerce is natural, but a city of the size and prospects of Norfolk as a world's entrepot ought not to be foremost in manifesting such a prejudice.'" Summing up on this branch of the case the court said, on page 12: "The article is a subject of export, and is largel}- used in foreign countries. Upon all these facts we think it apparent that oleomarga- rine has become a proper subject of commerce among the States and with foreign nations. "The general rule to be deduced from the decisions of this court is that a lawful article of commerce can not be wholly excluded from importation into a State from another State where it was manufactured or grown. A State has power to regulate the introduction of any article, including a food product, so as to insure purit}" of the article imported, but such police power does not include the total exclusion even of an article of food." The court then reviewed the previous decisions of the Supreme Court bearing on this subject. Referring to the opinion of the court in Railroad Company v. Husen (95 U. S., 465, 469), the following principle was asserted: "The court said that a State could not, under the cover of exerting its police powers, substantiall}' prohibit or burden either foreign or interstate commerce. Reasonable and appropriate laws for the inspec- tion of articles, including food products, were admitted to be valid; but absolute prohibition of an unadulterated, healthy, and pure article has never been permitted as a remedy against the importation of that which was adulterated and therefore unhealthy or impure. ******* "Conceding the fact, we yet deny the right of a State to absolutely prohibit the introduction within its borders of an article of commerce which is not adulterated and which in its pure state is healthful, simply because such an article in the course of its manufacture may be adul- terated by dishonest manufacturers for purposes of fraud or illegal gains. The bad article may be prohibited, but not the pure and healthy one. ' ' In the execution of its police powers we admit the right of the State to enact such legislation as it may deem proper, even in regard to articles of interstate commerce, for the purpose of preventing fraud or deception in the sale of any commodity, and to the extent that it may be fairly necessary to prevent the introduction or sale of an adul- terated article within the limits of the State. But in carrjdng out its purposes the State can not absolutely prohibit the introduction within the State of an article of commerce like pure oleomargarine. It has ceased to be what counsel for the Commonwealth has termed it — a newly discovered food product. An article that has been openly manufac- tured for nearly a quarter of a century, where the ingredients of the pure article are perfectly well known and have been known for a num- ber of years, and where the general process of manufacture has been known for an equal period, can not truthfull}^ be said to be a newly discovered product within the proper meaning of the term as here used. * * * * * * * "If properly and honestly manufactured it is conceded to be a healthful and nutritious article of food. The fact that it may be OLEOMARGARINE. 97 adulterated does not afford a foundation to absolutely prohibit its introduction into the State. Although the adulterated article may possibly, in some cases, be injurious to the health of the public, 3'et that does not furnish a justification for an absolute prohibition. A law which does thus pronibit the introduction of an article like oleo- margarine within the State is not a law which regulates or restricts the sale of articles deemed injurious to the health of the communit}', but is one which prevents the introduction of a perfecth^ healthful commodity mereh' for the purpose of in that way more easil}^ prevent- ing an adulterated and possibly injurious article from being introduced. We do not think this is a fair exercise of legislative discretion when applied to the article in question." At this point, the hour of 12 having arrived, the committee took a recess until half past 2 o'clock, at which time it reassembled. The Acting Chairman. Judge, you may proceed. Mr. Springer. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, when the committee took a recess 1 was reviewing the decision of the Supreme Court in what is known as theSchollenberger Case. 1 had quoted some of the passages in that opinion and there are one or two others to which I ask 3'our attention. On pages 22 and 23 of the volume from which I was quoting (171 U. S.) is this reference to the very celebrated case decided by the Supreme Court a few years ago, known as the Original Package Case. That case is reported in 135 U. S., page 100, and is the case of Leisy v. Hardin. The Supreme Court of the United States, referring to that case, in the Schollenberger opinion, savs: "The case of Leisy y. Hardin (135 U. S., 100, 124) went a step further than the Bowman Case and held that the importer had the right to sell in a State into which he brought the article from another State in the original packages or kegs, unbroken and unopened, not- withstanding a statute of the State prohibiting the sale of such articles except for the purposes therein named and under a license from the State. Such a statute was held to be unconstitutional as repugnant to the clause of the Constitution granting power to Congress to regu- late commerce with foreign nations and among the several States- Mr. Chief Justice Fuller, in speaking for the court, said: ' Under our decision in Bowman y. Chicago and Northwestern Railway, they had the right to import this beer into that State ; and in the view which we have expressed, they had the right to sell it, by which act alone it would become mingled in the common mass of property within the State, Up to that point of time, we hold that in the absence of Con- gressional permission to do so the State had no power to interfere, by seizure or any other action, in prohibition of importation and sale by the foreign or nonresident importer.' The right of the State to prohibit the sale in the original package was denied in the absence of any law of Congress upon the subject permitting the State to prohibit such sale. There is no such law of Congress relating to articles like oleomargarine. Such articles are therefore in like condition as were the liquors in the cases above cited. ''Subsequent to the decision in the Leisy case and on the 8th of August, 1890, chapter 728, 26 Stat. L., 313,' Congress passed an act, commonly known as the Wilson Act, which provided that upon the arrival in an}- State or Territor}- of the intoxicating liquors trans- ported therein they should be subject to the operation and effect of the laws of the State or Territory enacted in the exercise of its police power to the same extent and in the same manner as though such S. Rep. 2013 7 98 OLEOMARGARINE. liquors had been produced in such State or Territory, and that they should not be exempt therefrom by reason of being introduced therein in original packages or otherwise. This was held to be a valid and constitutional exercise of the power conferred upon Congress." Senator Bate. If I understand, they did not have the right to tax it until after the original package was broken, or there was a sale hj the importer or agent, and it became mingled with the common property of that State. Mr. Springer. When it became mingled with the common property of the State it was subject to the State law then. The court continues: "In re Rahrer, petitioner, 140 U. S. , 545. In the absence of a Con- gressional legislation, therefore, the right to import a lawful article of commerce from one State to another continues until a sale in the orig- inal package in which the article was introduced into the State." This opinion will account for the effort being made by the friends of this bill to secure the passage of what is known as the first section of the pending bill. It is an effort to place oleomargarine within the police powers of the State, the same as was done with intoxicating liquors by the Wilson Act of 1890. The Supreme Court in concluding its opinion upon this subject in the Schollenberger case held as follows: "How small may be an original package it is not necessary to here determine. We do say that a sale of a 10-pound package of oleomarga- rine, manufactured, packed, marked, imported, and sold ander the circumstances set forth in detail in the special verdict was a valid sale, although to a person who was himself a consumer. We do not say or intimate that this right of sale extended beyond the first sale by the importer after its arrival within the State." And, further: "The right of the importer to sell can not depend upon whether the original package is suitable for retail trade or not. His right to sell is the same, whether to consumers or to wholesale dealers in the article, provided he sells them in original packages. This does not interfere with the acknowledged right of the State to use such means as may be necessary to prevent the introduction of an adulterated article, and for that purpose to inspect and test the article introduced, provided the State law does really inspect and does not substantially prohibit the introduction of the pure article, and thereby interfere with interstate commerce. It can not, for the purpose of preventing the introduction of an impure or adulterated article, absolutely prohibit the introduc- tion of that which is pure and wholesome. The act of the legislature of Pennsylvania under consideration, to the extent that it prohibits the introduction of oleomargarine from another State and its sale in the original package, as described in the special verdict, is invalid." Mr. Justice Gray and Mr. Justice Harlan dissented from this opinion. There is another case, following this immediatelv, known as the case of Collins V. New Hampshire. It is reported on page 30 of the same volume (171 U. S.). To that opinion I desire to call your attention, for it raises and disposes of another point involved in this legislation. The Supreme Court in its opinion in the Collins Case, page 34, says: ' ' If this provision for coloring the article " — I will state, by the way, that the New Hampshire law at that time required oleomargarine to be colored pink. That was held iji valid — "If this provision for coloring the article were a legal condition, a legislature could not be limited to pink in its choice of colors. The OLEOMAEGARINE. 99 legislative fancy or taste would be boundless. It might equalh^ as well provide that it should be colored blue or red or black. Nor do we see that it would be limited to the use of coloring matter. It might, instead of that, provide that the article should only be sold if mixed with some other article which, while not deleterious to health, would nevertheless give out a most offensive smell. If the legislature have the power to direct that the article shall be colored pink, which can only be accomplished by the use of some foreign substance that will have that effect, we do not know upon what principle it should be confined to discoloration, or why a provision for an offensive odor would not be just as valid as one prescribing the particular color. The truth is, however, as we have above stated, the statute in its necessary effect is prohibitory, and therefore, upon the principle recognized in the Pennsylvania cases, it is invalid." The same justices dissented in this as in the other case. I now invite the attention of the committee to the provisions of the pending bill. The first section of the bill is, in my opinion, the most objectionable of any of its provisions. It is as follows: "''Be it enacted^ etc.^ That all articles known as oleomargarine, but- terine, imitation butter, or imitation cheese, or any substance in the semblance of butter or cheese not the usual product of the dairy and not made exclusively of pure and unadulterated milk or cream, trans- ported into a*iy State or Territory, and remaining therein for use, consumption, sale, or storage therein, shall, upon the arrival within the limits of such State or Territory, be subject to the operation and effect of the laws of such State or Territory enacted into the exercise of its police powers to the same extent and in the same manner as though such articles or substances had been produced in such State or Terri- tory, and shall not be exempt therefrom by reason of being introduced therein in original packages or otherwise: Provided^ That nothing in this act shall be construed to permit any State to forbid the manufac- ture or sale of oleomargarine in a separate and distinct form and in such manner as will advise the consumer of its real character, free from coloration or ingredient that causes it to look like butter." This is for the purpose of getting around the decisions of the Supreme Court in the Leisy Case and in the SchoUenberger Case, which held dis- tinctly that you could not prevent an original package from going into a State and being sold in the original package to a consumer. If this provision should become a law, it would breathe the breath of life into the statutes of 32 States of the IJnion, which are now practically void by reason of the recent opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States in the SchoUenberger Case. A synopsis of these laws is given in the hearings before the House Committee on Agriculture on the Grout bill, pages 11 to 17. The attention of this committee is called to some of these State enactments. The law of California prohibits the manufacture or sale of oleomar- garine colored to imitate butter. Patrons of eating places shall be notified if substitutes for butter or cheese are used; and its use in State charitable institutions is prohibited. In Connecticut the law prohibits the sale of oleomargarine unless free from coloring matter which causes it to look like butter. The use of imitation butter in public eating places, bakeries, etc., must be made known by signs. L.ofC. 100 OLEOMARGARINE. In Iowa the law is practically the same as in Connecticut. The use of colored oleomargarine in hotels, bakeries, etc. , must be made known by signs. In Maryland the manufacture, sale, and use in public eating places of any article in imitation of butter is prohibited. Mixtures of any animal fats or animal or vegetable oils with milk, cream, or butter shall be uncolored and marked with the names and percentages of adulterants, and this information shall be given to purchasers. In New Jersey oleomargarine in imitation of pure, yellow butter is prohibited. But if it is free from artificial color and in original package, encircled by a wide black band bearing the name of the maker, and having the name of the contents plainly branded on them with a hot iron, its sale is permitted. Ketail sales must be accom- panied with a printed card containing ingredients and naming maker, and the purchaser must also be orally informed of the character of the article at the time of sale. In New York the manufacture of oleomargarine in imitation of but- ter is prohibited, and no article intended as an imitation of butter shall be colored yellow. In Vermont the manufacture or sale of oleomargarine in imitation of butter is prohibited. Imitation butter for use in public eating places or for sale shall be colored pink. In West Virginia there is a pink-color law. In Wisconsin the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine in imitation of yellow butter is prohibited; but free from any color its sale is per- mitted, but it shall not be sold as butter. Signs must be displayed in selling places and on wagons, and hotels, etc., using it must notify guests. Its use is not permitted in charitable or penal institutions. In Pennsylvania the statute of May 21, 1885, which was pronounced unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States in the Schollenberger case, has been supplemented by the act of May 5, 1899, which prohibits the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine made in semblance of butter. The act of 1885 used the words, ' ' designed to take the place of butter. " The legislature has evidently endeavored to bring its statute within the ruling in the Schollenberger case, but I am inclined to the opinion that the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Plumley v. Massachusetts (155 U. S., 462) was due to defective pleadings in the case. If Plumley had in his petition alleged that, at the time and place charged, he offered for sale and sold one package containing 10 pounds of oleomargarine manufactured in the State of Illinois and shipped to him as the agent of the man- ufacturers, packed, sealed, marked, stamped, and branded in accord- ance with the requirements of the act of Congress of August 2, 1886; that said package was an original package, as required by said act, and was of such form, size, and weight as is used by producers or shippers for the purpose of securing convenience in handling of merchandise between dealers in the ordinary course of commerce; and that said form, size, and weight were adopted in good faith, and not for the pur- pose of evading the statutes of Massachusetts; that at the time alleged the oleomargarine sold by defendant remained in the original package — being the same package — with seals, marks, stamps, and brands unbroken in which it was packed by the manufacturers in Illinois and thence transported to the city of Boston; and that said package was not broken nor opened on the premises of defendant, and that as soon OLEOMAKGAEINE. 101 as it was sold it was removed from the premises, as was alleged and proven in the Schollenberger Case. The decision of the Supreme Court would undoubtedly have been the same as in the latter case. The right to import from foreign countries and from other States any legitimate articles of commerce and sell the same in the State into which they are imported in the original packages has been recognized and sustained by the Supreme Court of the United States for seventy-five years by an unbroken line of decisions. In the leading cases of Gibbons v. Ogden (0 Wheaton, 1), and Brown v. Maryland (12 Wheaton, 419), the opinions were written bj^ Chief Justice John Marshall, the most illus- trious jurist our country has produced. In those cases the great Chief Justice delivered opinions which haA^e become classics in our jurispru- dence, and no jurists who value their reputations as such will ever have the temerity to assail their soundness. I desire to call the attention of the committee to one of the opinions of Chief Justice Marshall on this subject, in 12 Wheaton, in the case of Brown against Maryland. This case was decided in 1827: ""It may be doubted whether any of the evils proceeding from the feebleness of the Federal Government contributed more to that great revolution which introduced the present system than the deep and general conviction that commerce ought to be regulated by Congress. It is not, therefore, matter of surprise that the grant should be as extensive as the mischief, and should comprehend all foreign commerce and all commerce among the States. To construe the power so as to impair its efficacy would tend to defeat an object in the attainment of which the American public took, and justl}^ took, that strong interest which arose from a full conviction of its necessity. "What, then, is the just extent of a power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several States^ This question was considered in the case of Gibbons y. Ogden (9 Wheat., 1), in which it was declared to be complete in itself, and to acknowledge no limita- tions other than are prescribed by the Constitution. The power is coextensive with the subject on which it acts, and can not be stopped at the external boundary of a State but must enter its interior. We deem it unnecessary now to reason in support of these propositions. Their truth is proved b}' facts continually before our eyes, and was, we think, demonstrated, if the}^ could require demonstration, in the case already mentioned. ''If this power reaches the interior of a State, and may be there exercised, it must be capable of authorizing the sale of those articles which it introduces. Commerce is intercourse; one of its most ordi- nary ingredients is traffic. It is inconceivable that the power to authorize this traffic, when given in the most comprehensive terms'with the intent that its efficacy should be complete, should cease at the point when its continuance is indispensable to its value. To what pur- pose s'' ould the power to allow importation be given, unaccompanied with the power to authorize a sale of the thing imported ? Sale is the object of importation, and is an essential ingredient of that intercourse of which importation constitutes a part. It is as essential an ingre- dient, as indispensable to the existence of the entire thing, then, as importation itself. It must be considered as a component part of the power to regulate commerce. Congress has a right, not only to authorize importation, but to authorize the importer to sell." 102 OLEOMAEGAEINE. In the case of Leisy /'. Hardin (135 U. S., 100-124) the right to import into and sell beer in original packages in the State of Iowa, in the face of the local prohibitory law, was recognized and upheld. After the decision in that case Congress was appealed to by the Sen- ators and Representatives in Congress from States which prohibited the importation and sale of intoxicating liquors, and they secured the passage of an act on the 8th of August, 1890, known as the Wilson Act (26 Stat., 313), which provided that upon the arrival in any State or Territory of intoxicating liquors transported therein they should be subject to the operation and effect of the laws of the State or Terri- tory enacted in the exercise of its police power to the same extent and in the same manner as though such liquors had been produced in such State or Territory, and that they should not be exempt therefrom by reason of being introduced therein in original packages or otherwise. In the case In re Rahrer (140 U. S. , 545) this act in reference to intoxicating liquors was held to be a valid and constitutional exercise of the power conferred upon Congress. But in the absence of Congressional legislation the right to import a lawful article of commerce from one State to another continues until a sale in the original package in which the article was introduced into the State. (Schollenberger v. Pennsylvania, 171 U. S., 23.) The friends of the pending bill now seek to place oleomargarine upon the same plane upon which Congress placed intoxicating liquors. The articles are entirely different. The one is recognized everj^where as a proper subject of police regulation, and each State should be left free to legislate upon the subject as it may see fit. The Acting Chairman. Will jon permit me right here ? Mr. Springer. Yes, sir. The Acting Chairman. A very large number of States have passed laws which practically make oleomargarine a contraband article? Mr. Springer. Yes. The Acting Chairman. Only a few States have passed laws making liquor a contraband article. Mr. Springer. That is true. The Acting Chairman. I simply wanted to call your attention to that fact as you went along. Mr. Springer. It was for the purpose of permitting the States which have passed prohibitory liquor laws to have the benefit of those laws that Congress passed the act of 1890 and took intoxicating liquors out of the list of legitimate articles of commerce and permitted them to be subject to the police powers of the States. This legislation in reference to intoxicating liquors is not of a kind that is applicable to oleomargarine. Oleomargarine is universally conceded to be a whole- some article of food and a legitimate article of commerce. In this connection I desire to state that that statement does not depend upon my affirmance or upon the affirmance of any committee of this body. It has been so held hy the Supreme Court of the United States, and that is the law of the land until it has been reversed. Congress, there- fore, has no more right to place oleomargarine under the police power of the State than it has to place the manufacture and sale of woolen goods, iron, or tin plate under the police power of the States, enabling them thus to suppress, if they please, the manufacture of such articles. This brings us to the consideration of two of the provisions of the Constitution which are applicable to the pending bill. The first is OLEOMARGARINE. 103 paragraph 2 of section 10 of Article VIII, and the other is paragraph 3 of section 8 of Article I. I call the attention of the committee and of every lawyer in the Senate and the House and the country to these provisions. They are as follows: " No State shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports except what ma}' be absolutel}" neces- sary for executing its inspection laws; and the net produce of all duties and imposts laid by any State on imports or exports shall be for use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress." Art. VIII, sec. 10, par. 2. Now bear in mind that this is the clause of the Constitution which is invoked in justification of the first section of the bill. It must rest there, or it can not rest an}^ place in the Constitution of the United States. The next provision is, "Congress shall have power * * * to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes." (Art. I, sec. 8, par. 3.) The confusion which has arisen in the minds of many jurists and statesmen in construing these constitutional provisions is due to a misconception of the police powers of the States. The police powers of the States are inherent in the States themselves, and can not be exercised or controlled by Congress. Neither of the constitutional provisions just read can be construed as granting to Congress the power to interfere with or regulate matters in a State which are the proper subject of police regulation or power, nor can either of them be construed as implying that there are certain police powers which the States may not exercise without the consent of Congress. In this connection I desire to call the attention of the committee to a decision of the Supreme Court in 125 U. S., page -189. This is the case of Bowman v. The Chicago and Northwestern Railway Company In that case the court, referring to a previous decision of the court on the subject, said : '■'"Upon this point the observations of Mr. Justice Catron in the License Cases (5 How. , 504, 599) are very much to the point. Speaking of the police power, as reserved to the States, and its relation to the power granted to Congress over commerce, he said : ' The assumption is that the police power was not touched by the Constitution, but left to the States, as the Constitution found it. This is admitted ; and when- ever a thing, from character or condition, is of a description to be regulated by that power in the State, then the regulation may be made by the State, and Congress can not interfere. But this must alwa^^s depend on facts subject to legal ascertainment, so that the injured may have redress ; and the fact must find its support in this, whether the prohibited article belongs to, and is subject to be regulated as part of, foreign commerce or of commerce among the States. If, from its nature, it does not belong to commerce, or if its condition, from putres- cence or other cause, is such when it is about to enter the State that it no longer belongs to commerce, or, in other words, is rot a com- mercial article, then the State power may exclude its introduction, and as an incident to this power a State may use means to ascertain the fact; and here is the limit between the sovereign power of the State and the Federal power — that is to say, that which does not belong to commerce is within the jurisdiction of the police power of the State 104 OLEOMARGARINE. and that which does belong- to commerce is within the jurisdiction of the United States ; and to this limit must all the general views come, as I suppose, that were suggested in the reasoning- of this court in the cases of Gibbons v. Og-den, Brown v. The State of Maryland, and New Yorku Miln.'" And further, the Supreme Court, in the case of Railroad Company V. Husen (95 U. S., 465), used this language: "While we unhesitatingly admit that a State may pass sanitary laws and laws for the protection of life, liberty, health, or proyjerty within its borders; while it may prevent persons and animals suffering- under contagious or infectious diseases, or convicts, etc., from entering the State; while, for the purpose of self -protection, it may establish quar- antine and reasonable inspection laws, it may not interfere with trans- portation into or through the State beyond what is absolutely necessary for its self-protection. It may not, under the cover of exerting its police powers, substantially prohibit or burden either foreign or inter- state commerce." Again, in the Bowman case the court said: "If so, it has left to each State, according to its own caprice and arbitrary will, to discriminate for or against every article grown, pro- duced, manufactured or sold in any State and sought to be introduced as an article of commerce into any other." Just as this bill proposes to do. "If the State of Iowa may prohibit the importation of intoxicating liquors from all other States it may also include tobacco or any other article, the use or abuse of which it may deem deleterious. It may not choose even to be governed b}^ considerations growing- out of the health, comfort, or peace of the community. Its policy may be directed to other ends. It ma}^ chose to establish a system directed to the pro- motion and l)enetit of its own agriculture, manufactures, or arts of any description, and prevent the introduction and sale within its limits of any or of all articles that it ma}^ select as coming into competition with those which it seeks to protect. " Just as is done in this case. The court holds that that can not be done. In view of these opinions of the Supreme Court, what is the proper construction to be given to the constitutional provisions I have quoted? What is the meaning of the words " imposts or duties on imports or exports ? " Chief elustice Marshall, in his opinion in the case of Brown V. Maryland (12 Wheaton, 1:36), answers this question. He said: "An impost or duty on imports is a custom or tax levied on articles brought into a country, and is most usually secured before the importer is allowed to exercise his right of ownership over them." The constitu- tional provision, then, which says "no State shall, without the con- sent of Congress, lay any duties on imports" means that the States can not impose customs duties or taxes on imports without the consent of Congress. That is all that is meant. And it is further provided that the net produce of all such duties shall be for "the use of the Treasury of the United States." Is there any semblance between that authority as defined by Chief Justice Marshall and the authorit}^ undertaken to ])e conferred by the first section of the bill, which simply says that the article of oleomar- garine shall be placed under the supervision of the State laws passed in the exercise of their police power, which State laws, as has been OLEOMARGAEINE. 105 pointed out, are generally of a nature to prohibit entirely the intro- duction and sale in the State of oleomarg-arine colored in semblance of butter. Mr. Hoard. Is there any such issue before this committee? Mr. Springer. No, sir; but I am calling attention to the fact that you are seeking to exert the power which relates to duties on imports as authority for enacting a law placing the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine in the States under this provision of the Constitution, so that it can interfere with the introduction of these articles into the State. No duties were to be laid on imports by a State ' ' except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection laws." These are the duties that the States may levy upon articles coming into the State which are legitimate articles of commerce. The States may pass laws for the inspection of all products which ma}^ come into them from other States or from foreign countries. Such laws are a proper exercise of the police power of the States. But, as was said by the Supreme Court in the case of Railroad Company v. Husen (95 U. S., 465), "the police power of a State can not obstruct foreign or interstate commerce beyond the necessity for its exercise; and under color of it objects not within its scope can not be secured at the expense of the protection afforded by the Federal Constitution." The States can provide for reasonable inspection, but can not obstruct interstate or foreign commerce or burden it beyond the requirements of the inspection. The power of Congress to pass the first section of the pending bill can not be invoked or justified under this provision of the Constitu- tion. Congress is not giving its consent to the States to lay duties on imports, which duties, if laid, should be paid into the Treasur}'^ of the United States. The consent of Congress is not given for the purposes contemplated in the provision to which attention has been called. Mr. Hoard. Have any of the States asked the right to lay imposts on oleomargarine? Mr. Springer. No, sir; none of them. Mr. Hoard. Is there any mention of such fact in the proceedings? Mr. Springer. None whatever; but that is the only power you can ask for — the right to do that under this provision in the Constitution. Mr. Hoard. Is that included in the Wilson Act? Mr. Springer. It is included in the Wilson Act so far as intoxica- ting liquors are concerned, which were to be subject to the police power by reason of the very nature of the subject itself. The Acting Chairman. This is a revenue measure. Mr. Springer. 1 will come to that point in a moment and discuss it further on. Therefore I ask gentlemen of the committee and Congress to consider the scope of the provision of the Constitution, and unless section 1 can be brought within the provisions of that section it has no place in the Constitution upon which it can rest. Now, can it rest upon any other provision? The other constitu- tional provision involved is the power of Congress to regulate com- merce with foreign nations and among the several States. This power is given to Congress alone. There is no exception or qualification to this grant of power. Congress alone can exercise it. The power can not be delegated by Congress to the States. If it had been intended to permit the States to exercise this power under any circumstances 106 OLEOMARGARINE. the Constitution would have so provided. But it did not so provide. As was said by the Supreme Court in the case of Robl)ins r. Shelby Taxing- District (120 U. S., 189), "that, in the matter of interstate commerce, the United States are but one country and are and must be subject to one system of regulation and not to a multitude of s^^stems. The doctrine of the freedom of that commerce, except as regulated by Congress, is so firmly established that it is unnecessary to enlarge further upon this subject." That is the decision of the Supreme Court — that under the commerce clause Congress alone can pass the laws that are to regulate the inter- state and foreign commerce, and it can not delegate that power to the States. Is there a delegation of such power in section 1 of this bill? The right to pass the first section of the pending bill can not be derived from the commerce clause of the Constitution. In fact, there is no power given in the Constitution, either directly or by implication, for the passage of this first section. Its passage will be, in my opinion, a plain and flagrant violation of the Constitution of the United States. There is no warrant in the Constitution for such legislation, and if enacted into law the courts must hold it null and void. So much for the first section of the bill. The second and only other section of the bill is as follows: "That after the passage of this act the tax upon oleomargarine, as prescribed in section S of the act approved August 2, 1886, and enti- tled ' An act defining butter, also imposing a tax upon and regulating the manufacture, sale, importation, and exportation of oleomargarine,' shall be one-fourth of 1 cent per pound when the same is not colored in imitation of butter; but when colored in imitation of butter the tax to be paid by the manufacturer shall be 10 cents per pound, to be lev- ied and collected in accordance with the provisions of said act. " This section invokes the taxing power of the Constitution not for the purpose of raising revenue, but for the purpose of suppressing the manufacture of oleomargarine colored to resemble butter. I want it distinctly understood that I have not contended, and I do not know that anyone else contends, that the object of this bill is to suppress the manufacture of uncolored oleomargarine, but all of the gentlemen opposing the bill and favoring it concede that it will work to the destruction of the manufacture of oleomargarine colored in the semblance of butter, and that is the object of the bill. The eighth section of Article I of the Constitution is as follows: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imports, and excises to pa}^ the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States." The "general welfare" to which reference is made is that welfare which is provided for and set forth in the text of the Constitution itself, and not that welfare which is left to the discretion of the law- making power. This is universally conceded. To hold otherwise would destroy all the limitations and restrictions of the Const 'tution. The power, then, to lay and collect taxes, duties, and imposts is given in order to provide the means "to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," as author- ized in the Constitution. Will any Senator or Representative in Con- gress say, upon his oath, that this section of the pending bill is being enacted "to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States ? " Is this proposed taxation for OLEOMARGAKINE. 107 a constitutional purpose? Has it any warrant or foundation in the Constitution ? Ttiere is alread}^ pending in the Senate a House bill to reduce the revenue, for the reason that the existing revenue laws are bringing into the Treasury a large surplus — a surplus of many millions of dollars. Revenue is not the object. What, then, is the object? There can be but one answer to this question, nameh", the placing upon yellow oleo- margarine a tax so burdensome that it can not be paid, and thereby the loss of the revenue now being collected and the destruction of the industry" which is taxed. But it may be said that the Supreme Court has held similar legisla- tion to be solely within the discretion of the lawmaking power. So it has. It has held that the courts will not inquire into the motives of legislators when exercising the discretion which the Constitution has given them. But, gentlemen of this committee, the courts have not held that the lawmakers are not bound to obey the Constitution. You have each taken an oath to support it. That oath is a moral obligation only, but it is binding upon the consciences of legislators, and they can not violate the Constitution without moral turpitude. If you are convinced — and I trust 3^ou are — that there is no warrant in the Con- stitution for the passage of this legislation you can not give it your sanction. I appeal to your judgments in the one case, and to your consciences in the other. This concludes what I desire to state in regard to the legal aspects of the case. There are, as you know, but two sections to the bill. The first section has for its object the placing of oleomargarine within the police powers of the States. Thirty-two States have alread}^, under the exercise of what they call their police powers, passed laws which prohibit the sale of colored oleomagarine in those States. In my judg- ment those laws are now, by reason of the decision of the Supreme Court, virtually nullities and can not be enforced, when an importation is made from one State into another in the original package, as pointed out in the Schollenberger case, and sold in such package. But the effort is made to take the article of oleomargarine from under the opinion of the Schollenberger case, and to place it upon the plane of intoxicating liquors — articles which from time immemorial have been regarded as proper subjects of the police powers of the several States. Hence, it was competent for Congress simply to recognize the fact that intoxicating- liquors are subjects of State control. In my judgment Congress did not give any power to the States by the passage of the Wilson Act. They had that power already, and Congress could not take it away from them. Liquor is a proper sub- ject of the police power of the States, bat all these opinions hold that that which is a legitimate article of commerce, a nutritious article of food, can not be interfered with in its importation into another State or from a foreign country and in its sale in the original package to •any person in that State. That is the purport of these decisions. Under the first section of the bill, even if the article paj^s the tax of 10 cents a pound provided in the second section, not a pound of it that has paid this burdensome tax can be put into these States and sold. In other words, Congress will say to the manufacturers, " Pa}' a tax of 10 cents a pound, and you can manufacture and sell it;" and at the same time say, "But you must not take it into 32 States of this Union. If 3'ou do, it will be confiscated under the police laws of the State. You can not sell a pound of it in those States, after the Government 108 OLEOMARGAEINE. has taken the tax for it, " To say nothing of constitutional provisions, is that justice? Can you defend it upon any ground of doing justice to any class of our people? I do not think you can. The second section of the bill, imposing a tax of 10 cents a pound upon the articles manufactured in semblance of butter, will only per- mit the article having paid the tax to be sold in 13 States of the Union, and then under the laws regulating its sale by marking it and indicating what it is. I wish to call the attention of the committee to the fact that if you pass the first section of the bill you provide as to every law in those States that that law ma}" have its full force and effect. You must say that of the law which requires the keeper of a hotel to notify all his guests that oleomargarine is used in his hotel; that he must put up signs here and there over his hotel notifying them that oleomargarine is used. In some States it must be colored an offensive color, bearing which no one will purchase it, and in other States even the wagons carrying it along streets must have labels upon them that these wagons are carrying oleomargarine. The inventive genius of legislators, it seems to me, has been exhausted in throwing around oleomargarine in the States those offensive provisions which will drive it out of exist- ence, if possible. In this country we have for many years, in fact from the foundation of the Government, recognized the right of the United States, in imposing taxes upon foreign goods coming into this country, so to discriminate in the laying of those taxes that our manufacturers would be protected from ruinous competition with the manufacturers of like goods in other countries. That policy has almost become a part of our fixed system. But never until this legislation has been invoked has it been contended that Congress should interfere between home producers, and by the use of the taxing power build up one industry and destroy another. This is the first attempt; and, gentlemen of the committee and of Congress, let me call your attention to the fact that if you start on this road there is no end to it. You will be vexed with applications for interfering in almost every kind of business in this country. An effort was made, and has been renewed several times, to get Congress to put a tax on what is called compound lard. In two or three Congresses committees of the House have investigated the sub- ject of compound lard, and once they passed a bill in the House upon that subject for the purpose of having compound lard subject to a tax. I do not know that that would make it any different from what oleo- margarine is subject to. There has been a suggestion that what is known as process butter should also be subjected to taxation, but that suggestion has been very much opposed by those engaged in the manufacture of process butter. I will ask permission to print in the record a letter that I have on the subject, which I will not take up your time to read, showing that the dealers in process butter are very much concerned in regard to this proposed legislation for fear that the next bill proposed will be a tax upon process butter. The following letter was recently received by a member of the House of Representatives: " Danville, III., March 17, 1900. "Deak Sir: I see by a circular mailed to me that a member of Con- gress from Mississippi by the name of Williams introduced a bill on OLEOMAKGARINE. 109 February 20 last taxing process butter as follows: Manufacturers, $600 per year; wholesalers, $480 per year; retailers, $48 per year; and the butter 2 cents per pound. This would virtually prohibit the sale of that kind of butter. 1 get on hand a lot of butter same as other mer- chants, and it will get stale; it is then bought up by parties who thor- oughl}^ work it over, taking out all the milk, resalting it, and place it in cold storage till butter gets scarce, then it finds a market. There are times of the year when butter is very plenty, and if we could not dispose of it we could not pay the farmers anj^thing for it. As it is, these parties pay us from 10 to 14 cents a pound for rancid butter. I suppose I sell during the year as much as 5,000 pounds of that kind of butter, and when this bill is called up you would favor this district by voting against it, not only for the benefit of the merchants, but the farmers also, who would not have a market for their surplus butter. "Respectfully, yours, "John F. Depke." Mr. Springek. What is process butter? It is butter that has been shipped out to dealers and by being kept long on hand has become rancid and unfit for sale. The dealers then send it back to the manu- facturing centers, where it is collected in immense quantities and put through chemical processes and worked over again and made into a butter that goes out and takes the place of dairy butter and creamery butter. I think here is a place for Congress if Congress wants to look after a fraud — to look after a real one — because I can not under- stand how process butter, which is made out of butter which has become rancid and unfit for use, can become a wholesome and health- ful article of food. It ought to be subject at least to the police pow- ers of the State. Wh}^ not put it in this bill? Mr. Hoard. One thing at a time. Mr. Springer. I desire to call the attention of the committee to another direction in which articles coming into general use in this country have been adulterated, and Congress has never undertaken to do away with the evil or to abate it. The total production of wool in the United States in the census year 1890 amounted to 276,000,000 pounds in the grease, which was equal to only 92,000,000 pounds when scoured ready for weaving into cloth. The shoddy used during that year in manufacturing woolen goods amounted to 61,626,261 pounds. Thus the shoddy had a cloth-pro- ducing power equal to 67 per cent of all the wool produced in the United States. The whole number of sheep in the United States for the census year 1890 was 44,336,072; the fleeces produced scoured wool to the amount of 61,000,000 pounds. Thus the shoddy used during that 3^ear produced woolen goods equal to the fleeces of 29,605,168 sheep. Mr. Hoard. A great fraud. Mr. Springer. Yes; equal to the fleeces of 29,000,000 sheep. Mr. Hoard. You will not find any of the dairy interests uphold- ing it. Mr. Flanders. It is not a proper subject of the police power. We are invoking the police power. Mr. Springer. The prevention of this kind of adulteration Mr. Flanders. That is not adulteration; it is a substitution. It is not within the police power. 110 OLEOMAKGAEINE. Mr. Springer. But it is within the taxing- power. In the manu- facture of woolen goods during- the census year 1890 the shoddy, cot- ton, and other adulterants used exceeded the amount of pure wool, the ratio used being 45 parts of pure wool and 55 parts of shoddy, cotton, and other adulterants, not including camel's hair and mohair. Yet, notwithstanding this fact, there has been no effort made in this country or in any other, so far as I am advised, to place a special tax upon woolen goods manufactured in part of shoddy, cotton, and other adulterants for the purpose of protecting the sheep industry from a ruinous competition with cheap substitutes for wool. The adulterants, when woven into woolen cloths, look so like pure woolen goods that only an expert can distinguish the pure article from the imitations, and it is well known that most of the adulterated fabrics are sold to consumers as "all wool and a yard wnde." Pass the pending bill and the sheep raisers will come forward and demand a tax that will protect wool from ruinous competition with shoddy and other adulterated goods. There is no place where this will end. It does seem to me that if our woolen goods are so adulterated, by putting shoddy- and cotton into them, that the ratio of pure wool to adulterants is as that of ■45 to 55, Cong-ress might be called upon, in the exercise of its taxing power, to place a duty upon the home-manufactured goods that are not com- posed of pure wool exclusively. That wovild protect the growers of pure wool — the sheep raisers — from competition with shoddy. I do not know whether the gentlemen of the committee understand what shoddy is. Old woolen clothes are put into some kind of a machine, ground up, and then spun and put into a yarn, which is woven into new cloths. The nap is not more than a sixteenth of an inch long, but it is wool all the same, and when mixed with long nap of natural wool it forms a product which deceives experts themselves. The sheep men have just as nuich right to come before this commit- tee and ask that woolen goods which do not consist entirel}^ of that article shall be taxed so much a pound The Acting Chairman. Have any of the States passed laws against shoddy ? Mr. Springer. No, sir; not that I know of. I never heard of it. It is conceded that shoddy is a legitimate article of commerce, and that its manufacture has proved a great benefaction to mankind. Mr. Grout. I suppose the shoddy betrays its character largely to the feeling? Mr. Springer. When there is as little as 20 per cent you can not tell it from the original long wool. It does not last so long; it is not so good; but it is used all the same, and as I have indicated by these statistics, it is being used more from year to year. The object of calling attention to these things is to show that you are now enter- ing upon the matter of interfering between two home producers of articles necessary for our consumption, and endeavoring by the taxing power of the Government to build up one industry and destroy another. In this case it is the building up of one by the total destruction of the other. In the other case there might be laws which would allow both of them to exist, but this does not allow the manufacture of oleomarga- rine in the semblance of butter to exist at all as a manufacture in this country. OLEOMARGARINE. Ill Gentlemen of the committee, I desire to call your attention to the fact that the discussion upon this subject when the bill was before the House of Representatives in 1886 was misleading to the Representa- tives. At that time I had the honor to be a member of the Hx)use, and I was chairman of the Committee of the Whole House during the entire discussion of the oleomargarine bill in the House in that Con- gress. At that time the House of Representatives was a deliberative body, as the Senate now is. The discussion lasted some time, and every gentleman who desired to speak had the opportunity to do so. They now have rules by which they can bring them to a vote in a very short time. At that time the discussion upon this subject was such that the majority of the members of the House were led to believe, and did believe, that oleomargarine was a dangerous, unwholesome, and filthy production. Let me call your attention to several statements made b}^ gentlemen at that time. You will hardly believe that such things could have been. There were several bills pending, and the Hatch bill was finall}^ passed. It provides for placing a tax of two cents a pound upon oleo- margarine, and for a general inspection, through the Departments of the Government, of every part of the article manufactured, so that when 3^ou see oleomargarine manufactured in this country you see an article that the officers of the Government have inspected from its inception to the time it passes away from the factory in the original packages. They certify to its condition. Mr. Hoard. You mean that the law provides for the inspection? Mr. Springer. Yes, I do. Mr. Flanders. That it may be done. Mr. Springer. It provides for it. Mr. Hoard. It may be done. Mr. Springer. It provides for it. Mr. Hoard. You do not assert that it is done j Mr. Springer. No, sir; I do not assert as to whether or not any- body performs his duty, but the law presumes that every officer of the Government does his duty, and until the contrary is shown I assume that the}" have done their dut}". The law assumes that every- body is honest, and especiall}" does the law assume that the officers of the Government and of the States do their duty. I hope the}^ do. If they do not, the}' ought to be taught to do it. During the discussion of this act in the House, it was charged by its friends that oleomargarine was deleterious to health. Mr. William L. Scott, of Pennsylvania, said in the House Mav 2-i, 1886: " The genius which succeeded, by the application of chemical fluids and compounds, in transforming a mass of loathsome and unwholesome ingredients into an article of food at a trifling cost, does not hesitate to impose the product upon the public, and receive in the way of excessive profit the diflference between the cost of the imitation or counterfeit article and that of pure butter." Mr. A. J. Hopkins, a member of Congress from the dairy district of Illinois, said (May 21, 1886): ''During the Franco-Prussian war an inventive genius, by the name of M. IVIege, discovered that the fats of such animals as cattle, horses, and dogs could be made into a substitute for butter. The war measure 112 OLEOMARGARINE. of the inventive Frenchman was seized and improved upon b}^ the ever- inventive Yankee. Our Patent Office has been besieged with app]ica- tions for patents." After pointing out the various articles said to be used in the manu- facture of oleomargarine, comprising 60 in all, Mr. Hopkins proceeded as follows: "If these imitations of, and substitutes for, pure butter were marked or labeled what they really are, and the dealers and consumers advised of what they are purchasing and eating, no complaints would be made by the dairymen." I am sorry that they have now departed from the doctrine Mr. Hop- kins announced. Mr. Flanders. 1 announce that we have not. I will take that up and show that we have not. Mr. Springer. If you get up a bill providing in the most stringent manner that the consumer shall be advised of what he is purchasing I do not think any of the opponents of the bill will object to it. Mr. Hopkins continued: "The great wrong is the fraud and deception practiced in selling such loathsome compounds for genuine butter. " * * * " It is asserted by the friends of these bogus substitutes for butter that they are healthy. They are not. All kinds of filthy fats are used in their man- ufacture. Animals dying from all kinds of diseases are utilized, and after going through their bleaching and deodorizing processes are man- ufactured into oleomargarine and sold for pure butter." * * * "Gentlemen of rare scholarship and scientific attainments have given this whole subject years of careful thought and study, and are unquali- fied in their statements of its unwholesome and loathsome character. Its consumption in their judgment leads to insanity, Bright's disease, and many of the ailments that undermine the strongest and most robust constitutions." He did not disclose the names of those "gentlemen of rare scholar- ship and scientific attainments" who thus exposed oleomargarine. They probably existed only in the minds of the butter manufacturers. Before Mr. Hopkins closed he made it clear that his chief object in favoring the antioleomargarine bill was to protect the workingman. He said: "Has it come to this in America that the laboring man must live upon adulterated food ''i Must his wife and family use for pure butter of our dairies an artificial butter, the compounds of diseased hogs and dead dogs? " Mr. Hatch, of Missouri, now deceased, was the author of the bill and the champion of the cause of pure l>utter. He was very pro- nounced in his views. He denounced oleomargarine as "the monu- mental fraud of the nineteenth century," a sentiment which was received in the House with "applause." He was willing to admit that the Chicago packers made the very best and purest oleomargarine that is used in the United States. He added: "But that is not the danger. The danger is in the hundred and one little dead-animal factories on the lines of the railroads, where they buy broken-down, diseased, and dead animals from the railroads; these little rendering establishments in out of the way towns and villages that simply operate by purchasing the refuse and scrapings of the butcher shops and making this oleo oil to be used in the manufacture OLEOMAKGAEINE. 113 of oleomargarine and butterine, spreading disease and destruction throughout the country." He quoted with approval from a prominent newspaper, which stated, among other things, the following: "The gang of adulterators and counterfeiters who manufacture bogus butter from soap grease protest that the Hatch bill makes martyrs of them and violates their constitutional rights. They have their head- quarters in Chicago." Such were the arguments, or some of them, used fifteen years ago to secure this legislation, and they were effective at that time; and argu- ments of a similar purport in many respects have been used since that time to secure repressive legislation in the several States of this Union. But notwithstanding all this detraction, oleomargarine has survived the assaults of its enemies and now has thes auction of the Supreme Court of the United States, in an opinion, which does that court great honor, that it is a pure and a healthful article of food and a legitimate article of interstate commerce. Such is the judgment of the court, and that is the law of the land. Now, if gentlemen desired that this useful and nutritious article of diet shall be hedged about with such inspection laws in the States as will simply provide, as the Constitution recognizes, that what is sold shall be the pure article, there will be no objection from the manu- facturers of oleomargarine. They are willing to go into the open field of fair competition, with the name of their product inscribed upon their banners, and stand or fall in the field of competition of products useful to mankind. Have not those who can not afford to pay 27, 28, 29, now 35, cents a pound for creamery butter the right to purchase an article at half that price if it can be produced in a manner which will be satisfactory to them? But gentlemen say, "If you will not color it yellow, we will not object." We might just as well answer them by saying, "If you will not color butter yellow, as you always do, except in a few months in the summer time, there will be no objec- tion to that." But the question of color in an article of food is a mat- ter of taste, solely a matter of taste, and all manufacturers of food products must pander to the tastes of their customers. As w^as said in one of the Latin maxims, " de gustibus non est dispu- tandum." When it comes to a question of taste, there is no discussion permitted. You can not reason a man out of the belief that butter tastes better when it is yellow than when it is w^hite — there is no use to reason with him on the subject — or that oleomargarine tastes better when it is yellow. He has a right to his taste, and those who manu- facture oleomargarine have a right to manufacture it in such a way that it will be most attractive to their customers and that the retail dealer can best dispose of it to those who consume it. When the man- ufacturer has done that he has met all the requirements that the law- making power of the Government should throw about him. He is willing to go into the market with his article branded, even its name pressed into the article itself, as the Wadsworth bill provided, which was favored by the minorit}^ of the House committee. Mark it in any way 3'ou see fit; but let it stand, after it has been marked, upon the color which the manufacturers desire it shall have and which the con- sumers desire it shall have. A gentleman .who addressed the committee since these hearings began stated that in the little State of Rhode Island, where the sale of colored S. Rep. 2043 8 114 OLEOMARGAEINE. oleomargarine is permitted under restrictions requiring it to be labeled and signs to be put up in the stores that oleomargarine is sold, the manufacturers did not offer to sell this article in any other way or as any other thing than as oleomargarine, and that on every counter where it was for sale was a card asserting that oleomargarine was sold, and in the windows were the cards of Swift and other firms announcing the sale of their particular product. In that State there was a sale in the last year amounting to 8 pounds per capita of the whole population. Do you believe that the sale of butter was interfered with by this com- petition ? I do not. There is no means of telling how much butter was sold, but I believe those who desired creamery and dairy butter bought it and paid the excessive price for it, as they had the right to do. As was said by one of the gentlemen who discussed this question, there is no real competition in the market between creamery butter and colored oleomargarine when the customer knows what he is buy- ing, and the opponents of this bill, therefore, will not object to any reasonable regulation that Congress may see fit to throw around the manufacture of oleomargarine for the purpose of having it known by the consumer, when it is sold to him, just exactl}^ what he is buying. When you have done that you have exhausted j^our power as legislators to interfere with the tastes, the peculiarities, and the wishes of the con- sumers of the country, who constitute the great body of our people. Gentlemen of the committee, I desire to thank you for your atten- tion, and before closing I wish to present to the committee a state- ment addressed to the committee from Mr. Walden, president of the Kansas City Live Stock Exchange, who was here the other day and desired to address the committee, but was compelled to return. He has reduced his views to writing. I have them here in this form, and I will ask the committee to insert them in the record. The Acting Chairman. The statement will appear in the record. Mr. Springer. If any gentleman desires to ask questions, I will be very glad to answer as I may be able. Mr. Knight. You have not stated what the objections of the live- stock growers are to the bill. Mr. Springer. Those were stated Mr. Knight. In the resolution? Mr. Springer. In the memorial which will be printed. The Acting Chairman. It will be printed. Mr. Springer, I read a portion of it. I have asked the committee to embody it at length, but I will briefly state the objections. They object to it because it deprives them of a market for one of their products. In other words, the product of beef known as caul fat, which amounts in the average beef to about 58 pounds per steer, is now or may be manufactured into oleo oil, and if the whole product were so manu- factured there would be a large amount — in fact, nearly all of it — used for that purpose, thus increasing the value of the caul fat in the steer to the amount of the difference between oleo oil and tallow. Mr. Hoard. Does that include kidney fat? Mr. Springer. It includes all that is known as caul fat. I am not an expert as to the various fats. Mr. Knight. Your objection, then, is not so much to what it will do to the live-stock industiy as to what it will deprive the live-stock indus- try of some time in the future ? OLEOMAEGAEINE. 115 Mr. Springer. What they are now securing. In the first place, they are now securing a market for a portion Mr. Grout. What portion of the grand aggregate of caul fat pro- duced from the steers which are slaughtered throughout the country is thus used? Mr. Springer. I think it was stated that about 5 per cent or 10 per cent of the caul fat is now utilized in the manufacture. Mr. Grout. You said in your statement that if it was all so used it would make a ver}^ large difference. Mr. Springer. Yes; a very large difference. Mr. Grout. Enough to float an empire ? Mr. Springer. I made this estimate, but I have not the details of it — that the oleo oil actually used now in the manufacture of oleomarga- rine increased that product to the amount of $1,130,000 annually, or on the production of the year 1899 Mr. Flanders. How much a steer? Mr, Springer. I did not estimate it in that way. Mr. Grout. He says the amount now used Mr. Springer. In 1899. Mr. Grout. Amounted to $1,000,000. Mr. Springer. $1,134,000. That is my estimate. Senator Heitfeld. Did you saj^ 5 per cent of the product is now so used? Mr. Springer. I will not state what the percentage is, but I have it in my notes somewhere. I will look it up. Senator Heitfeld. It bears the same relation to the total product that the manufacture of oleomargarine now bears to the total produc- tion of butter? Mr. Springer. Yes, sir. I have put into my remarks a statement showing the ingredients of oleomargarine as reported by the Treasury Department. You will find it in my printed remarks. It shows the number of pounds of oleo oil and the number of pounds of neutral lard that were used during the year 1899. Mr. Grout. Are you able to state the number of pounds of oleo oil that was used in the production of oleomargarine last year? Mr. Springer. Yes, sir. Mr. Grout. Will you give it? M. Flanders. He will publish that statement. Mr. Knight. It is 21,400,000 pounds. Mr. Springer. The table gives the "quantities and kinds of ingre- dients used in the production of oleomargarine in the United States for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1899; also the percentage each different ingredient bears to the whole quantity." Neutral lard, 31,000,000 pounds; oleo oil, 24,000,000 pounds; cotton-seed oil, 4,357,000 pounds. Mr, Grout. What is the amount we exported ? Mr. Springer. We exported 142,000,000 poimds of oleo oil, I think. That is not taken into consideration in the amount that was used in this country, Mr, Knight, But in the resolution of the live-stock association is it not stated that the passage of the Grout bill would mean a damage or loss in value of $3 or $4 a head per cattle? Mr, Springer. Yes, sir; it is so stated I think. 116 OLEOMAKGAKINE. Mr. Knight. How do you figure that, please ? Senator Heitfeld. Was it not $2 in the statement made here ? Mr, Knight. From $2 to |4 in some statements. Mr. Springer. They say in their memorial: "In oleomargarine a very large proportion of the consumers of this country, especiall}^ the working classes, have a wholesome, nutritious, and satisfactory article of diet, which before its advent they were obliged, owing to the high price of butter and their limited means, to go without. "The 'butter fat' of an average beef animal, for the purpose of making oleomargarine, is worth from $3 to $4 r^ev head more than it was before the advent of oleomargarine, when the same had to be used for tallow, which increased value of the beef steer has been added to the market value of the animal, and consequently to the profit of the producer. ' ' To legislate this article of commerce out of existence, as the pas- sage of this law would surely do, would compel slaughterers to use this fat for tallow, and depreciate the market value of the beef cattle of this country $3 to $4 per head, which would entail a loss on the pro- ducers of this country of millions of dollars." Mr. Knight. The amount of oleo oil used was 24,000,000 pounds? Mr. Springer. Yes, sir. Mr. Knight. Valued last year at about $2,000,000? Mr. Springer. Yes, sir. Mr. Knight. There were 6,000,000 head of cattle slaughtered in this country last year. Senator Heitfeld. If you took that amount out of the use to which it was formerly put, would not that make a difference? Mr. Hoard. The Treasury Department shows that there was used of oleo oil produced in this country 24,000,000 pounds. That is a fraction less than 5 pounds of fat from each animal. Senator Heitfeld. It takes that 5 out of the gross product. Mr. Hoard. It is 4.99 to each animal. At their figures it would be worth about $1 a pound. Mr. Grout. What is the price of it? Mr. Hoard. Nine cents. Senator Heitfeld. In what way would it? Mr. Hoard. Because there are 5,000,000 animals slaughtered and 24,000,000 pounds of oleo oil used. Divide one by the other, and it makes 4.99 pounds to each animal; 45 cents a pound. Senator Heitfeld. I do not think that is a fair estimate. Mr. Springer. I will make this explanation. Mr. Hoard. I am taking the amount that would be used in oleo- margarine. Senator Heitfeld. But you are figuring the 24,000,000 pounds as the entire output from the beef, and the only output that is bringing any money, throwing awa}" the other 95 per cent. Mr. Hoard. I am figuring as to relationship and the worth of the oleo oil, and it does not square with that live stock statement. Mr. Springer. I will answer that. Mr. Hoard. It is overestimated. Mr. Springer. Mr. Knight, in his statement before the committee of the House (pages 20 and 27 of the House hearing), endeavored to expose the figures used by Swift & Co. in regard to this subject. I OLEOMAKGAEINE. 117 did not prepare those figures, and I do not know who did, but it appears to me from an examination of both of those statements that the gentlemen and those who prepared these estimates are both out of the way in their estimates upon this subject. In other words, they have, by a loose manner of expression, failed to state exactly what the truth is and what the difference would be. It seems to me that the proper statement is this: We must go for the amount of oleo oil that was consumed in the manufacture of oleomargarine to the Treasury statistics in order to ascertain the exact truth. That does not embrace the amount of oleo oil exported, and a great deal more is used for export than is used in this country. Mr, Knight. What has this to do with the oleo oil that is exported? Mr, Springer. Nothing, except that the use of oleo throughout the world has created a demand for it, and a portion of that demand is in this country. Now, if all of the caul fat in the beeves that were slaughtered during the 3^ear had been used in the manufacture of oleo- margarine in this country, it would have amounted to the figures stated by Mr. Swift in his circular, which are practically the ones stated in the resolution and memorial of the cattlemen, Mr, Knight, Is there anything in the Swift letter to Congress indi- cating that it was not? Mr, Springer, I say that I think he was mistaken in placing it upon that basis, but I wish to call the attention of the committee to the fact that it is beyond the power of man to tell what would be the loss to the cattlemen of this country by reason of the destruction of oleomargarine as an article of commerce. Mr. Hoard, It is beyond the power of man to tell what the destruc- tion to the butter industry is b}^ this business. Mr, Springer. You can guess at it. Mr. Knight. Now, Judge Mr. Springer. Let me finish. You can not tell. Why? The«re was already created, by the amount of oleo oil used in the actual pro- duction of oleomargarine in this country, a demand for 24,000,000 pounds of their product which would not have existed if oleomargarine had not been manufactured in this country. To that much we will all agree. Mr. Hoard. Yes, Mr. Springer. There is that much increased demand for their stock, Mr, Hoard. With a corresponding destruction on the other side ? Mr. Springer. Excuse me for one moment. There is that large increase. Now, gentlemen, how can you tell what effect that increased demand for the 24,000,000 pounds had upon the price of all the other products of animal fats? Who can tell that? Nobody can tell. But it is my opinion that the pending bill and the restricti^'e laws in 32 States in this Union will injure the cattle and hog industry to the extent of many millions of dollars annually, and that injury will reach the extent stated in the memorial of the National Live Stock Association, Let me call attention to the fact that the prices of agricultural products in this countiy are determined b}^ a number of causes, and the man who operates on the board of trade is looking even to a cold snap or a little drought to see whether corn and wheat and other such products will go up or down. Why? Because if the weather is good and the farmers have good crops, there will be low prices; and if there 118 OLEOMARGARINE. is bad weather and short crops, there will be high prices. By the demand for 24,000,000 pounds of oleo oil in the manufacture of oleo- margarine you have taken that much of the product and raised it in price from 6 cents to about 10 cents a pound. You have increased at least the demand for this kind of product, and by increasing the demand for that much of the product you have raised the price of the whole product to some extent. To just what extent it would take a board of trade man to tell, and he might make a mistake and get caught in the deal. But it does have some efi'ect. Now, suppose you stop the manufacture of oleomargarine in this country and throw the 21,000,000 pounds of oleo oil back into the con- dition of tallow, to what extent will you depress the price of the whole product of tallow in the United States^ Nobody can tell. But you will depress it; you will depress it something, depress it even to the amount of several points at least, as they say upon the board of trade, by reason of throwing 21,000,000 pounds upon the market and putting it into tallow, increasing the product that much and depressing the price. So when you come to estimate the loss or gain to those engaged in agriculture by reason of this legislation, it is in a great measure specu- lative. What is known is — and that is the fact to which 1 call atten- tion — that there was, under all the restrictive legislation of the several States of this Union, amounting to prohibition in 32 States, a demand for 21,000,000 pounds of oleo oil and 31,000,000 pounds of leaf lard, the product of the hog, and this large demand, if taken away, would depress these various articles in the market, and nobody can tell exactly where it would land. The Acting Chairman. Let me ask you a question. Is oleo oil used for any purpose other than the manufacture of oleomargarine 'i Mr. Springer. Some of the gentlemen engaged in that manufacture can tell. Mr. Miller. I will say that it is not. I am with Armour & Co. I should like to bring out a point here in regard to oleo oil. If you destroy the oleomargarine industry you naturally place a ban on our oleo oil which will necessarily have a very injurious effect on the for- eign market. It will perhaps also place a ban on our oil, and we would lose the use of 21,000,000 pounds in the United States and perhaps the sale of 112,000,000 pounds in foreign countries. Mr. Hoard. That is speculative. Mr. Miller. Everyone here is familiar with the agrarian spirit which predominates in Europe at present. They have not only tried to i-estrict the importation of cotton-seed oil, but of meats and many other agricultural products. Mr. Springer. While I can not say, and no other man can sa}^, just how much the price of cattle would be depreciated by destroying this industry, or how much it would ])e appreciated by repealing the restric- tive State laws and letting oleomargarine go free, as other food prod- nets do, yet I know it would depreciate animal fats in the one case, and it would appreciate in the other very largely if this article should be left in the same condition that other food products are left. I called your attention this morning to the possibility, under the amount consumed in Rhode Island, for a demand for oleomargarine in this country of 500,000,000 pounds a year. Suppose that existed instead of the demand for 100,000,000 pounds that existed last year, how much that would appreciate the price of all the products of the OLEOMAKGARINE. 119 cattle of the country it is impossible to state. Yet you are not only asked to pass laws here to take away the demand for the 24,000,000 pounds, but you want to perpetuate the laws in 32 States which destroy the prospect which the manufacturers of oleomargarine and which the growers of hog-s and cattle have of an increased demand in this country in the near future of 500,000,000 pounds a year. The people of this country who consmne food products have a right to indulge their tastes, if they want to, in that direction, and it is depriving the people of the comforts and necessaries of life to say they shall not have oleo- margarine in a colored state, if they want to buy it in that state and know what they are buying at the time. Gentlemen, I have not taken up your time in regard to the coloring matter, or a great many other subjects that have been before you here- tofore. I am not an expert in the manufacture of oleomargarine. I have no connection with any manufacturing establishment. What I objected to in regard to the remarks of Governor Hoard was that he placed all the opponents of this bill in what is called the oleomarga- rine trust. I do not know anything about any trust. I am not in any trust. 1 am here to speak for those who raise cattle and hogs, and who ask the Congress that their product shall not be legislated against and discriminated against by Congressional legislation. They repre- sent a vast population in the United States. Their property represents a capital of $600,000,000. They have never before asked to be heard as a national association before this committee or before any other committee of Congress. They now ask to be heard, and they ask that their memorial which I have presented here to-day shall be considered fairly and that they may be placed, by the legislation of Congress, upon an equal footing with the other farmers of the country, for they are farmers and have the right to sell their products in the markets where they can get the most for them, and not be hampered b}^ restrictive legislation, either by Congress or by the States, that will destroy in a measure a portion of the value of the products which they are engaged in raising. I thank you, gentlemen. STATEMENT OF G. M. WALDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE KANSAS CITY LIVE STOCK EXCHANGE. Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Committee: Business engagements of great importance prevent my appearing before your honorable body in person to present the protest of the Kansas City Live Stock Exchange against the passage of the Grout bill, the pro- visions of which you are familiar with. Arguments have been pre- sented before 3^ou from the allied interests for and against, with the exception of the live-stock commission merchant. The Kansas City Live Stock Exchange is composed of 300 members, 90 per cent of whom are engaged in buying and selling live stock, and by their zeal and enterprise have succeeded in building the second largest live-stock market of the world. During the year just closed there were received 1,970,000 head of cattle, 69 per cent of which were killing grades; 50 per cent of these killing grades furnish the butter fats used in the manufacture of oleomargarine, 19 per cent represent- ing the more common beef and "canner" grades, which furnish an insignificant per cent of butter fat. The remaining 31 per cent are 120 OLEOMARGAEINE. shipped and driven back to the grazing lands, feed lots, or are used for breeding purposes, with the exception of a slight fraction known as milch stock. Ultimately, however, all find their way to the block, which would lead us to the proper basis to figure from, viz, 100 per cent. While statistics are dr}^ and uninteresting reading, if correct they silence all argument. We propose to show to this honorable com- mittee the tremendous loss which will accrue to the live-stock indus- try of this country, especially the cattle-growing States of the great West, North, and Southwest, if this Grout bill becomes a law and how such loss affects the live-stock commission merchant. Through the members of this exchange nearly $60,000,000 are loaned to the men engaged in this great industry in the territory tributary to this market. The greater proportion of this enormous sum of money does not belong to the men engaged in the commission business, but to the financial institutions in every section of the country. True, the commission merchant makes the loans and sells the paper, which is negotiable, from the Atlantic to the Pacific coast, with his, the com- mission merchant's, indorsement, accompanied with the usual safe- guard of mortgages on cattle. Any depreciation of values from any cause may result in loss to the holders of the paper. This enormous sum of ^60,000,000 controls about 2,000,000 cattle, whose ultimate destination is the market. Competition has, from many causes, grown so sharp in the live-stock commission business that great risks are taken. Only a few years ago freight and pasturage money was all that was required to control a good share of what we term "range" busi- ness, but lately the cattle raisers and speculators from the cattle- producing States of Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, and Texas, who move their herds to the grazing lands of the Territories and Kansas, demand a very large percentage of the purchase price of cattle, and in many instances the full cost. We now come to the point where we, the live-stock commission mer- chants, suffer. In the event of the Grout bill becoming a law our securit}^ would be depreciated just $2 per head, whereas, under the strain of competition, we have loaned up to the full value of cattle already. We should also mention that cattle deals are not closed up each year they are made. Renewals are granted, loans extended by reason of unfavorable conditions for fattening cattle, such as crop fail- ures, drought in the grazing districts, or unusual severity of the win- ters. During the winter of 1898 20 per cent of all cattle in winter range districts were frozen to death. So you can readily see we have enough of the element of loss to contend against without the Govern- ment permitting legislation that will make an additional burden of $2 per head loss. While this market is the "open door," the ver}^ threshold, of the great cattle-producing States and Territories, the same conditions governing the details of our business is proportionately true of every market of the United States; and not alone does this bill propose to kill an indus- try that benefits the producer and the packing industries, but every butcher who slaughters his own cattle in the United States; for he ships his butter fat to the nearest manufacturers of oleomargarine, which, if legislated out of business, goes into candles and boot grease, and he must charge the consumer a higher price for his beef in order to offset the loss on butter fat. OLEOMAKGARINE. 121 During the year just closing there were received at this market 3,100,000 hogs, 90 per cent of which were slaughtered here and the remainder shipped to other markets. The loss to this industr}^ if the Grout bill become a law, figured by the same experts on cattle, is 20 cents per head. A very large percentage of this trade is controlled by commission money, and the same depreciation of security relatively obtains as in loans on cattle. Summing up the actual loss to the live- stock industry of the United States if the Grout bill pass, it means $2 per head on 50 per cent of the killing grades of cattle and 20 cents per head on 85 per cent of the hogs slaughtered. It would take too much of the valuable time of your honorable body to make a detailed state- ment of the immense loss, but it is appalling. In closing, we desire to voice the sentiment that we regard this bill hurtful, vicious, and intended to kill one great and beneficial industry to build up and fatten another whose business during the year just closed has eclipsed all former years in prosperity. We further believe that if this un-American measure is forced upon the people a panic will ensue in the live-stock industry of the United States most dis- astrous; declines will immediately follow, tending to disrupt the whole system of trade as it relates to the live-stock industry. But we have faith that this honorable body will report unfavorably. If to the con- trary, the great court of justice of the whole people, the United States Senate, will not consent to deprive the vast army of the poor, the great majority of the American people, the substantial middle class, even the wealthy, of purchasing a pure, wholesome food product. I thank you, gentlemen. G. M. Walden, President Kansas City Live Stock Exchange. Kansas City, December 31, 1900. STATEMENT OF GEORGE L. FLANDERS. Mr. George L. Flanders, assistant commissioner of agriculture of the State of New York, appeared before the committee. Mr. Flanders. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I am a little surprised at the length of the argument of the eminent gentleman on the other side. He dwells entirely upon the proposition that there is nothing involved here but a financial question. I come here representing the department of agriculture of the State of New York, and there we feel that we are protecting the consuming public, and we believe that they are a great element in this country. We believe that this business thrives upon fraud, and that the great con- suming public are the ones that are defrauded. In 1878 it appeared in the State of New York that oleomargarine was being sold, and sold as butter. It was thought then that the State would try to regulate the matter. It passed a statute that the goods might be sold, but should be branded as such. That law proved inef- fective, and in 1880 the State passed another act providing that when sold it should be branded as oleomargarine. That act, although more restrictive, proved inefliective; and in 1882 the State passed another law more restrictive, and that failed to produce a result, and, finally, in 1881 it passed an act providing oleomargarine should not be sold as a substitute for butter. That act was declared unconstitutional by our 122 OLEOMAKG AEINE . State courts. In 1885 the State passed a law providing it should not be sold in imitation or semblance of butter, bo much for the propo- sition that they would like to stand out before the world and sell these goods for what they are. There is not one solitary word of truth in it from the standpoint of our experience in the State of New York. For nearly seventeen years I have seen this work go on. From the city of Chicago last j' ear several hundred tubs came into the State of New York without the national stamp; not a thing on them would indicate that the live tacks had ever been in the tub as required by law, and it was sold as renovated butter and branded as such. It was traced back to Chicago by our detectives and traced to one house there whose representative, I am told, is here to-day. Let me modify that statement by saying this: Our detective went back there and traced the goods as best he could. It was reported to the National Government. They seized the goods and sold them in Detroit, and my informant told me it was traced to dangerously close proximity to a certain oleomargarine manufactory. Our detective reported that a person, said to represent Braun & Fitts, appeared and gave bail for the defendants and otherwise interested himself in their behalf. The indications pointed to that manufactory. But, be that as it may, whichever one of the concerns it came from, it came in car- load lots, in semblance of butter, with not the iota of an intention on the face of it to comply with the State or national law, and a violation of both of them. Now, sir, an argument was made as many as fifteen years ago before the governor of the State of New York, wherein these people said, "Let us sell oleomargarine for what it is, and we will do it." We replied, "For six years we have tried to let you sell it for what it is, and you would not do it. Now you must be made to be honest with the people." That was the experience in Ohio, Iowa, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Vermont, and all the States of the 32 which have passed such laws, as I understand it. New York and the other States passed these laws because forced to do it to protect the consuming public. After that we had our litigation, and the law under question went to the court of appeals of our State, and in the case known as the People V. Arenburg the law was declared to be constitutional. The Massa- chusetts law was declared constitutional. The Pennsylvania law was declared unconstitutional. Finally a case was made up which went from Massachusetts, which was discussed here to-day, and I was aston- ished at the discussion and conclusion coming from the gentleman it did. The conclusion he drew is, in my judgment, absolutely wrong. What did the Plumley case involve? He said had the pleadings been right he thought the decision would have been difierent. He said it did not appear in the pleadings, as I understand it, that that was an original imported package of oleomargarine on which had been paid the duties as required b}^ the national law. Mr. Springer. I said it did. Mr. Flanders. Very well. I did not so understand you; and now I do not understand what could have been your thought when you agreed that the decision would have been different under certain conditions which you seemed to think should have prevailed. In my j udgment, the case contained all the necessary and proper questions of fact, and was well presented and considered by the court. As to the particular OLEOMAKGAEINE. 123 question which I understood you to say was not in the case, and should have been, viz, "that the goods were sent into the State in the origi- nal importer's package, and that the manufacturer and importer and petitioner had complied with all the requirements of the law of Con- gress relative to oleomargarine," permit me to call your attention to the fact that in the case as reported in 155 United States Supreme Court Report, that among the statement of facts as agreed to in the case appears the following statement: That the article sold was sent by the manufacturers thereof in the State of Illinoia to the petitioner, their agent in Massachusetts, and was sold by him in the originaii package, and that in respect to the article sold the importers and the petitioners had complied with all the requirements of the act of Congress regulating the sale of oleo- margarine, and it was marked and distinguished by all the marks, words, and stamps required of oleomargarine by the laws of this Commonwealth. That being so, it was an original importer's package, transported from one State to another, sold there in defiance of State law ; and the only question was, Could the law be maintained on any principle what- soever ? Now, prior to this time the decisions of United States courts had been to the effect that articles of commerce in original packages could be sold in the State irrespective of the State law except in the case of In re Rahrea. The question was presented in Leisy v. Hardin as to whether or not an importer's original package could be sold in a State in violation of the laws passed under the police power. That case was tried. It went to the Supreme Court of the United States, and that court said that the power to regulate commerce was one of the powers granted by the Constitution to the National Government and could not be exercised by a State ; and the State law was declared unconstitu- tional as to the package in question. Immediately Mr. Wilson introduced in the House of Representatives a bill providing that whenever such goods were transported from one State into another they should immediately upon entering a State become subject to the State laws, irrespective of the fact that they were in the original package, in the same manner and to the same effect as if produced in the State. The liquor men said, "We will test that; that law is unconstitutional; it is a regulation of commerce between the States by a State; that is a power which is given to Congress, and Congress can not delegate it back to the State." That was the ques- tion involved in In re Rahrer (140 U. S.). The Supreme Court of the United States, in its opinion in that case, said that the enactment of the so-called Wilson law was a proper exercise of the power granted in the Constitution, and that the law was constitutional. Now, sir, any* man that should question the right of the National Government to exercise the power given in the first section of this bill, in view of that decision, passes my comprehension. In that decision (In re Rahrer) the court practically said that the Government might, by virtue of that clause in the Constitution, say to a State, "When you pass a law relating to goods produced in the State, it shall apply to all goods coming into the State, whether they come in original pack- ages or not." I want to go back to the proposition as to why that clause was put into the Constitution of the United States. A careful reading of the discussion at the time it was adopted will show you that it was thought at that time by the f ramers of the Constitution that it would not be 124 OLEOMARGARINE. well to let Minnesota (not in those words, but in principle) say to Ver- mont, "Because you exclude our wheat we will exclude your dairy products," because the States of the Union might then build fences around themselves, to the detriment of the general welfare. " We will put the power in the National Government;" in other words, fix it so that a State can not say that a citizen outside of the State shall not have the same commercial rights her citizens do inside. But I do not believe it was ever contemplated for one moment that that power, granted in that way, should work out this result — that people in outside States should have rights in the markets of a State that the citizens inside do not have. These States have done what the}^ have done by virtue of the police power. What is that? It is the power left in the State to legislate along lines to protect the health, the morals, and the lives of the peo- ple. Now, by virtue of the police power, and under no other pretext whatever, have these 33 States passed such laws. They now say to the Congress of the United States, in one instance where those police laws have been outraged, " You have remedied the difficulty ))y saying that the original package shall be subject to the same laws as goods made within the States. We come to you by virtue of the decision in In re Rahrer and by virtue of the action of the Wilson bill, and say, do like wise relative to oleomargarine. We are not asking you to aid us to do something to a person outside of our State that we do not do to our own citizens. We simply say to you, we do not allow our citizens to be imposed upon by our own citizens; help us so that people outside can not impose upon our citizens." Now, if the argument which I propose to present to you later, rela- tive to the healthf ulness of these goods, is sound, for I propose to give you instances showing that this business thrives upon fraud, then it seems to me that the argument is almost conclusive that you should help us as asked in this bill. The Plumley decision was simply a majority decision, and we were afraid that the conditions might even- tually be such that it would be reversed. We had our eyes upon the compass in all directions to see what would come next, and out of Pennsylvania came a case known as the Schollenberger case. It went to the Supreme Court of the United States, and the oleo people secured a favorable decision in that case. What was the difference between the two cases? I know it was heralded all over the country that it was a reversal of the Plumley case, but I say to you it was not, in my judgment, notwithstanding the fact that certain judges in certain localities have so said to the contrary. It was an original package of oleomargarine, but it did not appear to the court that it was colored in imitation or semblance of butter. That element was in the Plumley case, but not in the Schollenberger case, making it plainly a difierent case. My friend seems to think that the Schollenberger case reversed the other case, but I read from Mr. Justice Peckham's opinion: "Nor is the question determined adversely to this view in the case of Plumley v. Massachusetts, 155 U. S., 462. The statute in that case prevented the sale of this substance in imitation of yellow butter pro- duced from pure, unadulterated milk or cream of the same, and the statute contained a proviso that nothing therein should be ' construed to prohibit the manufacture or sale of oleomargarine in a separate or distinct form and in such manner as will advise the consumer of its OLEOMARGARINE. 125 real character, free from coloration or ingredients that cause it to look like butter.' This court held that a conviction under that statute for having- sold an article known as oleomargarine, not produced from unadulterated milk or cream, but manufactured in imitation of yellow butter produced from pure, unadulterated milk or cream, was valid." The judge said that that decision was not adverse to the decision in the Schollenberger case. We know it did not appear in the case that it was a semblance of butter, but it did in the other case, and therein lies the distinction; and if those two decisions mean anything at all, they mean that the Supreme Court has put its brand upon oleomarga- rine, colored in imitation or semblance of butter, as an imitation and a fraud and a counterfeit. They did so hold, and so did two of the State courts of last resort, and if they have virtually placed the brand of counterfeit upon it, then we come to you and ask you to assist us, to the end that the fraud in this business may be wiped out. We will take the question of competition for a moment. I do not care to discuss the other cases discussed by my friend, for they are discussed by the court in arriving at the conclusions in these last two cases and disposed of. They are immaterial here. The shoddy mat- ter, given by Judge Springer, would not come within the police power of a State, as it involves simply a commercial question. A prophet or a philosopher can be a prophet or a philosopher still with shoddy on his back, but he can not be either without nourishment in his stomach or with something in his stomach furnishing onl}^ half the nourishment that he ought to have. You must feed nutritiously or you can not produce good men and women. Somel)ody has said, " Show me what a people eat and I will tell you what they are." Another has said, " Think of the chemical work whereby food is put in the human stomach and produces the divine tragedy of Hamlet." You must look after the nourishment and health of your people if you would have a strong nation. Now, how about the question of competition? In the first place, let us go back to the color of butter. The natural color of butter, when the cow is living upon nature's food, is a rich yellow. Butter has been that color so long that the memory of man runneth not to the contrary. When these people back in the seventies started to make oleomargarine, what did the}^ do? They undertook to make it look like our commodity. Is that all? No. In taste and smell they attempted to make it like our commodity, so that every feature would deceive ever}' sense that man could possibly apply to the commodity. Were they content with that? No, sir. The}^ came into the market and sold it for butter. Now, I am not guessing or talking at random, for in 1884 and 1885, when we commenced to enforce these laws, you were selling, or those who were in the same business that you are in to-da}' were selling, in the State of New York 15,000,000 pounds, and they told the same story then as glibly as you tell it now, that they wanted to sell it for what it was. Our men went into the city of New York, and if they went into a store where they were known and called for butter they got butter; but just as soon as they put on the garments of longshoremen, which they did in a great many instances, to see what the facts were, and took a basket upon their arras and bought a quarter of a pound of tea and a loaf of bread, they got oleomargarine. This is no fanciful dream. It is a fact. 126 OLEOMAEGAEINE. Take that into consideration, and then take into consideration the fact that these people send out all over the country — I will modify that a little; I will say that they send into the State of New York, and 1 know whereof I talk — agents who try to induce our people to enter into the business of selling those goods; and we are told that they promise to indemnify them against the State law. Mind you how I put it — that we are told by parties who have been approached that they offered to indemnify them. When you think of that state of facts as I have given it, can you listen with equanimity to the statements made here that there is a demand for those goods? There is no demand in the State of New York for oleomargarine by any consumer. They talk about it as the poor man's goods, and yet not long since, when the great strike was on in Pennsylvania, which we knew of all over the country by the results it produced, the papers, looking into the facts and trying to show how the poor man had to work prac- tically for nothing — $200 or $300 a year — gave us a schedule of the goods the laborers purchased and the prices paid, and the price for oleomargarine on that list was 30 cents a pound; and there is not a farmer in the United States who would not have been glad to furnish butter all the year round for 25 cents. And yet they call it the poor man's butter. The poor man in our State does not want it. If he does, he wants it for what it is and at its true value. The great difficulty is they are imitating our goods. We have used, or the butter people have used, that color so long that it has become a trade-mark. If j^ou are familiar at all with the fundamental principles of the laws of trade-marks, you know, sirs, that when a man or a firm has used for a given length of time, under certain conditions, a trade- mark, others are estopped by the laws from trespassing upon it. Why do the}^ come and take our color and take our smell and take our taste and put it in their goods and then come forward and sell them as our goods, and j^et come here and talk about healthful competition ? In the way the oleomargarine business is carried on there is no competi- tion at all. If I go into the open market to compete, I have to put my goods up against yours and let the consumer know what he is buying. When I put ni}^ goods in with j^ours and declare they are j^ours, you can not call that competition. Let us see. I will go outside of the State of New York. Not long ago I started from New York and I went to Fort Worth, Tex. In St. Louis we stopped to get something to eat. We went to as good a res- taurant as we could find. Mr. Kracke was with me. He is an expert and can tell oleomargarine every time. I can not always do it. He said to me, "That is oleomargarine." I said, " I want butter; not oleomargarine." The waiter said, "That is butter." I said, " It is not butter." After a good deal of confab he came back and said it was butter. I insisted that it was not; and b}" and b}" he came back and said. "That is the only kind we have here; that is oleo." The same thing happened to us on Pennsylvania avenue, in this cit3% with Mr. Adams present. The same thing happened at the Worth House, the best hotel, I understand, in the city of Fort Worth, Tex. These people do not sell it for oleomargarine. Ninety-nine times out of a hun- dred they sell it for butter. I do not mean the manufacturers. 1 mean when it gets down to the last parties — from the last man to the consumer. I know when you turn it out at your factories you turn it out as a rule, though not always, as oleomargarine. You comply with the letter of the law, but you make your goods in the best possible OLEOMA KG AEINE. 127 shape, so that as it filters down through the avenues of commerce it may ultimately be sold as butter. While living up to the letter of the law evade its spirit. Mr. Mathewson. How would the proposed 10-cent tax do away with that difiiculty ? Mr. Flanders. I am not a prophet or the son of a prophet. I can not tell what would happen, but I will tell you what I wish to see happen. I speak individually, and I do not speak for anybody but m3\self. I hope it would tax the fraud out of the oleomargarine. That is all I want. Mr. Mathewson. If oleomargarine sold at a price high enough so that the manufacturers could pay the 10 cents, would not the fraud exist the same? Mr. Flanders. No, sir. I will stake my reputation now as a prophet — I would not a moment ago — on the proposition that when you put butter at 30 cents or above cows enough will come forward to produce butter enough to hold it down. That never will happen in this country under ordinary conditions. Mr. Mathewson. I merely asked how the 10 cents tax would remove the fraud. Mr. Flanders. We hope it will. We want the fraud stopped, and then we want your people, if your goods are as good as you say they are, to step out into the open market and sell them for what they are, so that they can deceive no one. That is fair. Mr. Mathewson. Would it be a fair proposition to ask the manu- facturers of creamery butter to leave the color out of their butter ? Mr. Flanders. No, sir; and I will tell you why. In the first place, that is the natural color of the butter, if they color it as they ought to color it. Butter is yellow when the cows feed upon nature's succulent food. Color in butter is for the purpose of uniformity. Mr. Mathewson. It brings a little more on the market. Mr. Flanders. Not at all. I ate butter in New York City the other day with all the flavor you could ask, and not one bit of coloring and not a bit of salt in it. I ate to-day down at the hotel cheese with not one bit of coloring matter in it, and I liked it just as well. The truth is that the people, if your commodity is good, can be educated to eat it without its coloring matter, and you will not deceive them as to the commodity. Ml". Mathewson. If the butter is so good when it is white, why not leave out the coloring matter ? Mr. Hoard. That is not the proposition. Mr. Flanders. I am willing to discuss that point at length at the proper time and place, but you are aware that your speaker occupied an hour and three-quarters, and m}^ time is limited and vanishing with ordinary rapidity. Mr. Mathewson. The Judge answered very courteously any ques- tion put to him. Mr. Flanders. If you will give me time, I will gladly answer your questions. Mr. Mathewson. We will give you all the time the committee will. Mr. Flanders. Talk about the healthfulness of the commodity. We say that the commodity that is sold upon the market is not health- ful. The Judge in speaking said that it was universalh" acknowledged to be healthful. That is not true. I think the Judge Wde the state- ment from a lack of knowledge of the facts. 128 OLEOMARGARINE. Mr. Springer. The Supreme Court so stated. Mr. Flanders. The Supreme Court did not say that. I should like to hear the statement. It said when the goods are properly made; but I submit the proposition that the Supreme Court is not to pass upon the question of the healthfulness of a commodity. They are to con- strue the laws and the Constitution. If a law contravenes the Con- stitution, they say so; if it is within the powers, they say so; but whether legislation is wise or unwise, good or bad, the court has said time and again is no concern of theirs. I do not think that the court determined or tried to determine that question. Here, gentlemen [exhibiting], is one of many samples of paraffin wax taken from oleomargarine sold in the open market in the city of New York, gathered by our agents, and here is a pamphlet prepared by Chemist Joseph F. Geisler, of New York Cit}^ relative to the mat- ter. I will not read it to you, but will leave it with you. Mr. Miller. Where did he purchase that oleomargarine? Mr. Flanders. Mr. Kracke, where was that oleomargarine purchased ? Mr. Kracke. It was found on Third avenue in New York City. Mr. Miller. Row many samples did he examine ? Mr. Flanders. Here is the statement of the chemist showing num- ber of samples. If we find any adulteration in the course of our work in enforcing the law we make a note of it. Here are eight cases. Senator Heitfeld. When was this analysis made ? Mr. Flanders. In 1899; some of them. I will read the opening clause of this pamphlet, if the Senators will permit me: "One often hears of adulterated food, but rarely are such sophisti- cations of a nature that they may be deemed injurious to health. The recent finding of paraffin as an adulterant in a number of samples of commercial oleomargarine may therefore prove of interest. "Though paraffin has been mentioned as an adulterant of chocolates and candies, the use of such an indigestible substance as an adulterant of oleomargarine seemed so improbable that the actual separation of the paraffin was required to convince some skeptical minds. "Its use in oleomargarine is by no means new, for I first observed it in a commercial sample in September, 1893, and reported the fact to the New York State department of agriculture. The general proper- ties of the fat of the sample, its behavior during saponification, and 100° F. the abnormally low specific gravity , 0. 894 {at ^„fg„ i aao y )' indicated an irregularity and the probable presence of paraffin. Although the sample under examination amounted to only a few grams, sufficient of the unsaponifiable matter was obtained from the same to show that it was paraffin. It was impossible at the time to get more of this par- ticular sample or duplicates of several others in which paraffin was found between that date and March, 1894, when I was enabled to pre- pare an exhibit of the paraffin extracted from one of the samples. About this time experts of the department of agriculture, in the course of their inspections in New York and Brooklyn, found quite a number of samples of oleomargarine which, upon analysis, were found to contain paraffin. Some of these were analyzed by Drs. Love, Wal- ler, Stillwell, and myself, and the amounts of paraffin in the various samples were found to range from 9.72 per cent to 11.25 per cent." Now, gentlemen, those are facts. This pamphlet was issued by Dr. Geisler, of New York. OLEOMARGARINE. 129 Mr. Miller. Why would an}^ manufacturer use that? We have been engaged in the manufacture of butterine from fifteen to sixteen years. I can not understand why any manufacturer would use it. Mr. Flanders. I do not understand why men commit murder. I understand that they do. I do not want to stop to discuss that point, because I am limited for time. Mr. Mathewson. I suppose you have examined a great many samples of butter? Mr. Flanders. Our chemists have. Mr. Mathewson. Did you ever in all your examinations find any- thing in straight butter, stuff sold as straight butter or supposed to be straight butter? Mr. Flanders. We have never found dairy butter adulterated. Mr. Mathewson. You never have? Mr. Flanders. No, sir. I should like to say that we pay attention to every communication, auonj^mo'us or otherwise. It does not make any difference who the man is who sends in the communication, we take cognizance of it and hunt it down to the roots. I now turn to the report made by Dr. R. D. Clark upon the health- fulness of oleomargarine. He is a chemist and medical man of twenty years' standing, and I want to say here and now that our opinion in the State of New York, after having given this subject a great deal of study and thought and after having obtained the very best advice we could get, is that a chemist is not, by virtue of his chemical knowledge, a competent man to tell about the healthfulness of food products. A chemist's province is to take a commodity, and take it apart, and tell what is in it. It is no part of his work to tell what effect that article pro- duces upon the human system. That is a physiological question. Dr. Clark, a physician, says, relative to the healthfulness of oleomargarine: "We now come to the all-important aspect of the subject, Is arti- ficial butter a wholesome article of food? We answer it in the negative, on the following grounds: "First. On account of its indigestibility. "Second. On account of its insolubility when made from animal fats. "Third. On account of its liability to carry germs of disease into the human system. "Fourth. On account of the probabilit}' of its containing, when made under certain patents, unhealthy ingredients." I should like to read the patents — I have here 40 or 50 — showing not necessarily what goes into oleomargarine, but what they say goes into it. What they do we do not know. Our chemist has been to Chicago under the expressed promise that he might go into the works, but he never got through. Mr. Miller. Are these patents for the manufacture of oleomarga- rine or butter ? Mr. Flanders. Oleomargarine, as filed here in Washington. Mr. Miller. They are substitutes for butter in a great many cases. Mr. Flanders. They are not substitutes for butter, but patents for oleomargarine. I am quite familiar with the sobject, and I tell you they are for oleomargarine. Dr. Clark says: "Before entering upon the argument we wish to state that we have investigated the claim made by the *■ oleo ' makers that the ' weight of the testimony of the medicaf profession was in favor of its being S. Kep. 2043 9 130 OLEOMARGARINE. healthy.' This, no doubt, was true a few years ago; but we have made it a point of inquiry for nearl}^ two years past and find that this opinion of the physicians was based not, as a general thing, upon investigation, but upon the sanction given to the stuff by such eminent chemists as Profs. C. F. Chandler, R. Ogden Doremus, etc. The opinion was also based upon Mege's product, which must be admitted to be less dele- terious to health than most, if not all, the others. Then, too, these spurious articles were sold so surreptitiously, until those whose per- sonal interests were incidentally affected stirred up the legislature to investigate, that but little or no attention was given to the subject, and consequently but little known about it; but now, since attention has been so forcibly called to it by the agitation of the dairy commissioner in his endeavor to execute the laws pi'ohibiting its manufacture and sale, no difficult}^ will attend the finding of plenty of eminent physicians who will declare it may be a very unhealthy article of food. We wish also to state here that the physiolog}^, like the chemistry, of fats until recently has been studied as a whole, and consequently but little was known of their individual properties. "We read in Wankl3ni's Milk Analysis, published in 1874, that ' with regard to the question of admixture of foreign fats with milk fat we are unable, in the present condition of our knowledge, to deal with that part of the problem.' We have no less than four reliable chemical methods for distinguishing butter fat from other fats. Experimental physiologists are now entering this unexplored field, and important discoveries may be confidently expected." Again he says: ""The large proportion of butyrin in butter and its nonoccurrence in any of the other animal fats, together with the vola- tility of its acids, has long impressed us with the belief that it had some important office to perform in the digestive process. Under this belief we began a series of experiments upon the artificial digestion of different fats. Our digestive fluid was composed of .5 grains of Fair- child Brothers' and Foster's 'Extractum pancreatis' and 5 grains of bicarbonate of soda dissolved in 10 c. c. of distilled water. After the solution was complete we added half a dram of melted fat. " The whole was well agitated in a test tube and placed in an oven at a temperature of from 100 to 101° F. The fats experimented on were cod-liver oil, butter, oleomargarine butter, the commercial oleo- margarine oil, lard oil, benne oil, cotton-seed oil, lard, and mutton and beef suet. The cod-liver oil was bought from a reliable drug store. "Both fresh and stale butter was used and was such as we had made ourselves, seeing the milk from which it was made drawn from the cow, or such as we had analj^zed ourselves and found to be pure cows' butter. Fresh and stale ' oleo ' was used, and was also either made by ourselves under the ' Nathan ' patent, which ' oleo ' contained some free acid, or was that which we had analyzed. The oils were all obtained from 'oleo' makers or dealers in ISIew York Cit3^ Both the pure washed dry fats of the butters and ' oleos ' and the natural products were compared, as will be described directly. The contents of the test tubes were examined under a microscope at intervals of one, two, three, four, six, twelve, sixteen, and twenty hours. "The cod-liver oil nearly always showed the finest emulsion. "Next, and the difference was often just perceptible, came genuine butter. 'Oleo' and lard oil came next, there being frequently no OLEOMARGARINE. 131 appreciable difference between them, but between the butter and the 'oleo' there was a marked difference at the end of each period. ''Fig. 4, Plate 1, and fig. 1, Plate 11, shows the difference between 'oleo' and genuine butter after being acted upon by the digestive fluid for one hour. It will be noticed that there is no emulsion at all of the ' oleo ' while the butter is well advanced. "Fig. 5, Plate I, and fig. 2, Plate II, shows the same at the end of four hours. It is seen that the 'oleo' is not nearly as much emulsified as the butter was at the end of one hour. "Fig. 6, Plate I, and fig. 3, Plate II, presents the same at the end of twelve hours, which shows that the ' oleo ' is but a trifle, if at all, further emulsionized than the butter was at the end of the four hours." And again: "It is important to know that the approval given to Mege's oleo- margarine as an article of food by the council of health of Paris, in 1872, on the strength of the favorable report made by M. Felix Baudet (an abstract of which is given on page 30 of this report) was morall}", at least, withdrawn in consequence of a report of an investigation made by a commission of the academy of medicine for the prefect of the Seine, disapproving of the article for use except to a limited extent in cooking, on the ground of its comparatve indigestibily. It was never allowed to be sold in the public markets of Paris except under its own name. Its sale is now prohibited in the public markets. "The insolubility of those artificial butters made from animal fats is another potent quality for rendering them indigestible. In man the digestive process is carried on with greater rapidity than in any of the lower animals; and the gastric juice acts upon food from the outside toward the center; that is, it does not soak the material and exert its solvent action upon the whole of it at the same time. Consequently the greater amount of surface of food directly exposed the more rapid its digestion. It is for this reason that it is so necessary for man to carry out the process of mastication thoroughly. It is for this reason also that some people experience distress after eating eggs boiled just hard, but none after eating them soft boiled, or after being boiled for some time, when they become ' mealy.' The difference in the digestion of an egg is again felt when eaten raw without beating and when it is beaten. The beating mixes the albumen with the air, rendering it porous. " The artificial butters made from animal fats, although the olein and palmitin are separated as much as possible by pressure, will not liquefy at the stomach temperature, as is demonstrated by the following experi- ments: We placed in an oven kept at a temperature of from 100 to 10-4" F. four beakers containing, respectively, pure butter, oleomargarine butter, oleomargarine oil (commercial), and lard oil, about 20 drams of each, and which were all of the temperature of about 60° F. when taken. At the expiration of thirtj^-five minutes, and the temperature at 100° F., the butter presented a clear limpid appearance, but the others remained solid, being but very little affected, and at the end of five hours, the temperature being from 101 to 104° F., they were in a semi- solid condition, the oleomargarine oil being most softened, the oleo butter next, and the lard the least softened. "These insoluble fats, then, must interfere with digestion in two ways: First, by not being acted upon themselves by the gastric juice, 182 OLEOMARGARINE. and second, by being- thoroughly mixed with the other foods in the mouth they form an impervious covering- to them, thereby preventing the gastric juice from coming into direct contact with them. "Randolph says that 'a further reason that the fats, especially when cooked with other foods, are frequently found to be unwhole- some is that in the process of cooking they so surround and saturate the tissues of the substance with which they are combined that it is rendered nearly inaccessible to the action of the saliva and gastric juice, and at times digestion is in so far delayed that the fried sub- stance does not become entirely freed from this more or less impervi- ous coating of fat until subjected to the action of the pancreatic juice.' "This retards digestion and prevents that increased flow of gastric juice which follows the absorption in the stomach of the first portion of food digested, as is shown to be the case by Heidenhan's experiment, and also deprives the proteids of that aid in their digestion which fats are declared to render." That is the same proposition laid down but a moment since. The Acting Chairinian. If there is anything you desire to insert, if you will mark it and hand it to the reporter, it will be inserted. Mr. Flanders. I am sorry to have to rush over this so fast, because it embodies facts that ought to be presented to the committee. It is not fancy. It is not quoted upon hearsay. Here [exhibiting] is a book that is just out. I telegraphed last Sat- urday to New York for it, and they had to telegraph to Chicago for it, and it came down, perhaps, with our (yhicago friends. It is just out on the market. The author is J. Milner Fothergill, M. D., mem- ber of the Roj^al College of Fh3\sicians of London; senior assistant physician to the city of London Hospital for Diseases of the Chest (Victoria Park); late assistant physician to the West London Hospital; associate fellow of the College of Physicians of Philadelphia. I want to read what he says. He is a phj^siologist, and not a chemist. He says: "And now to the consideration of the third division of the subject, the digestion of fats. " We do not know as yet any change exercised upon fat by heat, by the act of cooking, except that of rendering it fluid. Certainly cooking ren- ders fat more toothsome, and in the case of fat exposed directly to great heat, as in the case of the fat of a beefsteak or a mutton chop, the action of- the heat upon the albuminous capsule of the adipose tissue is to make it decidedly tasty; but heat does liquefy fat, and separates (we believe) olein from stearin and margarin. The liquid portion of fried bacon is digested l)y many who can not digest the solid portion of bacon fat. This is a well-known fact. The fluid is the olein. Fats vary in their digestibility. The late Dr. John Hughes Bennett said: 'The main causes of tuberculosis were the dearness of butter and the abundance of pastry cooks, the poor not getting- sufiicient fat and the upper classes disordering their digestion by pufl' taste.' Now, butter consists of the fat globules of milk removed from their envelopes of casein by the act of churning, thus getting rid of the albuminous envelope, which is one of the difiiculties in the digestion of animal fat." I believe you can not find any evidence in nature anywhere to show that nature ever intended an^^ globule of fat to go into the human stomach raw except that one globule of butter fat which is found in OLEOMAEGAEINE. 133 the secretion of the iiianimaiy glands. Nature provides fat for the offspring- of mammals by producing a fat in fluid found in the mam- mary gland, and that will always melt at less than the temperature of the stomach, is easily digested, and aids in the digestion of other foods. When you put these other fats, containing stearin, which is the most objectionable, into the stomach, thej can not be readily digested. There are cases on record where jackknives have gone into the stomach and the bone handle digested, but that is extraordinary, and we are here in the interest of the ordinary. Animal fats other than those foiuid in the secretion of the mammary gland will not as a rule melt at the temperature of the stomach, and instead of aiding digestion they hinder it. It may be said by our opponents that the difference is one of degree only. For the sake of the argument let us admit it, and then say it can be illustrated by the difference in energy exerted b}'^ a man rowing a boat down a stream and up a stream, and then the difference is in tlie favor of butter, and the extent of the difference may vary in different samples of oleomargarine as the swiftness of streams vary. We come here and sav that 32 States of the Union, containing 75 per cent or at least 60,000,000 out of the 77,000,000 of population, have declared in their State laws that the people should not be deceived into bu^Mng this commodity, as it is harder to digest than the other. Suppose that everything about its manufacture everywhere is as clean as it ought to be — and I will admit that in the great manufactories of Chicago that is probably true, but unfortunately they are not the only manufactories. But let us suppose that everywhere it is so. Then we say to you that 32 States have said that the people shall not be deceived, and that the only thing that arises now to prevent the full enforce- ment of those laws, which they believe to have been enacted within the police power properly, is the fact that the power to regulate commerce between the States is given to the National Government, and then ask such action at your hands as will complete State power to the end that our people shall not be imposed upon into buying or consuming a com- modity which really is detrimental as compared with the other commoditv. Is not this request within bounds and warranted by the facts? On what ground do our friends assert that oleo is healthful? My understanding is that they have none whatever. To illustrate: They quote a chemist as saying, '^ There is nothing in oleomargarine that is not in butter, and nothing in butter that is not in oleomargarine." Now, to my mind, this is a fair sample of their reasons; it has just enough truth in it to answer the purpose. Now, what are the facts, or some of them? Both oleomargarine and l)utter contain stearin, a fat that melts only at quite too high a temperature for the human stomach, and, therefore, very hard to digest, and oleomargarine con- tains from four to live times as much of it as butter. Take one more illustration: ""Butyrin" is in both substances, melts at a low tem- perature, digests easily, and aids digestion of other foods. Butj^rin is found in butter to the extent of about 8 per cent, while there is very little — only a trace — in oleomargarine. This being true, it is not, in mv judgment, a full, fair statement of the fact to say "there is noth- ing in butter that is not in oleo, and nothing in oleo that is not in l)utter,*' but is an illustration of some of the methods adopted in the oleo traffic. 134 OLEOMAEGARINE. These people talk about an ideal oleomargarine. They do not talk about the kind referred to by Dr. Bartlett, of Brooklyn, in a letter to Dr. R. D. Clark, of Albany, N. Y., which I wish to read: "Brooklyn, N. Y., January 18, 1886. " Dear Doctor: In reply to yours of the 12th instant, I would say that all 1 can say of the oil 1 showed in New York was that it was manufactured on Newtown Creek by Mr. Henry Beran. Mr. Beran has the contract for the dead animals and offal of the city of Brooklyn. The oil in question was made from the comb fat (so called) of horses — that is, from the top part of the necks of the horses which were obtained from this city and tried out by the contractor. The horses were such as die in every city from both accident and disease. There were a large number of horses killed in Brooklyn last year that were suffering with glanders. Whether any of these horses helped to make up this oil I do not know; nor does Mr. Beran. The specimen 1 had in New York was a very fine oil, and it shows that an oil can be made from dead horses which in taste and naked-ej^e appearance is as palatable as the best 'oleo' oil. " Mr. Beran has told me that he is satisfied that some of his' oil has been used for the manufacture of ' oleo ' butter. He has always been very careful about telling me to whom he sells it and he evidently thinks it is used for that purpose; in fact, he says he knows it has been. I give this as his own statement, and for what it is worth. I could not prove it. From the odor, taste, etc. , of this oil I am of the opinion that it can be used to make ^ oleomargarine,' and that its use for that purpose ought to be strongly condemned. I also hold that the use of lard tried out at a temperature below 130° Fahrenheit should be pro- hibited. Hoping this will answer your questions, I am, ' ' Very sincerely yours, "E. H. Bartley, M. D." He says he feels satisfied that that oil was made into oleomargarine; that there was entirely too much for any other purpose. Now, the smile is so audible that I must pay attention to it. When we commenced to investigate those questions these frauds were practiced. They are not practiced now. Our law has hedged you about, and more capital has gone into the business. You have put the business on a higher scale than it ever was before, and you are making as good a commodity as you can out of the stuff you have to make it out of. We only ask you in fairness to step one notch higher and do not make it resemble butter. Do you know that in the great State of New York there are 1,600,000 cows? Do you know we have 250,000 persons engaged in farm work? And yet you seek to come into our market and drive us out and ruin that industry. Is there anything fair about that? We ask you to stand up like men and sell your commodity for what it is. Then if 3^ou can compete with us we will stand it like men. Not many years ago we were in the meat market. We raised cattle in New York and sold them for meat. We sold cereals. The Genesee and Rochester valleys were great wheat fields. Then the wheat fields of the Missis- sippi Valley were opened up, cultivated by machinery. Then South America opened up her wheat fields and produced gram at 37 cents a bushel on shipboard, Australia opened up her wheat fields, and now Russia is opening up Siberia to the production of the cereals. We OLEOMARGARINE. 135 are driven entirel}^ out of the cereals market. We have been driven out of the meat market, and there has not been one word of com- plaint. It was done among men in open competition, but we do complain when you take all that is left and seek to do it by fraud. I can not conceive how any man who has had any experience anywhere that gives him a knowledge of ethics can sustain the man who has placed upon the market a commodity looking, smelling, and tasting- like another, as that other, and then say when we ask him to stop it that we are trying to down a healthy competition. It is not com- petition. It is downright robbery. We have with us the president of the State Dairymen's Association, representing 250,000 persons. They want this measure. We have the master of the New York State Grange, representing 60,000 grangers. They want this bill. He is authorized by the master of the National Grange to say that the National Grange wants it. It has passed a resolution favorable to it. The National Farmers' Con- gress at Fort Worth passed a resolution in favor of it. So did the congress at St. Paul. It passed a resolution favoring the first part of the bill. At that time the 10-cent tax was not in. The national con- §ress at Boston favored the first section, and last summer, at Colorado prings, they passed a resolution favoring this bill. The National Association of Dairy and Food Commissioners in Detroit passed a resolution favoring it, at Harrisburg, at Chicago, and this year at Mil- waukee. The National Dairy Union is for it. All these people are favorable to it. I only quote them to offset the proposition relative to the one organization which has been quoted as against the measure. Now, leaving out the question of how many people are for it or how many people are against it, in my judgment if it is an unjust measure it should not pass; but it seems to me that the only thing which it seeks to do is to suppress a fraud that exists, and I tell 3'ou it does exist, and every dairy and food commissioner here can bear testimony to it. It is not given to 3'ou as hearsay. For sixteen years I have been watch- ing this work, seeing it go on. There is a gentlemen here represent- ing a large firm in Chicago. They came down into our State two or three years ago and attempted to put in oleomargarine. I myself went into the city of Cohoes with two other men. We watched for two weeks. We finally found that it came in over the railroad in bar- rels of 10-pound tubs, with canvas over the heads of the barrels. We had it watched da}^ and night. I went myself with men from house to house inhabited by French families who could not speak a word of English. I asked an old woman if she bought it for butter. She could not speak any English. I got a little girl there to ask the old lady what she bought it for, and she said, "For butter." "For pure but- ter?"I asked. She said, "Yes." I said, " What did you pay ? " She told me 22 cents, and that was the price of butter. It was sold to those people for butter. It has been our experience for sixteen j^ears in the State of New York that that is what is done. This business thrives down at the last end, when it reaches the consumer, upon fraud. And when I say that I do not accuse any manufacturer when he puts out oleomargarine of committing a fraud; I simply say that if he is guilty at all he is particeps criminis. Now, all we want of you is to stop that. Is there anything unfair about it? We do not ask an unjust thing. We will stand in fair competition with anybody in this country or abroad if we can have 136 OLEOMAEGARIlSrE. competition, but we do not want to be robbed, and we think it i.s just that this measure ma}^ be passed, giving us the right to enforce our State laws, and then put on the tax and, if possible, tax out the fraud that is in it. I will not try to discuss the decision relative to State banks. My friend did not discuss that phase of the question. I am sorry to have had to cut this matter so close. In closing I wish to submit what Dr. Clark says: "In order to give an appreciable understanding of the indigestibility of artificial butter we must briefly describe the digestive processes. The great variety of foods taken by man is derived from the mineral and organic kingdoms. From the mineral comes water, salts, etc., with which we have no concern at present. The organic foods are the products of living organized bodies, and divided into two great classes, viz: First, protein principles, also called albuminoid and nitrogenized principles. These are chemically composed of oxygen, hydrogen, carbon, and nitrogen. The latter element chemically distinguishes them from the second class, the hydrocarbons, which are composed of oxygen, hydrogen, and carbon. In sugar, starch, and some other substances belonging to this class, the oxygen and hydrogen exist in proper proportions to form water, which has given rise to a subdivision of the hydrocarbons into hydrocarbons and carbohydrates. Fats and oils belong to the hydrocarbons. " When food is taken into the mouth its presence stimulates, through the nervous arrangement, the salivar}^ glands to produce a copious flow of saliva, which, during mastication, is (or ought to be) thoroughly mixed with the food. Aside from a slight conversion of starch into sugar the act of mastication is purely mechanical — the food is broken up, lubricated, and gathered into proper form to be swallowed. The temperature in the mouth is 100'-' F., and, of course, any free fat whose melting point is at or below this temperature will liquefy. The chemi- cal reaction of saliva is alkaline. '• When the food reaches the stomach its presence, as in the mouth, acts as a stimulus and causes an increased secretion, which has alread}^ begun when the food was taken into the mouth, of the acid fluid called gastric juice. " The muscular construction of the stomach keeps the food in constant motion so that it is thoroughly mixed with the gastric juice. When the bolus of food mixed with saliva comes in contact with the acid gas- tric juice the conversion of starch into sugar ceases, the proteids are l)roken up and dissolved, the proteid cell walls of the adipose tissue are dissolved, which sets the fat-drops free, and the free fats which liquefy at or below 100 degrees, or perhaps 101° F., which is the highest tem- perature in the stomach, are melted and to some extent emulsified and split up into fatty acid and glyceryl. The acidity of the gastric juice is essential to its activity. "As the food is dissolved or digested (it is now called chyme), it is mostly carried into the intestines by the muscular action of the stomach where it is met by three other digestive fluids — the bile, pancreatic juice, and intestinal juice, which are all alkaline in reaction. When the chyme leaves the stomach it is, under normal conditions, acid; but as it is mixed with these alkaline fluids its acidity is neutralized and its reaction becomes alkaline. "In the intestine the conversion of starch into sugar takes place with great rapidity and the proteids or peptones, as they are called, OLEOMARGARINE. 137 after being acted upon by the pepsine of the gastric juice, are still further broken up. The pancreatic juice, so far as is known, is the chief agent in bringing about these changes. The bile does nothing more than to aid in neutralizing the acidity and thus prepare them for the action of the pancreatic juice. But with fat it becomes an impor- tant factor. Its salts unite with any free fatty acid and form soaps. It also dissolves soaps which, as we shall see hereafter, materially aid the pancreatic fluid in its action upon fats. Bile also has some emul- sifying power on fats. A soap is a fat acid united with a base, as soda, potash, etc. ''The pancreatic juice has a powerful emulsifying effect upon fats; that is, divides them into very minute particles. It also has the power, to some extent, of breaking them up into their fatty acid and glycerin; and if an alkali is present the fatty acid unites with it to form soap. "As we have already stated, bile has a slight emulsionizing and sol- vent effect upon fat, but the fact which is known to be the most impor- tant in its relation to the digestion of fat is that it unites with the free fatty acids which are present in the chyme and forms soaps. It also dissolves soaps that may have been formed before reaching it; and the presence of soluble soaps are known to aid the emulsion of fats. ""Foster says in reference to this: 'Thus a rancid fat — i. e., a fat containing a certain amount of free fatt}^ acid forms an emulsion with an alkaline fluid more readil}^ than does a neutral fat. A drop of ran- cid oil let fall on the surface of an alkaline fluid, such as a solution of sodium carbonate of suitable strength, rapidly forms a broad ring of enmlsion and that even without the least agitation. As saponification takes place at the junction of the oil and alkaline fluid currents are set up by which globules of oil are detached from the main drop and driven out in a centrifugal direction. The intensity of the currents and the consequent amount of emulsion depend on the concentration of the alkaline medium and on the solubility of the soaps which are formed; hence some fats, such as cod-liver oil, are much more easily emulsionized in this way than others. Now, the bile and pancreatic juice supply just such conditions as the above for emulsionizing fats; they both together afford an alkaline medium. The pancreatic juice gives rise to an adequate amount of free fatty acid, and the bile in addition brings into solution the soaps as they are formed. So that we may speak of the emulsion of fats in the small intestine as being carried on by the bile and pancreatic juice acting in conjunction, and, as a matter of fact, the bile and pancreatic juice do largely emulsify the contents of the small intestine, so that the grayish turbid chyme is changed into a creamy-looking fluid, which has been sometimes called chyle.' "Now, we believe that butter fat is especially fitted to supply these conditions. Butter, as is well known, readily becomes rancid, and, no doubt, butter contains some free acid very shortly after being made; but we will consider a perfectl}^ fresh specimen. According to Lang, the first step in the decomposition of butter is a conversion of lactic acid into butyric. The second is the breaking up of butyrin into butyric acid and glycerin, the butyrin furnishing by far the most free acid — about 7 per cent. Thus we see that the first fat in the mixture of butter to break up outside of the body is butyrin, and doubtless this is the case inside. "J. Bell asserts that when a solution of alcohol and an alkali is used 138 OLEOMAEGAEINE. in sufficient quantity to saponify all the butter fat treated, the alkaline base unites with the soluble fatty acids, and what is left undecomposed are the fats containing the insoluble fatty acids. He also illustrates this by relating- an actual experiment. This strongly corroborates the supposition tbat it is the butyrin that is first broken up in the stom- ach and intestmes. "We have seen in the process of stomach digestion that some fat was emulsionized and broken up into its acid and glycerin constituents. So we have butyric acid set free in the stomach to unite with a base from some of the weaker salts, as the carbonates, for instance, to form a very soluble soap which is dissolved by the bile as soon as it comes in contact with it, and thus furnishing, even a fresh butter, the most favorable conditions for starting the action of the pancreatic juice upon fats. Indeed Roberts claims that a small admixture of a free fatty acid in the ch^^me, together with the agitation produced by the move- ments of the intestines, is sufficient to emulsify fats without the aid of pancreatic juice. "Routh also declares the same. None of the other animal fats con- tain butyrin. "The large proportion of butyrin in butter and its nonoccurrence in any of the other animal fats, together with the volatility of its acid, has long impressed us with the belief that it had some important office to perform in the digestive process. Under this belief we began a series of experiments upon the artificial digestion of different fats. Our digestive fluid was composed of 6 grains of Fairchild Bros, and Foster's 'Extractum pancreatis,' 6 grains of bicarbonate of soda dis- solved in 10 c. c. of distilled water. After the solution was complete we added half a dram of melted fat. "The whole was well agitated in a test tube and placed in an oven at a temperature of from 100 to 101° F. The fats experimented on were cod-liver oil, butter, oleomargarine butter, the commercial oleo- margarine oil, lard oil, benne oil, cotton-seed oil, lard, and mutton and beef suet. The cod-liver oil was bought from a reliable drug store. " Both fresh and stale butter was used, and was such as we had made ourselves, seeing the milk from which it was made drawn from the cow, or such as we had analyzed ourselves and found to be pure cow's butter. Fresh and stale 'oleo' was used, and was also either made by ourselves under the 'Nathan' patent, which 'oleo' contained some free acid, or was that which we had analyzed. The oils were all obtained from 'oleo' makers or dealers in New York City. Both the pure, washed, dry fats of the butters and 'oleos' and the natural products were com- pared, as will be described directly. The contents of the test tubes were examined under a microscope at intervals of one, two, three, four, six, twelve, sixteen, and twenty hours. "The cod-liver oil nearly always showed the finest emulsion. "Next, and the difierence was often just perceptible, came genuine butter. 'Oleo' and lard oil came next, there being frequently no appreciable difference between them, but between the butter and the 'oleo' there was a marked difference at the end of each period, "Fig. 4, PI. I, and fig. 1, PI. II, shows the difference between 'oleo' and genuine butter after being acted upon by the digestive fluid for one hour. It will be noticed that there is no emulsion at all of the 'oleo,' while the butter is well advanced. "Fig. 6, PI. I, and fig. 2, PI. II, shows the same at the end of four OLEOMARGARINE. 139 hours. It is seen that the 'oleo' is not nearly as much emulsified as the butter was at the end of one hour. "Fig. 6, PL I, and tig. 3, PI. II, presents the same at the end of twelve hours, which shows that the 'oleo' is but a trifle, if at all, fur- ther emulsiouized than the butter was at the end of the four hours. "It will be further noticed that the globules of butter are finer, more uniform, containing v^erj few large globules, and what is par- ticularly conspicuous is the clearness and distinctness of the butter globules. They are well defined, sleek looking, and have a clean-cut outline which strongly intimates that they would go through an ani- mal membrane — which the}^ are required to do, as will be seen later on — quicker than 'oleo,' which has a rough, coarse, ill-defined appear- ance. This holds true until the whole is saponified. The best results were obtained after exposing the fats to the digestive fluids for five or six hours at a temperature of 100° F., then allowing the whole to stand over night at a temperature of about 60° F., and in the morning adding an equal bulk of warm water. The butter then presents under the microscope a most perfect emulsion. The globules are all very minute, grading ofl' into almost imperceptible granules. " B}^ examining the corresponding figures on the difl'erent plates the comparative digestibility of the various fats and oils used in making artificial butter may be seen. "That butja'ic acid does have some important role to play in the ali- mentary canal is evident from the fact that sugar undergoes butyric fermentation in the small intestines. Yeo sa3^s, in reference to this, 'Some of the sugar in the intestines, moreover, undergoes fermenta- tion, by which it is converted into lactic and butyric acids. How much of the sugar is absorbed as lactic and butyric acids has not been deter- mined, but the amount of sugar found in the portal vessels or lacteals does not at all correspond with the amount that disappears from the cavity of the intestines.' "Foster sa3"s, 'This suggests the possibility of the sugar of the intestinal contents undergoing the butyric acid fermentation (during which, as is well known, carbonic anhydride and hydrogen are evolved), and thus, so to speak, put on its wa}^ to become fat. * * * More- over, it is probable that b}" other fermentative changes a considerable quantity of sugar is converted into lactic acid, since this acid is found in increasing quantities as the food descends the intestines.' '"No doubt the lactic acid is converted into butyric acid, which, in turn, is converted into soluble soaps, and which may perform, and we believe do perform, important offices. As will be seen further on, fat is often covered with soap, when absorbed, and soaps are found in the ehvle, as well as some fatty acids. Furthermore, it is shown that fats undergo still further emulsion after being absorbed while passing through the lacteals to enter the general circulation. Now, these soaps may be, and very likely are, the chief agents in accomplishing this. One of the arguments always advanced by the advocates of artificial butter is that it possesses better keeping qualities and does not become rancid, and is, therefore, more wholesome than rancid butter. Now, it is true that it does not set free but3'ric acid (as it contains no butyrine), which gives the ranciditv to butter, but, as it contains some cellular tissue (in our specimens considerable), it undergoes a different decomposition, which is liable to develop the septic material peculiar to dead animal matter, and which is often very poisonous to human beings. On the other 140 OLEOMA KG AEIISIE. hand, rancid butter is probably more readily digested than fresh and is not poisonous, the repugnan<'e to it being simply one of taste, as will be seen from the following, taken from Roberts b}^ Fothergill: "'The different behavior of two specimens of the same oil, one perfectly neutral and the other containing a little free fatty acid, is exceedingly striking. I have here before me two specimens of cod-liver oil; one of them is a line and pure pale oil, such as is usually dispensed, by the better class of chemists, the other is the brown oil sent out under the name of De Jongh. I put a few drops of each of those into two beakers, and pour on them some of this solution, which contains 2 per cent of bicarbonate of soda. The pale oil, you see, is not in the least emulsified; it rises to the top of the water in large, clear globules; the brown oil, on the contrary, yields at once a milky emulsion. The pale oil is a neutral oil, and yields no acid to water when agitated with it — in other words, it is quite free from rancidity — but the brown oil when treated in the same way causes the water with which it is shaken to red- den litmus paper. (" When the inhabitant of Arctic regions prefers his fat rancid, probably he is only following out what experience has taught him is good in his liberal consumption of fat.") The bearing of these observations on the digestion of fat is plain. When the contents of the stomach pass the pylorus, they encounter the bile and pancreatic juice, which are alkaline, from the presence in them of carbonate of soda, so that the fatty ingredients of the chyme, if they only contain a small admixture of free fatt}^ acids, are at once placed under favorable circum- stances for the production of an emulsion without the help of any solu- ble ferment, the mere agitation of the contents of the bowels by the peristaltic action being sufficient for the purpose.' (Roberts,) "Possibly some fats containing a large proportion of oleine emul- sionize more readily than others. But the whole subject is in its infancy so far as our acquaintance with it is concerned. "Cod-liver oil contains about l^V per cent of volatile fatty acid, some of which is butyric acid. This, together with its fluidity, accounts for its easy digestion and absorption. The following is what some of the standard authors say about the digestibility of butter and other fats: " ' Like other fats and oils it (lard) is difficult of digestion, and, there- fore, is sometimes used as a laxative for children, and for its protec- tive power in diarrhea, dysentery, etc. * * * It has been pro- posed as a substitute for cod-liver oil in the treatment of phthisis (con- sumption), but its indigestible nature unfits it for this purpose.' "' Apart, however, from the deficiency in flavor, it is doubtful whether ' ' butterine " (artificial butter) can be said to fully supply the place of l)utter as an article of diet. When the highly complex and peculiar character of the constitution of butter is considered, and that it is the fat derived from or natural to milk, which for a time at least is the principal food of the young, it is probable that butter per- forms some more specific office in the system than ordinar}^ fats.' "As before stated, fats consist of a fatty acid and oxide of lipyl. In the adult it is the pancreas which effects this separation into these approximate constituents. We all know that if this change does not occur the fat passes off unchanged by the bowels; and, as Bernard has shown, the expulsion of fat is one of the surest indications of dis- eased pancreas. In the infant, judging from the want of development OLEOMARGARINE. 141 of the salivary glands, the pancreas probably does not suffice to the complete performance of this function. ''It is here that we remark one of those wonderful adaptations of nature. First, in butter we have excess of a free fatty acid; there- fore rendering the assimilation of it possible without the assistance of the pancreas. "■ "Another way in which this emulsion of fat can be accomplished is by giving the patient, not fats, properly so called, but the fattv acids of which they are composed, and which are very readily absorbed into the system. The good effects of cod-liver oil are probably in some measure due to the excess of fatty acids present. So, also, those of butter; it is indeed a matter of popular observation that many children grow fat upon bread and butter. They appear to thrive on it when other means fail. This good effect can not be due simply to bread, for reasons before stated, but to the free acid, which is also in excess in butter. " 'It (butter) is the best known of all this class of substances (fats), but it is eaten in very different quantities, from the large cupful before breakfast, as drank by the Bedouins, near the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf, to the scarcely perceptible layer on the bread eaten by the needlewomen of London, and the supply is limited by pecuniary means rather than desire. It is also the form of separated fat which is less frequently disliked by consumptive people and invalids gen- erally, as was shown by me in an inquiry into the state of 1,000 patients at the Hospital for Consumption, Brompton.' "In answer to a letter of ours. Professor Stelle, of Philadelphia, says: '"If you care for my personal opinion, it is that fresh butter and fresh olive oil are the most digestible of fatty bodies; next to them comes lard, and, linall}^, tallow.' "Finally, it is a matter of common observation among phj^sicians that natural butter is taken b}^ invalids, especially consumptives, when other fats, even cod-liver oil, can not be tolerated. "It is important to know that the approval given to Mege's oleo- margarine as an article of food by the council of health of Paris in 1872, on the strength of the favorable report made by M. Felix Baudet (an abstract of which is given on page 30 of this report), was morally, at least, withdrawn in consequence of a report of an investi- gation made by a commission of the Academy of Medicine for the prefect of the Seine disapproving of the article for use except to a limited extent in cooking, on the ground of its comparative indi- gestibilit3\ It was never allowed to be sold in the public markets of Paris except under its own name. Its sale is now prohibited in the public markets. "The insolubility of those artificial butters made from animal fats is another potent quality for rendering them indigestible. In man the digestive process is carried on with greater rapidit}^ than in an}- of the lower animals, and the gastric juice acts upon food from the outside towards the center — that is, it does not soak the material and exert its solvent action upon the whole of it at the same time; consequently the greater amount of surface of food directly exposed, the more rapid its digestion. It is for this reason that it is so necessarv for man to carry out the process of mastication thoroughly. It is for this reason also 142 OLEOMARGARINE. that some people experience distress after eating eggs boiled just hard, but none after eating them soft boiled, or after being boiled for some time, when they become ' mealy.' The difference in the digestion of an egg is again felt when eaten raw without beating, and when it is beaten. The beating mixes the albumen with the air, rendering it porous. "The artificial butter made from animal fats, although the olein and palmitin are separated as much as possible by pressure, will not liquefy at the stomach temperature, as is demonstrated by the follow- ing experiments: We placed in an oven kept at a temperature of from 100 to 10-1° F. four beakers containing, respectively, pure butter, oleo- margarine butter, oleomargarine oil (commercial), and lard oil, about 20 drams of each, and which were all of the temperature of about 60° F. when taken. At the expiration of thirty-five minutes, and the tem- perature at 100°, the butter presented a clear, limpid appearance, but the others remained solid, being bvit very little affected; and at the end of five hours, the temperature being from 101 to 104° F. , they were in a semisolid condition, the oleomargarine oil being most soft- ened, the oleo butter next, and the lard the least softened. "These insoluble fats, then, must interfere with digestion in two ways — first, by not being acted upon themselves by the gastric juice, and, second, by being thoroughly mixed with the other foods in the mouth, they form an impervious covering to them, thereby preventing the gastric juice from coming in direct contact with them. "Randolph says that 'a further reason that the fats, especially when cooked with other foods, are frequently found to be unwholesome, is that in the process of cooking they so surround and saturate the tissues of the substance with which they are combined that it is rendered nearly inaccessible to the action of the saliva and gastric juice, and at times digestion is in so far delayed that the fried substance does not become entirely freed from this more or less impervious coating of fat until subjected to the action of the pancreatic juice.' "This retards digestion and prevents that increased flow of gastric juice which follows the absorption in the stomach of the first portion of food digested, as is shown to be the case by Heidenhains experiment, and also deprives the proteids of that aid in their digestion which fats are declared to render. "In experimenting with gastric festulse on different dogs, for example, we have found in one instance, like Dr. Beaumont, that the gastric juice was always entirelj^ absent in the intervals of digestion; the mucous membrane then presenting invariably either a neutral or slightly alkaline reaction. In this animal, which was a perfectly healthy one, the secretion could not be excited by any artificial means, such as glass rods, metallic catheters, and the like, but only by the natural stimulus of digested food. Tough and indigestible pieces of tendon introduced through the fistula, were expelled again in a few minutes, one after the other, without exciting the flow of a single drop of acid fluid, while pieces of fresh meat introduced in the same wa}^ produced at once an abundant supply. "After food has been changed by the act of digestion it is required to enter the current of blood before it can fulfill its office of nourish- ing the body. In order to do this it must pass through the walls of the alimentary canal, which passage constitutes the process of 'absorption.' "While absorption may take place through an}' part of the body containing blood and lymph vessels and not covered with a hard, OLEOMARGARINE. 143 thickened cuticle like the palms of the hand and the soles of the feet, yet the locality especially adapted to it is the upper part of the small intestine. Here the lining- membrane is thrown into numerous folds in order to increase the amount of surface, and covered with myriads of minute projections resembling the pile of velvet which are techni- cally called villi. Each little villus constitutes an absorbent gland. Its surface is covered with columnar epithelial cells containing pro- toplasm, ajid also little rod-like projections extending from their free extremities. "■These cells rest upon a basement membrane which contains mus- cular tissue so arranged as to aid in carrying along the solid particles of food on their passage to the lacteals and blood vessels. "This membrane incloses a framework of connective tissue, in which are contained the blood vessels and lacteals. The blood vessels are arranged in the. form of latticework around the lacteals, which latter contain no perceptible openings. Now, fat is the only element of food that is absorbed in the form of solid particles, at least to any extent, and therefore would seem to be the most difficult of absorption. This absorption of solid particles of fat has indeed always been a puzzle to physiologists. The peptones and sugar are almost wholly liquefied and can not be recognized by the microscope after entering the lacteals, but fat is seen after reaching the lacteals in a very minute state of division. On the principle of osmosis, it is easy to understand how liquid foods are absorbed. Some physiologists believe that the epithe- lium covering the villus is prolongated, so to speak, into the central lacteal vesicle and that the fat granules pass not through but between the epithelial cells along this prolongation of protoplasm, and so reach the lacteal. Others believe that they pass through the cell by being taken up b}" the protoplasm in the manner in which an amoeba takes its food, and passed on to the lacteals bj' this protoplasmic agent, being aided by contraction of the muscular element in the villus. The lat- ter theory is the most satisfactory, and probably the most modern. It is also believed that the layer of rods or pores projecting from the free surface of the epithelium has to do with the absorption of fats. Whichever theory is correct, it seems plain to us that the finer the par- ticles of fat the more readily will they be absorbed. Moreover, it is well known that an animal membrane moistened with water will not allow the passage of emulsionized fat, but when moistened with bile fat passes through it. From this fact it is quite probable that the soaps formed, as previously described, perform important work in con- nection with the absorption of fat. "Yeo says in reference to this : 'It has therefore been suggested that the epithelial cells of the mucous membrane are more or less moistened with bile, and the particles of fat in the emulsion are also coated with a film of bile or soap. Thus they are enabled to pass into the epithelial cells, in which they can be detected during digestion. The bile or soapy coating of the fat particles ma}" no doubt aid in their transit through the various obstacles on their way to the lacteal radicles. ' '""I know of but few actual experiments upon human beings as to the comparative absorptivity of butter and other fats, but it is fair to assume from the foregoing circumstances that butter is much more readil}^ absorbed than its sham congeners. Rubner ascertained that butter was much more readily absorbed than ham fat. Randolph says that cod-liver oil is absorbed with the greatest ease and to a greater 144 OLEOMARGAKINE. degree than any of the other fats, and that, on the other hand, the vege- table oils are the least readily absorbed. "A. Mayer experimented to determine whether natural or artificial butter was the easiest absorbed by the system. He took a man and a boy and fed them for three days on various mixtures of bread, milk, eggs, and vegetables, together with natural butter. Then followed two days' rest, they being fed on ordinary diet; after which for three days they were given precisely the same food as on the first three days, except artificial was substituted for natural butter. Each suc- cessive day of the experiment the solid evacuations were collected and analyzed, commencing twenty-four hours after the beginning of the experiment. The amount of fat in the excrements was estimated, which determined the amount of fat that had been absorbed. The following is the percentage of the amount absorbed: First day. Second day. Third day. MAN. 97 94.6 97.8 93.3 99.4 97.9 94.8 94.6 98.7 96.7 BOY. Natural butter 98.7 Artificial butter 97.6 "It will be seen, therefore, that the average was about 1.6 per cent less of the artificial absorbed than of the natural. The greatest difi'er- ence was 2. 5 per cent less of the artificial. The experimenter concludes that except in sickness this trifling diflcrence may be overlooked with safety. "Of course, these experiments were not carried on long enough to be of nuich value, but as far as they go they harmonize exactly with our idea of the diflerence in the absorption of these two articles. If this diflerence was manifest in three days, we would expect a very much greater diflerence in three months. "Magendie's experiments on dogs for the purpose of testing the efi'ect of feeding nothing but fat incidentally shows a striking difler- ence in the life-sustaining power between butter and lard. He used two dogs for the experiment. One he fed butter and the other lard. The first lived sixty-eight, the second fifty-six days; that is, the dog fed on butter lived twelve dnjs longer than the other, or one-fourth of the whole time which the other dog lived. "The liability of conveying disease germs into the human sj^stem through artificial butter is, in our opinion, greater than is supposed by those not familiar with the subject. In the first place, investigations are showing that many more diseases than was formerly supposed are communicable from animal to man. The following are some of those known to be such: Consumption, anthrax, trichinosis, tapeworm, glanders, foot-and-mouth disease, cowpox, hydrophobia, etc. Many more, as epidemic pleuro-pneumonia, smallpox of sheep, splenic apoplexy, braxy of sheep, typhus, etc., have, when the flesh of ani- mals suffering from them was eaten, produced serious sickness in human beings. "We would like to give the history of these diseases and also of the cases of the sickness resulting from consumption of the flesh of these OLEOMARGARINE. 145 diseased animals, for we think the effect would be to startle the popu- lace and to induce it to lend a heartier support to those public officers to whom has been assigned the duty of preventing unwholesome food being sold to it; but the want of time prevents. We must content our- selves with a brief reference to some points bearing directly upon the subject in hand. The manner in which trichinae can get into artificial butter can easily be seen from the following: When the animal takes a cyst containing a trichina into its stomach the cyst is dissolved by the gastric juice, which sets the trichina free, when it passes out of the stomach into the intestine, where it develops in from a week to ten days, and the female deposits her embryos — from 60 to 2,000 for each female trichina. The young trichinae then make their way through the connective tissue to the muscles. Trichinae are found in hogs, cattle, and sheep. Now, if those animals are killed during the migra- tory stage, the caul fat would doubtless contain the parasite. Dr. Bil- lings says he has frequently found encysted trichinae in the adipose tissue between muscular tissue of very fat hogs, but not in the fat lying upon the muscles. He states, however, that Professor Ta3^1or, of the Department of Agriculture at Washington, has seen in the journal of the Miscroscopical Association that they have been found in fat. Everyone is aware of the dangerous character of this disease. "A tapeworm is developed from a kind of germ called a cysticercus. These are of different varieties, and are found in the solid parts of hogs, cattle, and sheep. Animals infested with these germs are said to have the measles. A cysticercus is developed from the egg of a tapeworm. The fully matured tapeworm is developed in two separate stages, as follows: The eggs of the worm pass out of the body and are eaten by a man or another animal. They then find their way into the solid tissues of this animal, when they develop into cysticerci, and so remain until the cysticerci are again taken into the intestines of another animal or man, where they reach their full development as a tapeworm. Now, the heat applied to the fats employed in making artificial butter is not sufficient to destroy these germs, as most of them are treated at a temperature below 140° F. , as is seen from the abstracts. One patent for making a compound to substitute butter for cooking purposes requires a temperature of 190° to 200° F. One other for ' improve- ment in shortening for culinary uses ' uses a heat of 400° F. Six for purifying and bleaching tallow, lard, etc., heats to 140°, 160°, 200°, 200°, 200°, and 347° F., respectively. "Much interest is manifested at the present time in regard to germs and their destruction, and as is always the case with new subjects there is some difference of opinion in regard to the efficacy of different dis- infecting agents. The following will give some idea of the amount of heat required to kill disease germs: "Toussaint showed b}^ experiment that the tuberculous element was not confined to the diseased localities, but were diffused through all the tissues, and that the juice of the flesh of a consumptive animal had produced a disease in others after having been heated to 50° or 60° C. (122° to 140° F.), the temperature of roasting beef, and that when given in ver}- small doses. "Referring to these experiments, Bartley says: 'Considering the facts in this light, we ought to establish no degrees in tuberculosis; when it exists it renders the consumption of flesh dangerous.' "In reference to trichinai, some observers, as Valliu, state that a S. Rep. 2043 10 146 OLEOMAEGAEINE. temperature of 129 to 133° F. kills most of them, and that 110° F. is safe; but Collin found living trichinge in half a pound of steak that had been boiled for ten minutes, presenting a white appearance when cut, having no red points, and discovered trichinae in the intestines of a bird after having been fed upon it. "Pasteur asserts that an exposure for ten minutes to a temperature of 129.2° F. will kill anthrax rods, but spores resist prolonged boiling. The spores develop in the rods rapidly after the death of the animal, under proper conditions, and will remain active for years. They are not destroyed b}^ drying or putrefaction when exposed to oxygen (Maguire). "Klein also affirms that the anthrax spores will resist prolonged boiling. " Vantieghem is quoted by Magnin as saying that a temperature of 121° F. is fatal to most bacteria; but he has studied the bacillus that is able to multiply and form spores in a culture fluid at 165.2° F., but which cease to multiply at 171.5° F. Magnin also states as coming from Lebedeff that septic blood does not lose its virulence at the end of forty days, or by being heated to the boiling point (212° F.) for from three to twenty-four hours, and that the bacteria in it are capa- ble of multiplying after such exposure. "Arloing and Chauv^eau have found what they consider to be the bacillus causing gangrenous septicsemia. When fresh it is destroyed by a temperature of from 191 to 212° F. , but when dried it required 218° F. "The heat to be trusted for destroying pathogenic germs in practice will be seen from the following: "Dr. Van Bush, of Berlin, used a temperature of 149° to 167° F. for the destruction of puerperal-fever contagion. The late Dr. Elisha Harris, in 1859, emplo3"ed a temperature at and above 212° F. to dis- infect clothes of yellow-fever subjects. He quotes Dr. William Henry as saying that 'the infectious matter of cowpox is rendered inert by a temperature not below 140° F., from whence it is inferred that more active contagion is probably destructible at temperatures not exceed- ing 212° F.' ' ' Dr. Henry could not communicate typhus after exposing flannel shirts to 204° F. ; same with scarlet fever. He sa3^s : ' The experiments which we have related appear to be sufficiently numerous to prove that by exposure to a temperature not below 200° F. during at least one hour the contagious matter of scarlatina is rather dissipated or destroyed.' "The following circular, issued to the customs officers December 22, 1884, shows what temperature is considered safe by the Government: ' All circulars of the Department concerning the importation of old rags are modified as follows: No old rags, except afloat on or before Janu- ary 1, 1885, on vessels bound directly to the United States, shall be landed in the United States from any vessel, nor come into the United States by land, from any foreign country, except upon disinfection at the expense of the importers, as provided in this circular or may here- after be provided. " 'Either of the following processes will be considered a satisfactory method of disinfection of old rags, and will entitle them to entry and to be landed in the United States upon the usual permit of the local health officer, viz: OLEOMAKGAEINE. 147 " '1. Boiling in water for two hours under a pressure of 50 pounds per square inch. " '2. Boiling- in water for four hours with pressure. " ' 8. Subjection to the action of confined sulphurous-acid gas for six hours, burning 1^ or 3 pounds roll brimstone in each 1,000 cubic feet of space, with the rags well scattered upon racks. " ' 4, Disinfection in the bale by means of perforated screws or tubes through which sulphur dioxide or superheated steam at a temperature of not less than 330 degrees shall be forced under a pressure of four atmospheres for a period sufficient to insure thorough disinfection,' etc. "James A. Russell, in Quain's Dictionary of Medicine, says: 'It is extremely improbable that any contagium can withstand a temperature of 220° F. (104.5 C), maintained during two hours. When contagium is shielded by thick material into which heat penetrates slowly, the time necessary to reach the disinfection temperature may be long, and hence the necessity for spreading clothing and opening out bedding in special hot-air chambers, where the heat ought not to be less than 220° F. (104.5 C.) nor more than 250° F. (112.1 C.).' ' ' The following is an abstract from the report of the committee on disinfectants of the American Public Health Association: *■ The experi- mental evidence recorded in these reports seems to justify the following conclusions: The most useful agents for destruction of spore-contain- ing infectious materials are : " '1. Fire, complete destruction by burning. " '2. Steam under pressure, 230° F., for ten minutes. " '3. Boiling in water for one hour.' "For the destruction of infectious material which owes its infecting power to micro-organisms not containing spores, the committee recom- mended: 1. Fire, complete destruction by burning. 2. Boiling in water half an hour. 3. Dry heat, 230° F., for two hours,' etc. "It is alleged by the makers of artificial butter that the fats from animals dying from disease could not be used in making these articles, as they would 'stink' and taint the product, and the deodorization would not remove said stink, etc. This is false, for we have tasted and smelled of oil made from horses and dogs picked up in the streets of New York and Brooklyn, dead of disease, and it had no unpleasant taste or appearance; in fact, tastes as sweet as pure dried butter fat. And, too, the suspicion is growing stronger and stronger among those who are cognizant of the facts that those oils go into the artificial butters. Why should so much pains be taken to render a sweet, clear oil from dead horses and dogs^ This would be adding unnecessary expense if it was intended for lubricating purposes, and we do not hear of its being commonly used in soap making. "The following letter, in answer to one from us, will tell its own story: "Brooklyn, N. Y., January 18^ 1886. '' Dear Doctor: In reply to 3'ours of the 12th instant I would say that all I can say of the oil I showed in New York was that it was manufactured on Newtown Creek, b}" Mr. Henry Beran. Mr. Beran has the contract for the dead animals and offal of the city of Brookh^n. The oil in question was made from the comb fat (so called) of horses — that is, from the top part of the neck of horses — which were obtained (i 4 - 148 OLEOMARGARINE. from this city and tried out by the contractor. The horses were such as die in every city from both accident and disease. There were a large number of horses killed in Brooklyn last year that were suffer- ing with glanders. Whether an}^ of these horses helped to make up this oil I do not know; nor does Mr. Be ran. The specimen I had in New York was a very fine oil, and it shows that an oil can be made from dead horses which in taste and naked-ej^e appearances is as palat- able as the best 'oleo' oil. "Mr. Beran has told me that he is satisfied that some of his oil has been used for the manufacture of 'oleo' butter. He has always been very careful about telling me to whom he sells it, and he evidently thinks it is used for that purpose; in fact, he says he knows it has. I give this as his own statement, and for what it is worth. 1 could not prove it. From the odor, taste, etc. , of this oil I am of the opinion that it can be used to make 'oleomargarine,' and that its use for that purpose ought to be strongly condemned. I also hold that the use of lard tried out at a temperature below 130^^ F., should be prohibited. Hoping this will answer 3^our questions, I am. "Very sincerely, yours, "E. H. Bartlf.y, M. D. "It might be asked if natural butter was not exposed to the same contamination. We answer that it is not; for, in the first place, the fat of milk is doubtless manufactured in the gland by the metabolic action of the protoplasmic cells, and consequently would not be apt to contain disease germs even if the}^ were in the cow's system, unless the udder itself was diseased. Then, too, it is difficult to make good butter from a diseased cow; and but few farmers would risk their reputation by selling butter made from sick cattle. Furthermore, I am unable to find a single authentic instance where milk butter has produced any serious sickness, which, in consideration of the length of time it has been known, is significant. '"Dr. Alfred Hill, on account of assertions being made that the milk quickly became rancid and produced typhoid fever, and that the but- ter was very offensive which came from cows that had been partly fed on sewage grass, made a thorough examination of the milk and its but- ter which came from the Birmingham Sewage Farm, and found that the keeping and other qualities of the milk were not in the least infe- rior to ordinary milk. In regard to the butter, he says: 'In order to test the quality of the butter made from it, I requested the wife of the farm manager, who thoroughly understands butter making (although no butter is ordinarily made on the sewage farm), to make a churning for me, which she was kind enough to do. The resulting butter was excellent in quality and retained its sweetness and other properties as well as other fresh butter, although the weather at the time was exces- sively hot; so that the conditions of the experiment were as unfavora- ble as possible.' "When we look over the ingredients used in making artificial butter or preparing the fats and oils for the same, and find such powerful acids as sulphuric, nitric, benzoic, salicylic, etc., and such alkalies as caustic soda, bicarbonate of soda, carbonate of ammonia, saleratus, sal soda, etc., and such drugs as sugar of lead, alum, carbonate of potash, nitrate of soda, sulphate of soda, borax, niter, etc., and such easily decomposed material as slippery-elm bark, rennet, 3^olk of eggs, cow's udder, fresh vegetable pulps, etc., mixed with it, and after having OLEOMAEGARINE. 149 prepared this stuff according- to the specifications of certain patents, we can not repel the conviction that the greatest care must be exer- cised or they will contaminate the product. By referring to patent No. 263199, it will be seen that about 150 pounds of melted lard is thoroughly 'washed' — that is, mixed — with 60 gallons of ice water holding in solution 3 ounces of nitric acid (strong) and borax. The lard solidifies in this solution, and while solid is washed in 60 gallons of ice Avater. Every time this quantity of fat is washed in the acid water 1 ounce more of nitric acid is added, which shows that this amount of nitric acid is considered to be taken up by the lard. In the manu- facture of 'oleo' under this patent from 5 to 50 per cent of this deodorized lard is added to commercial oleomargarine oil. ' ' The whole is then subjected to a heat of 95° F. (which is not sufficient to melt it) and churned with milk or cream, sugar, and coloring mat- ter. It is then treated with ice water, which causes it to rapidly and completely solidify. After mixing thoroughl}^ and salting it is ready for market. ''It will be seen by this process that the fat, after being treated with nitric acid, is never again subjected to a thorough washing, and in view of the fact that fats possess the property of retaining free acids with remarkable tenacitj^, it isdifiicult to believe that the marketed product does not contain nitric acid. "The following is the conclusion of Nothnagel and Rossbach concern- ing the effect of small, greatly diluted doses of acids: " ' When acids are used for too long a time the appetite and digestion are finally injured and a series of pathological conditions result. "'It is readily supposable that the long-continued administration of diluted mineral acids to the living organism leads to the decomposition of the alkaline combinations with the weaker acids, e. g. , carbonic acid, or with the albuminoids, the stronger acids uniting with these alkalis and being excreted with the urine as mineral salts, so that not only the blood, but the whole body, would become poorer in alkalis and salts. '"Salkowski and Lasar proved directly that the alkalescence of the blood is diminished by the internal administration of dilute mineral acids.' "We now return to the question, is artificial butter a wholesome article of food 'i It seems to us, from the facts set forth in the fore- going pages, that there can be but one answer to this question. "We do not mean to say that every individual who eats artificial butter will sicken and die any more than every man who uses ardent spirits, tobacco, or narcotics to excess would do so, but what we do mean to say is that it, like them, possesses physiological properties 'unfavorable to health' and are very liable to possess ingredients very dangerous to health. Dyspepsia is a prevalent disease in this country and is not acquired in a day, for a strong stomach will stand much abuse before it will permanently rebel. "Several instances are on record where pennies and other metallic substances have been swallowed and digested; even jackknives have been swallowed and their bone handles completely digested, but no person would consider these healthy articles of diet. "Strong, vigorous men and those whose habits are invigorating to the digestive powers might substitute a food hard of digestion for an easy one for a long time with apparent impunity, but weaker men 150 OLEOMAEGAKINE. and those whose habits are sedentary and whose labors are mental, which tend to debilitate digestion, would soon be injured. "Fats as a whole are considered by medical men to be difficult of digestion; and to substitute those hard of digestion for one that is easy, and, too, for one which we believe is endowed by nature with properties that not only render it, per se, easily digested and assimi- lated, but which also render important aid in these processes to other fats, must eventually produce sickness. The little genuine butter added to these spurious articles helps as far as it goes, but the amount in most of them is Aery small indeed. "It is true we eat fats which, when raw, are more difficult of diges- tion than some of the artificial l)utters, but it must be borne in mind that the}' are eaten in conjunction with natural butter, and the cooking process to which they are subjected no doubt renders them much more easily digested. As is well known, 'drippings' are uuich easier digested than the fats from which they come. "That cooking renders fats nuich more easily emulsionized }\v arti- ficial means is demonstrated Ijy the following experiments: "We subjected a portion of oleomargarine butter placed in a frying pan to the heat of a (;ook stove, the same as would be emploj-ed to fry a piece of meat, for about five minutes. (Our thermometer registered 200° C, and the heat went above this somewhat.) "The fat was then poured ofl', and equal quantities of it and the same specimen of ' oleo ' uncooked were exposed to the action of arti- ficial digestive fluid, the two specimens being placed under exactly the same conditions. "At the end of four hours the microscope showed that the cooked 'oleo' was decidedly the Ijest emulsion — approaching in appearance natural butter uncooked under the same circumstances. It was intended to have artotypes to show this, but the experiments were not completed in time, and we would add here that we are carrying on various experiments with a view to demonstrating the differences between natural and artificial butters, which we hope to publish in our next annual report, "As the fusing point of the cooked and uncooked 'oleos' remained identical, the difference in the emulsions must have been due to chem- ical changes produced by the heat, as the separation of the fatty acids and glycerin, which again gives us a free fatty acid. "After pouring off' the cooked fat there remained in the frying pan a considerable quantity of scrap. ' ' Fothergill says : 'But heat does liquefy fat, and separates (we believe) olein from stearin and margarin. The liquid portions of fried bacon is digested by many who can not digest the solid portion of bacon fat. This is a well-known fact. ' "Furthermore, the great heat to which fats are subjected in frying is probably sufficient to set free considerable quantities of fatty acids, and also to cause partial breaking up of the whole fat. "The friends of the bogus butter ask us in a spirit of defiance to show any cases of sickness produced bj^ it. This is, in fact, a demand for a complete demonstration, and may be answered by stating that we have seen a great many cases of sickness, and much of it dyspepsia, during the period in which the bogus butter has been sold, for which we have been unable to assign a cause. This may have been artificial butter, but the deceptive manner in which it has been handled has OLEOMAKGARIlSrE. 151 prevented physicians from ascertaining its effects. Consequently we must judge by its qualities. "No person would gainsay that these articles, if they contained germs of disease or such materials as enumerated above, were unwholesome. We have pointed out the liability and great probability of their con- taining them, and many things have been publicly condemned on less liability to produce sickness; for instance, the water of Albany has been used by nearly 100,000 people for several years and no serious results can be shown, yet the conditions are present which render it liable to produce disease, and this circumstance has agitated the public mind to such an extent that some of the best medical and other men of the city have devoted themselves to finding a better supply, and they have linalh^ decided that it is expedient to obtain it from another source than the present, which will necessitate the expenditure of $4.50,000. " 'Bob veal' produces sickness in comparatively few cases, yet on account of its liability to produce disease its sale is prohibited. "Dr. Fox says, in connection with anthracic diseases, 'that large quantities of this meat have been eaten with apparently no injurious effects, but so many disastrous occurrences have followed its emploj'-- ment as to warrant the medical officer of health in condemning such meat.'" At 5 o'clock and 15 minutes p. m. the committee adjourned until to-morrow, Friday, January 4, 1901, at 10.30 o'clock a. m. Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, United States Senate, Friday, January ^, 1901. The committee met at 10.30 a. m. Present: Senators Proctor (chairman), Hansbrough, Foster, Money, and Heitfeld; also Hon. W. D. Hoard, ex-governor of Wisconsin and president of the National Dairy Union; C. Y. Knight, secretar}^ of the Nation Dairy Union; Hon. William M. Springer, of Springfield, III., representing the National Live Stock Association; Frank W. Til ling- hast, representing the Vermont Manufacturing Company, of Provi- dence, R. I.; Charles E. Schell, representing the Ohio Butterine Company,of Cincinnati, Ohio; Frank M. Matthewson, president of the Oakdale Manufacturing Company, of Providence, K. I. ; H. C. Adams, and others. The Chairman. The committee will come to order. I am informed that there are present two representatives of the dairy interests who are anxious to get away, and who desire to make brief statements to the committee before leaving. Mr. Matthewson. Mr. Chairman, I do not think there is any objec- tion on the part of the oleo people to the dairymen going ahead, if they are anxious to do so. The Chairman. There arc two of them, and they have said to me that they will not take more than fifteen minutes each. You may proceed, Mr. Hamilton. 152 OLEOMAEGARINE. STATEMENT OF JOHN HAMILTON, SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE OF PENNSYLVANIA. Mr. Hamilton. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I come here as the representative of the department of agriculture of the State of Pennsylvania, as well as a representative of the dairy union of our State. I want to say at the outset that Pennsylvania is in favor of this bill. The State Grange of our State, at its meeting in Lockhaven recently, passed resolutions favoring the Grout bill. The dairy union, at its meeting in Corry just a few weeks ago, passed strong resolutions indorsing the Grout bill. The people of the State gener- ally endorsed the Grout bill. The oleomargarine question was made a campaign issue in Pennsylvania; and if there can be an expression of opinion of the people, I think that Pennsylvania's vote shows that Pennsylvania, in all of her citizenship, is very much in favor of some law that will repress the sale of colored oleomargarine in our State. The governor, in his message which was given to the legislature only a day or so ago, makes use of the following language in discussing the oleomargarine question. It took about a column in the newspaper, and closes with this sentence: "I am much gratified at the prospects of the early passage in Con- gress of the Grout bill. If this bill becomes a law, it will greatly aid in the suppression of the oleomargarine traffic." In my preliminary report to the governor as secretary of agricul- ture only a week or so ago, I say: " The passage of the Grout bill b}^ the Congress of the United States, whereby a 10-cent tax is imposed on all colored oleomargarine manu- factured and the operations of the interstate-commerce law so sus- pended as to oleomargarine trade, will greatly aid the State dairy and fruit authorities in suppressing the oleo traffic." The State Alliance at its meeting also passed resolutions indorsing the Grout bill. The Republican platform of the State of Pennsylvania indorsed the suppression of the oleomargarine traffic or its regulation in our State. So we have practically the unanimous indorsement of the people of our State, irrespective of party, in favor of the passage of this bill. Perhaps I could just as well stop what I have to say here now, and not take the time of the committee, because this is as explicit a piece of expression as any that can be presented; and yet there are one or two other matters that I think the committee ought to have their atten- tion called to, inasmuch as, so far as I know, the points that 1 desire to discuss have not been fully presented. Before taking up the items that I wish particularly to discuss. I would like to refer to the argument of Judge Springer yesterday for the purpose of getting rid of some things that seem to cloud a little the bill itself. The Judge referred to the many State laws and the difficulties that were encountered by the several States in their efforts to suppress the oleomargarine traffic, or at least to regulate it within their borders; and those gentlemen of the committee who were here yesterday recall that most of the Judge's presentation was taken up in the discussion of these laws. Now, if I had been going to make an argument in favor of the passage of the Grout bill, instead of against it, I think I would have taken the very same document. If that argu- OLEOMARGARINE. 158 ment .showed anything- at all in the presentation of these various laws by the many States that have enacted them it shows this, that there is necessity for national legislation in order to simplify this work and make it eifective throughout the United States. I think that is the only conclusion that can be drawn from the argument as it was presented. There was also the constitutional question raised as to the power of Congress in certain respects. Of course, so far as the conflict with the Constitution is concerned by the passag-e of the Grout bill, this, I think, can be said: That there is nothing given back to the States that the}" did not surrender when the interstate-commerce law was enacted; and if Congress had the right to pass the interstate-commerce law, and it was ratified, it surely has the right to rescind the law wholly or any portion of it that Congress may see tit. I think that part of the argu- ment does not hold good. As to the authority to tax, that is unquestioned. Congress does it now in this oleomargarine matter, and it did it in a number of instances, and of course that has no force. So far as concerns the States taking advantage of this and levying a tax, that was one of the points that the judge seemed to be serious about and to which he asked the committee to give serious considera- tion — as to the States taking advantage of this law, in case it should pass, to enact revenue laws, the amount received from the tax on oleo- margarine to go for the general purposes of the expenses of the State. We all know that such a thing would be unconstitutional. There has been no instance of it in any of the States so far, and there is no State that I know of that expects to levy any tax or license upon oleomar- garine, the proceeds of which will be greater than simply enough to enforce the law. There was a case in North Carolina, I believe, on a somewhat different question, the taxing of fertilizers in that State, in which a sum was lirst used for the purpose of enforcing the law, and then later the surplus was used for other State purposes. The Supreme Court declared that that was unconstitutional and was in conflict with these sections that the judge quoted yesterday; but no one contem- plates doing this thing, and if anyone did do it it would be clearly unconstitutional, and that would be the end of it. No harm could come from it. I may sa}^ further, that if they suppose that the act is unconstitu- tional, then it seems to me that the judge's argument was upon the wrong side. If I had been holding that position and believed that it was unconstitutional, 1 certain I3" would not stand here and advocate its passage; and I can not quite see how the gentleman on the other side, believing it to be unconstitutional, could stand and resist its passage, because the passage of the act — knowing that it would be unconstitu- tional — would make it inoperative, and they would have secured the exact thing that the}' seem to desire. So I think the judge's argument went a little too far. There is another thing that was referred to, if you will permit me, and it seems to me that this was the most forcible presentation of our side of the question and in favor of the passage of this bill that has yet been presented. That is this fact, that 32 States of this great Union have passed laws regulating this traffic within their borders, and to say that these States do not understand what they are about; that the legislatures of all these States, acting independently and rep- 154 OLEOMARGAKINE. resenting their citizens and representing about two-thirds to three- fourths of the citizens of the United States, do not understand what they want, is so ridiculous that 1 can scarcely believe that anybody can present such an argument. The voice of the people in this country, if it is properly expressed, is the ruling power; and there is no stronger argument in favor of the passage of this bill than that very fact, that 32 States have for years been passing laws and amending laws with a view to regulating this traffic within their borders. Mr. Springer. Excuse me a moment. Will you explain why it is, then, that in the State of Illinois, where they have a law prohibiting the sale of colored oleomargarine, 18,000,000 pounds were sold within that State and 38,000,000 pounds were manufactured? Mr. Hamilton. I will answer you, if you will excuse me just a moment. Mr, Springer. Does it not show that the people are not in favor of these laws and will not enforce them? Mr. Hamilton. My time is very limited, and if the gentleman will make a note of things as I go along, when I get through I will be very glad to answer any questions that I may be able to answer. I will say in reply to the Judge that in some of these States the laws are defective. They are not sufficiently rigorous, and the legislatures have not been able in those particular States to pass laws that will restrict. The effort is to do it, but in many cases it has been so resisted by the interests in the State that they have not yet succeeded in pass- ing laws that the people desire. I reiterate that the effort of 32 States of this Union, representing, I believe you said, sir, about 60,000,000 people Mr. Springer. Sixty millions of people; yes. Mr. Hamilton. Sixty millions of people out of 76,000,000 — that the representatives of those 60,000,000 people do not know what they are about is inconceivable. Now, with regard to this bill. It is constitutional. That is clear to the committee. I will not argue that to the committee, because they know it already just as well as it is possible to know it. The bill is constitutional, and the discussion of the bill should be upon its merits. Is it a wise measure? Is it a proper measure? That is the point. Now, the real argument that is presented — and about the only argu- ment that is presented on the other side — so far as I know, is that the article is a healthful and proper article of food, and that it is equally nutritive and harmless with butter, and that therefore it should be permitted to go into the market and be sold colored as butter. I believe that is the argument that is presented, so far as 1 am able to understand, that they claim that it is equally nutritious with butter, that it is a substance that the public desires, and that it is equally digestible with butter, and that therefore it is a wrong to undertake to do anything that would limit its sale in this country. That is at least one proposition. Now, in reply to that they give the testimony of some of the most eminent chemists in the country. The testimony is guarded, it is true, but they put it in a somewhat unequivocal form. What does the analysis of oleomargarine and but- ter show as compared with each other? The first thing that can be said is that they are not identical. The analysis shows that while the amount of fat in the two is practically the same, yet the composition of these fats that go to make up what is called fat in a chemical sense OLEOMAEGARINE. 155 is entirely different in oleomargarine and in butter; that the amount, for instance, of butyric acid in the one is very much greater than in the other. The amount of butyric acid that they get is the amount that is secured from the milk that is churned with their product. The amount that is naturally in butter is a larger percentage, and just what effect this condiment has — and doubtless it acts as a condiment in some way; at all events, it gives a special flavor and aids in the digestion, it is believed — just what effect this condiment has we do not know, and physiologists do not know. It think it is agreed that it bears an important relation to the digestibility of this substance and of other substances in the human stomach, but just what its operation is is not known. The other thing which the chemical analysis discloses is that the amount of stearin in oleomargarine is much greater. Dr. Wiley says it is about five times as much as is found in butter. Senator Heitfeld. The amount of what? Mr. Hamilton. Stearine. Senator Heitfeld. Is that added ? Mr. Hamilton. Some of it is added and some is found in the oils out of which oleomargarine is produced. So that in those respects — and they are very important respects — these substances differ from each other in a chemical view. Now, so far as heat units are concerned— that is, the amount of energy-producing power that the two substances contain — that, our physiologists say, is about equal, so far as they can determine. Senator Heitfeld. Does any user of butter consume enough to give any particular energy to the body ? Mr. Hamilton. The energy is transmitted into heat and is measured in heat units. One unit, or calory, as they call it, which is a unit of energy, is regarded by these physiologists as equivalent to heat suffi- cient to raise water 4" F. ; so for every unit of energy there is heat enough to do that thing. Mr. Mathewson. How much water? Mr. Hamilton. A pound of water — 4° F. Mr. Mathewson. How much butter does it take to make a unit? Mr, Hamilton. The exact amount is given here. One gram of the ordinary butter fat is equal to about nine calories, which would be about 36° of heat; a little more than that. It would be pretty nearly 4:0"^ of heat. So that there is a great deal of energy-producing power in butter. But that was only incidental. The thing I started to say, gentlemen of the committee, was this, that in that respect these two substances seem to be on about the same basis. The analysis shows that they contain about the same amount of butter fat, and so their energy-producing power is equal. The fallacy of their argument comes in right there. They say that because these substances are equal, therefore they are equally nutri- tious and beneficial. That does not follow at all, and it is to that point that I want to call your attention just for a little to show that that is a mistake or at least that the unqualified assertion that these two are equally noninjurious to health is simply an assumption, and is not based upon any reliable ascertained data that has been continued for any length of time. We have very familiar examples of how things that are identical produce entirely different effects. I know a lady who for the last seven or eight years could not eat fresh bread or bread that had been 156 OLEOMAEGARINE. baked for a day or so. It produces violent illness, and it is simply out of the question, although it has been tried numerous times. She can not do that, but she can eat that very same bread taken and sliced into thin slices and put in an oven at a low temperature of heat; that is, a temperature too low to permit the change of starchy dextrine, which, of course would promote digestion, but a simple dr3nng out. That she can eat in any quantity to satisfy her hunger and with perfect comfort. A chemist will sa}^ that there is no difference between those two substances, in an analytical point of view, except the loss of water. There has been no chemical change, because the amount of heat sup- plied was not sufficient to bring about a chemical change. He will say that they are identical, and yet the effects that are produced upon the same system are altogether opposite. To assert that substances that are analyzed and shown in an analytical sense to be of similar composition in fact, but which vary in other minor matters that to us seem to be infinitesimal almost, j^et which have a very important effect upon the physiological organs and upon digestion, is to assert, as I say, something that is not based upon reliable information. So that it does not follow that because the things have the same amount of heat-producing power and nourishment-producing power therefore they are equally beneficial to health. I want to call attention to Professor Atwater's statement with regard to that, if you will permit me. The Chairman. These hearings, I may say, are sandwiched in ahead of the oleo people, and it was promised that they should be very short, about fifteen minutes each. You have occupied nearly twenty-five min- utes, but you have been interrupted somewhat and I do not want to cut you off". Mr. Hamilton. I will not refer, then, to these matters. I did want to refer to them in substantiation of the position I have taken. Senator Hansbrough. 1 suggest that 3^ou put the statements you desire in the record. Mr. Hamilton. I will do so. I desire to refer to the article on the "Digestibility of food," a statement by Prof. R. H. Chittenden, in Bulletin No. 21 of the Department of Agriculture, page 72, and also to a statement by Dr. W. 0. Atwater in the same bulletin, on page 53. The statement of Professor Chittenden is as follows: "As to the reasons for the differences of digestibility but compara- tively little is definitely known. There are, however, certain a priori considerations which help toward explaining them. For example, the digestibility of the proteids is discussed by Prof. R. H. Chittenden as follows: " 'If of two foods possessing a like composition one be more easily digestible, that one, though containing no more available nutriment than the other, is in virtue of its easier digestibility more valuable as a food stuff, and in one sense more nutritious, as well as more econom- ical for the system.'" Dr. Atwaters's statement is as follows: "The value of food for nutriment depends not only upon how much of nutrients it contains, but also upon how much of these the body can digest and use for its support. "The question of the digestibility of foods is very complex, and it is noticeable that the men who know most about the subject are generally OLEOMAEGAEINE. 157 1 the least ready to make definite and sweeping statements concerning it. One of the most celebrated physiologists of the time, an investigator in whose laboratory this particular subject has been studied more than in almost an}^ other, sa3's in his lectures that, aside from the chemistry of the process and the quantities of nutrients that may be digested from different foods, he is unable to aflirm much about it. The contrast between this and the positiveness with which many persons discourse about the digestibility of this or that kind of food is marked and has its moral. "One source of confusion is the fact that what people commonly call the digestibility of food includes several ver}^ different things, some of which, as the ease with which a given food material is digested, the time required for the process, the influence of different substances and conditions upon digestion, and the effects upon comfort and health, are so dependent upon individual peculiarities of different persons and so difficult of measurement as to make the laying down of hard and fast rules impossible. Why it is, for instance, that some persons are made seriously ill by so wholesome a material as milk, and others find that certain kinds of meat, of vegetables, or of sweetmeats 'do not agree with them,' neither chemists nor phvsiologists can exactly tell." Mr. Adams. May I ask you a question, Mr. Hamilton, before you close ? Mr. Hamilton. I am not closing yet. I want to make another statement, if the gentlemen will permit me. I feel, gentlemen, that this is an exceedingly important question. The Chairman. Go on, but be as brief as you can. Mr. Hamilton. With regard, therefore, to the question whether butter and oleomargarine are equally beneficial to health or noninju- rious to health, the fact is that we do not know about it; and when they say unequivocally that it is not injurious to health, or that it is equally beneficial with butter, they are talking in a rather loose way and are not supported by the best authorities in the country. Now, with regard to another matter, the question of public policy. Is it a proper measure ? If you will permit me to use for my illustration the State of Pennsylvania, with which I am familiar, and the condi- tions there, I think it will illustrate what I desire to present, and the application of it is wide enough to extend to, I think, almost all of the States of the Union. I have here a little statement that I made in my report. It is a discussion of this question, and I would like to read it: "Carefid examination should be made into the effect which this will have upon the dairy industry of the Commonwealth, which has now become one of the leading and most profitable branches of our agri- culture. If, upon examination, it is found that oleomargarine will to any considerable degree drive out the dairy interests from the markets of the Commonwealth, it would seem to be only wise public policy to first make sure that the industry that is to replace this branch of our agriculture shall do more for the Commonwealth in the way of sub- stantial and permanent support than the important occupation that it proposes to supplant. "The admitting of oleomargarine in competition with the dairy prod- ucts of the Slate endangers a great industiy that is now a part of our svstem of agriculture more widelv distributed than any other. We have now about 1,100,000 cows in Pennsylvania. Their product is 158 OLEOMARGARINE. about 90,000,000 to 100,000,000 pounds of butter per year, and accord- ing to the census of 1890 the milk product was 437,525,31:9 gallons. These cows are distributed among 211,112 farmers' families, consisting of over 1,000,000 persons, or about one-fifth of our entire population. The income of the farming people of Pennsj^lvania last year from butter alone amounted to between eighteen and twenty millions of dollars; and the milk product, at 8 cents per gallon, amounted to $35,000,000 more. This vast sum is a new product each year, adding this much to the actual wealth of the State, and is distributed all through the Commonwealth, going to the support of over 1,000,000 people, enabling them to maintain themselves in comparative comfort. The loss of such a sum as this by the agricultural people of the State would be a calamity, particularly because much of the material that is used in the feeding of these dairy cows would, if the industry were destroyed, be left on the farmers' hands valueless. "If the product of these animals were seriously threatened there would also be an immediate depreciation in the value of milch cows throughout the Commonwealth amounting to man}^ millions of dollars, and would iuAolve the partial or total loss of the stabling, creamery buildings, and machinery that are now in use in the prosecution of this industry. A large number of our people, also, would be thrown out of employment. Instead of men, women, and children on the farms having at all seasons occupations suited to their strength and attainments, there would be, in the cutting off of this line of work, comparative idleness during a considerable portion of the year. "The people of this State require about 200,000,000 pounds of but- ter annually to supply their needs. The business, therefore, is one that has room for growth, and the doubling of the products of milk and butter will double the income of the farming people — an increase of from fifty to sixty millions of dollars annually. "If oleomargarine were wholly substituted for butter in this State it would mean a direct loss on that article alone of from 130,000,000 to $40,000,000 per year, and the profits of the new industry, instead of being distributed among 1,000,000 of people, would be retained in the hands of a very few, rendering them inordinately rich at the expense of those whose industry they had destro^^ed. "It is true that in no event can oleomargarine entirely supplant butter production, but enough is known to make sure that this prod- uct, which can be made for about 7 cents per pound, will seriously injure the butter industry and efi'ectually prevent its development. It would be extremeh^ bad business policy to drive out a source of revenue and means of livelihood as important as the dairy industry for the sake of benefiting a few individuals belonging to the oleomar- garine trade; to take from 1,000,000 agricultural people the profits of their chief industry and give these profits to a select syndicate of cap- italists, that they may become enormously rich. "If this new industry required for its prosecution the employment of 2,000,000 people instead of the 1,000,000 at present needed by the dairies, one could see how it might be to the advantage of the State to substitute the new industry for the old, because of the increased num- ber of laborers that it would emplo}^; but when it proposes to do away with 1,000,000 laborers and su bstitute therefor a factory system employ- ing only a few workmen, the danger that will ensue becomes apparent to every thoughtful citizen. We need employment for more labor OLEOMARGARINE. * 159 instead of turning- men idle who are now employed. We need addi- tional markets for the rough products of our farms instead of closing up the ones we now have. Under modern conditions it is necessary to change farm articles of bulk into a more valuable and compact shape in order to ship them to distant markets. The butter industry does this, and has the additional advantage over every other product in that it at the same time removes almost no fertility from the farm." It is claimed that it is unjust to exclude from the Commonwealth an article of food that is not injurious to the public health, taking for granted that oleomargarine, as now manufactured, is not unwholesome as an article of food. The sale of oleomargarine as butter and in imitation of butter is a fraud, and it is also a menace to a great industry which comprises a large portion of our agricultural wealth. The Chairman. Mr. Wadsworth is here from the House and desires to address the committee. STATEMENT OF HON. J. W. WADSWORTH, OF NEW YORK. Mr. Wadsworth. Mr. Chairman, I saw a statement in the paper yesterday which puts the report of the minority of the Committee on Agriculture of the House in a rather dubious odor. That is, the con- tradiction of Mr. Adams that he ever stated to that committee that there was no need of beating around the bush; that the object of this second section of the bill was to drive the oleomargarine manufacturers out of business. Mr, Adams is right in the statement that there was no stenographer present at that time, owing to an oversight. The remark was taken down, however, by a member of that committee at the time, because its very boldness attracted the attention of the whole committee to it. Another contradiction made yesterday was by Mr. Knight, secretary of the National Dairymen's Union, that he never wrote that letter to the Virginia farmers. That letter, or a copy of it, is in the hands of a member of the committee, who has not returned from the West as yet. If it is considered of enough importance, the copy of the letter or the original will be produced. 1 say this simply to place the minority report of the committee in the proper light. Another matter, which is personal to myself — and I onl}^ call atten- tion to it because this man Knight has used it simply foi purposes of intimidation. He says that my majority in m}^ district was cut down over 2,000. That is a falsehood. My majorit}^ is the largest I have ever had there, except in 1896. Senator Heitfeld. I believe, Mr. Wadsworth, that was a mistake. He admitted that your majority was larger; he simph^ stated that you ran behind the ticket. Mr, Wadsworth, I did not; that is false also. I only desired to call attention to that because I believe it was stated for a political purpose. Mr. Adams. Mr, Chairman, this is a personal matter, and I hope Mr, Wadsworth will remain while I make another statement with ref- erence to the statement which I made before the Committee on Agri- culture, I did not make the statement which was reported in the report of the minority of that committee. I simply said there was no use in 160 OLEOMARGARINE. beating about the bush ; that it was the purpose of the friends of the Grout bill to enact that measure into law and stop the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine colored in imitation of yellow butter — neither more nor less. It ma_Y be that the gentlemen understood that I made a stronger statement than I did make; but it is an unfair thing to the representatives of the dairy interests of this country to put them in the false position of making an idiotic attack upon oleomargarine pure and simple under its own color and in its own form; and at no place will I permit any gentleman to quote me as having said something which I did not say and which is an injustice to myself and to the interests which I represent. Mr. Wadsworth. Mr. Chairman, that report was published last May. This is the first time it has been contradicted. We will drop it now, so far as I am concerned, except that I will simply say to Mr, Adams that it is a question of memory between the committee and him as to the words he used. Mr. Adams. Permit me to say further that, at the request of a mem- ber of Congress, when my attention was first called to the statement of the minority, I submitted a written statement of the facts, which he incorporated in his speech, and that was published in the Congressional Record. The Chairman. This committee is not trying the proceedings of the other House. Mr. Wadsworth. I wished it understood that I appear here simply to correct that matter, on the part of the minority of the committee. STATEMENT OF JOHN HAMILTON RESUMED. Mr. Hamilton. Mr, Chairman, I will finish in a moment, if you can indulge me. This article, oleomargarine, is a fraud on the public. I think that statement is corroborated by every dair\" and food commis- sioner that has to do with it in every State where laws exist regulating its sale. We have had a great deal of experience in Pennsylvania with this article, and a large amount of it is not branded, although it may be sold for butter. We have examined more than a thousand samples of it this year, and a large percentage of it is not branded so as to distinguish it from butter, and is sold as butter. Now, with regard to the Grout bill. My view, and the views of those whom 1 represent, is that the Gi'out bill will overcome our diffi- culties; that it will enable the dairy and food commissioners of the several States to enforce their laws better than they do at present; that this Grout bill is not a prohibitive law; that it is simply one that protects the dairy industry. It costs the farmers from 16 to 20 cents to make butter, according to the season of the year, and if this article can be sold down as low as 15 cents or 12 cents it makes it impossible for the dairymen of the State to compete with such an article. The purpose of the Grout bill, as I understand it, is simply to raise the price of oleomargarine up somewhere near the cost of producing butter, so that they may start in the market at equal prices. Then it is sold colored, and the butter is sold colored, and they will have a fair chance in the market, started equal; but if the one starts down at 10 cents or 9 cents and the other can not start until it reaches 16 or 18 cents, it does not take much of a prophet to know what the conclusion of the whole matter will be in the very near future — the destruction of the OLEOMAEGABINE. 161 dairy industry of this country. That can not be avoided. The price at which it must be sold is not excessive. It is not an excessive price. It simply brings it up to the necessary cost of good butter, so that the bill can not be attacked on the ground that it is an excessive tax and that it puts them at a disadvantage with the farming interests of the State. They start upon the same footing, and they are entitled then to the same privilege. I am very much obliged to the committee for their indulgence, and I am sorry to have transgressed upon the time of the gentleman who is to follow me. Mr. TiLLiNGHAST. Will the gentleman answer one question? Mr. Hamilton. Yes, sir. Mr. TiLLiNGHAST. How much oleomargarine do you estimate was sold in the State of Pennsylvania last year? Mr. Hamilton. I do not know anything about it. Mr. Adams. What percentage do you think is sold as and for butter? Mr. Hamilton. I should say 50 per cent, at least. Mr. Mathewson. If you do not know about one thing how do you know about the other ? Mr. Hamilton. I am talking about the percentage we collect. Mr. Adams. I would like to say, Mr. Chairman, that Mr. Blackburn, who will now address the committee, only asks for ten minutes. The Chairman. Very well. STATEMENT OF JOSEPH H. BLACKBURN, DAIRY AND FOOD COMMISSIONER OF OHIO. Mr. Blackburn. Mr. Chairman. I will endeavor to set an example to those who follow me by finishing my remarks within the allotted time. I have heard this question discussed so much technically, scien- tifically, therapeutically, and phj^siologically that I do not intend to give any consideration whatever to those phases of this question. I have been asked perhaps a dozen times since I have been in Washing- ton, ''Why don't you enforce your State laws?" I have been asked that perhaps a dozen times in my own State. We have a State law against the manufacture and sale of artificially colored oleomargarine. It is not limited to the coloring or semblance of butter, but any color- ing matter whatever is forbidden. I desire to say that I have been dairy and food commissioner of the State of Ohio for about four years. In that time I have spent nearly $200,000 of the State money, and of that amount I presume 60 per cent has l)een spent in oleomargarine prosecutions. The difiiculties to con- tend with in the State of Ohio may be very briefly stated. The prin- cipal sales of oleomargarine, as everybody knows, are in the large cities, where butter, in the winter time especially, is scarce and hard to get. It has been sold so long in the larger cities of Ohio — and I refer to the cities of Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati, Dayton, and Toledo as the larger cities in the State — that there is a certain clientele built up, many of whom want oleomargarine, man}' of whom are deceived into believing that they are buying andusingbutter ; but when a prosecution is brought there is so much sentiment there, oi- manufactured for the occasion through the manipulation of the public press and the carefully worded S. Kep. 2043 11 162 OLEOMAEGAEINE. reading notices and advertisements and through the personal solicita- tion and interference with the jurymen or those who are to be sum- moned as jurymen to try a case, that it is almost impossible to secure convictions in these large towns, or many of them. 1 will refer to one case that happened a short time ago in a smaller town in Ohio, the city of Portsmouth. The case was tried by a jury, as all our cases have been until this week. The law makes the sale of colored oleomargarine a misdemeanor, and we have always gone on the theory that these cases must be tried by a jur3^ We are working now under a new plan, and trying to do away with the jury because it increases the difficulties of securing conviction. In the case of a jury trial the State must have twelve men who are convinced that there has been a violation of the law, while the defendant only needs one to hang the jury; and, under a peculiarity of our jury law, a member of the jury is not paid unless the defendant is either acquitted or convicted, so that hung juries do not get their fees until the case is finally decided. In this case that I have reference to, in Portsmouth, the case was not tried ver}' hard — sometimes our cases are fought very bitterly and a great deal of feeling develops — but the very next day after that jury hung, or disagreed, two members of the jury went to work for grocers in that town. We have no proof that this was prearranged, but we hope to get some proof on that subject in the near future, and every- thing indicates, and everybody who has paid anj^ attention to the sub- ject believes, that that jury was corrupted. That is simply one instance. I could relate dozens of such cases. I will state that it has become a common practice in the larger cities — and I refer to Cincinnati and Dayton, where instances have lately occurred of the jury haviiig acquitted the defendant for having sold col- ored oleomargarine as oleomargarine; not as butter, but colored oleo- margarine — for the jury to be taken out and banqueted by the defendant and the defendant's attorneys. 1 will state further that I have been informed by one of the most prominent representatives of grocery inter- ests in the State of Ohio that they are encouraged to sell oleomargarine for butter. I asked him why and by whom. He said, '''Well, there is not nuich in the grocery business any more, and if we sell oleomarga- rine as oleomargarine we make about a cent or 2 cents a pound on it. If we sell it for butter, we make 8 or 10 cents a pound or more." I asked him who encouraged this. He said, "Well, when the manu- facturers' agents come around and give us a guai^ntee to protect us against all prosecution it is a pretty big temptation for a fellow to take chances." I said, "Are they in the habit of doing this?" He said, "They are." I understand it is a very common practice for manu- facturers, as an inducement to handle oleomargarine contrary to the laws of Ohio, not only to pay part or all of their license fees, their national license, but also to give them assurances and guarantees that under no circumstances will they permit them to be involved in any trouble on account of the activity of the dairy and food department; that they guarantee them against any loss whatever; that they will protect them and do protect them. Perhaps the largest oleo manufacturing concern in our State, the Capital City Dairy Company, of Columbus, provides a lawyer nearly all of whose time is taken up in defending retail dealers. They not only furnish a lawyer, but they furnish a stenographer to make and OLEOMARGAEINE. 163 keep a record of ever}- case. They furnish two or three agents, who usually appear on the ground when a trial is about to be had, a day or two in adv^ance, and secure all the information they can. I presume they usually have a list or copy of the venire — the jur3^men whom we propose to call upon. And in one instance recently, that is the Ports- mouth case, of which I spoke a while ao-o, which was tried the second time last week, the attorney for this Capital Cit}" Dairy Company in Portsmouth pulled a list out of his pocket that had the venire on it — all the members whom we expected to serve on that jury — and he had a chart made showing each gentleman's politics, his religion, his pre- dilections on these various questions, and especially with reference to the pure-food law, and so on — six or seven very important points. Now, that case was not half tried by the defendants, not half; yet the jury stood nine to three for acquittal. Senator Foster. Have they ever had anv convictions in the State of Ohio^ Mr. Blackburn. Yes; a few. 1 should say that when cases are tried by a jury we secure about 25 or 30 per cent of convictions, and those are usually in the smaller towns or some place where the sentiment is in favor of butter and opposed to oleomargarine. Mr. TiLLiNGHAST. Were those indictments you speak of indictments for the sale of oleomargarine as oleomargarine or for the sale of oleo- margarine as butter? Mr. Blackburn. Our law is a little different from most of the State laws. We do not have indictments. Mr. TiLLiNGHAST. The complaint, or whatever it was. Mr. Blackburn. It is a charge made in the justice of the peace court. These cases that I have mentioned have been for the sale of oleomargarine as oleomargarine artificially colored contrary to law. Senator ^Foster. Do these same people defend the cases where they are tried for selling oleomargarine for butter? Mr. Blackburn. My impression is that they defend every case, but I can not recall now one particular instance of that kind. Mr. TiLLiNGHAST. Do you remember making any prosecutions where the complaint was that oleomargarine was sold for butter under your State law? Mr. Blackburn. 1 remember of having made a number of such prosecutions, and according to my recollection — I will not be positive on that point — they were all defended by the manufacturers or their agents. Mr. TiLLiNGHAST. What was the result of those prosecutions, so far as you remember? Mr. Blackburn. The majority of them resulted in convictions — the large majorit^^ Mr. Adams. I would like to ask you what percentage of oleomar- garine, in your judgment, in the State of Ohio is sold for butter at retail stores, or finally sold upon the tables of hotels, restaurants, and boarding houses, as well as to the ordinary consumer? Mr. Blackburn. I would have to guess at that, Mr. Adams. My judgment would be 75 per cent of it. I might state that the three lead- ing hotels in the city of Columbus — the Chittendon, the Neale House, and the Southern Hotel — are now and have been for months back using oleomargarine on their tables in defiance of law. 164 OLEOMAEGAKINE. Mr. TiLLiNGHAST. They know what they are using? Mr. Blackburn. Certainly; the manager knows, but does the guest who pays 1|5 a day for entertainment know? Mr. Springer. They must have good oleomargarine when they deceive the guests of a $5 a day hotel. Mr. Blackburn. It is good oleomargarine. I have no feeling against their goods at all. That only illustrates the necessity for this kind of legislation. I have studied this matter for four years. I went into it abso- lutely without bias or prejudice. I do not now, and never did, own a nickel's worth of interest in any dairy farm nor in any cow, nor am I interested the other way in anything that goes into oleomargarine, directly or indirectly. I have studied the matter for four years, and it is ni}' earnest conviction that it will require national legislation of a very radical character to stamp the fraud out of the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine, and I refer especially to the sale of oleomar- garine, because the manufacturer produces oleomargarine as oleomar- garine, and usually sells it to the jobber and agent and dealer for precisely what it is. There is ver}^ little deception practiced at that stage of the game. STATEMENT OF FRANCIS W. LESTRADE, OF NEW YORK CITY. Mr. Lestrade. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the connnittee, I wish to state on the outstart that it is seldom I am called upon to speak in public. The Chairman. You are interested in the manufacture, are you, or are you acting as counsel ? Mr. Lestrade. No; I was about to say that I am nothing more than a practical everyday butter man. I have been in business for twenty years, and what I say before you is entirely from a practical stand- point, not a theoretical standpoint, and not from any scientitic point of view, but from what has come under my observation as a butter man ever since I was a boy. I am a member of the hrm of Lestrade Brothers, New York City. I am an owner of and interested in dairy farms, both in the West and in the East. I am also interested in cows. I am also interested in three different creameries. I am also, and this is our chief business in the city, an exporter, a packer of butter and cheese to the hot countries as well as to the Continent, but mostly to the hot countries. Our business extends over all the hot countries — that is, the tropical climates, consisting of the West Indies, the East Indies, South Africa, China, South America, and even nowinco the Philippine Islands. So what I have to say is entirely in my own interest, and more par- ticularly as an exporter of the genuine butter that goes out of this country to foreign climates. In the few opening remarks that 1 have to make I may go over some ground with which you are all more or less acquainted. I desire to state to you — maybe some of you do not know the fact — that in this country of ours there are, we will say, four classes of butter. The first is the packing stock, or the original dairy butter. That is the commonest butter that comes before us, as butter men. It is made by the innumerable farms throughout the great West. We get very little OLEOMARGAEINE. 165 of it from the Eastern States; they make little chunks of butter in their barnyards, in their barns, on the side stoops of their houses. I mean the farmers who have one, two, three, four, five, a dozen, or fifty cows. They bring these little chunks to the country store where they trade, and this butter is put before the grocer or the provision man, and in return he gives them calicoes and groceries of different kinds. I have a man stationed in the West — yes, two of them in different parts of the West, and they bu}^ up this class of butter. Originally, up to within four or five years, the price ran from 6 to 10 cents a pound. Ten cents was the highest price. My men will go around and gather in all this roll butter in little pats of all colors and descrip- tions, wrapped in swaddling clothes and old towels and sheets and everything else, and they are packed down into tierces holding 300 to 400 pounds. They are brought to a central point and then shipped by the carload to me at New York City, or else I store the goods in Chicago or in the West until I need them for my manipulation in col- oring the butter and resalting it and sending it — most of it — to the hot countries. The second class of butter that is made in this countr}' is ladles. Ladles is made from this same class of butter I spoke of a moment ago. The ladlers send out, as I do, their men from Chicago and from other large places in the West, and they gather in this same butter as I do and take it to their creameries — so-called creameries. That is, they make ladles out of this butter, but they do not use cream if they manipulate it. It is done with milk, but as a rule it is merely manip- ulated with a little salt and a little water and recolored and put up into 60-pound tubs, and there you have what is called the ladle butter. By a little further process and a little more working you have what is conmionly termed imitation creamery. That is a little higher order of ladle butter, and that is brought on to this market and sold. The next that comes is the creamery butter. That is, as we all know, made out of the very best cream, as a rule, or we try to make it out of the best cream; and it is put before those who can pa}^ the price in the East and in the West, There is a new butter that has come on the stage — what is called renovated or process butter. I may later on refer to that again. Right here 1 would like to say that up to within ten or possibly twelve years ago I was preaching and talking and threatening my dif- ferent men throughout the country, telling them that their butter was poor, that we had to contend with the foreign butter, and that the for- eigners were making better butter than we were in this country; that it was hard work for us to compete in the hot countries and throughout the foreign countries with the Danish butter, with the French butter, with the Italian butter, with the Irish butter; that our butter was poor; that it would not keep, and that we must do something; that they must bring things up to a higher level; that they must take more pains with their butter. I sent them samples of the JDanish butter. I sent them samples of the French butter. We experimented. I went at that time, at considerable cost, among the different creameries and put in ray own money to endeavor to raise the standard of our butter; but, gen- tlemen, let me tell you as a butter man, as a man whose bread and but- ter — I mean that earnestly — is entirely in the product of butter, I tell you honestly that when the new product oleomargarine came on this market some ten or twelve years ago, I saw it and examined it, and I 166 OLEOMAEGAEINE. said, ' ' Thank God for oleomargarine, " Wh}^ ? Said I, ' ' That is going to bring up butter to a higher grade." Why, in the old days of twelve or fifteen years ago, when the ladle butter came into our markets, we called it bull butter. Invariably it was mushy, invariably it was soft, invariably almost it was in lumps, in different colors, in globules, sway- ing and straying like a fluid; and I bought samples of oleomargarine and sent it to our men and said: ""Gentlemen, unless you can make your butter similar to oleomargarine, butter in this country is dead." Why, it opened their eyes; and then, by George, when I sent them butterine, I believe they called it, with creamery butter generally put into it, that smelt like a summer rose compared to our creameries, and said: "Unless you can make your creameries similar to that you might as well go out of business, and give it up to this new product that has come in," it was the means, which every butter man knows, of revolu- tionizing butter. Mr. Adams. Oh, no; we do not know that. Mr. Lestrade. I know it from a practical standpoint. You may be a practical man — but I know it. I have been there all my life. This is a matter of bread and butter to me. The Chairman. Speak to the committee, please, Mr. Lestrade. Mr. Lestrade. I am particularly interested in butter, Mr. Chair- man. From that time gradually everything changed. We began to bring in a better grade of ladles. We began to bring in a better grade of imitation creamery. We began to bring in a better grade of cream- eries, until to-day we have arrived at almost a stage of perfection as far as creameries are concerned. Senator Heitfeld, What do they do now with that butter that you used to gather up in Kansas and Nebraska ? How do they handle it or pack it now ? Mr, Lestrade, I will answer that now immediately,^ For some time it was a question, of course, in our minds as to whether oleomar- garine was not going to knock things sideways as far as the butter interests of this country were concerned. We watched it very closely; and of ccirse, naturally, being a practical man in the business I watched it, and I found that our dairy interests were growing very rapidly and that we were increasing in the quality of our goods year by year, I found, and I still find to-day, that, as the gentleman who first spoke here very wisely remarked, the butter industries of Penn- sylvania are growing and widening and more creameries are going up through that great State, That is true. Instead of oleomargarine being a detriment to butter, it has, as an absolute fact, been a great benefit to all butter men. It has not, as a matter of fact, lowered the price of butter. It has not taken awav the profit, as, from a theoret- ical standpoint, a great many of these gentlemen will tell you, I know difierently, and I can pr®ve it and show it to you. Ten or twelve years ago this packing stock that I spoke of we could buy at from 7 to 10 cents a pound during the spring months. New but- ter comes in May. and we get this butter in the months of May, June, July, and August; very little, however, in August, The lowest price of i)utter during the year is in the latter part of May, in June, and sometimes in July, Year by year I found, as a large consumer of this cheap article, that I was obliged to pay more money for it. This was due merely to the natural laws governing a country like ours and the growth of it. But the demand for butter outgrew the industry. OLEOMARGARINE. 107 and I will merely state that for the last two years the price has gradu- ally gone up from S or lo cents a pound until a year ago I put that same butter away at 13 to 11 cents a pound. This spring I put it away at from 11 to 16 cents a pound. We are obliged to put large quantities of it away for our fall and winter use, for it does not come in ((uantities at that time of the year, so we are obliged to buy it in the flood in the spring. Mr. TiLLTXGHAST. Will 3'ou permit a question ? Mr. Lestrade. Yes, sir. Mr. TiLLiNGHAST. How does the quality of that article compare now with what it was ten or twelve years ago ^ Mr. Lestrade. It is all made of dairy butter. Understand, it is not ladle butter. It is not manufactured by machinery or anything like that. It is made l\v the wi\es and daughters of the farmers. Conse- quently it is a hard, solid A 1 piece of cheap butter, made with all the bac- teria and all the parasites and everything else all shoved in and l:)rought to us, and we manipulate it and wash it and put it on the market. Mr. Flanders. How long have they been making this ladle butter — gathering this Western butter and making it^ Mr. Lestrade. Since I have been in the business. Mr. Flanders. When they lirst began there was a great quantity of it, was there not? It was a drug on the market? Mr. Lestrade. A what? Mr. Flanders. A drug on the market. Mr. Lestrade. Not necessarily, unless it was utterh" unfit for use. Mr. Flanders. This butter that is brought in by the Western farm- ers and gathered up by the stores is sent to central stations just as fast as it is produced, is it not? Mr. Lestrade. Well, the rolls are. Mr. Flanders. Would not that account for the increase in price? When 3'ou tirst began to gather up this butter there was no market for it, was there? It was an experiment, was it not? Mr. Lestrade. No; it was no experiment. It was an everyday business. Mr. Flanders. The reason 1 asked this question was that your tes- timony, so far as it goes, is contrary to all I have ever heard on the subject, and I have given it a great deal of study. I know of your firm. Are you not an exporter? Mr. Lestrade. Yes. Mr. Flanders. Do you agree with Bardon Brothers on this propo- sition ? Mr. Lestrade. I believe I do. Mr. Flanders. Do you sell to the home trade? Mr. Lestrade. No. Mr. Flanders. It is simply a question of money in the foreign market, is it not? Mr. Lestrade. Entirely as an exporter I am now talking. Mr. Flanders. Do you observe the laws of your State on this subject? Mr. Lestrade. How do you mean do 1 observe them? Mr. Flanders. Do you obey them ? The Chairman. That is hardly a fair question. Mr. Lestrade. 1 do not know what you mean. Mr. Flanders. The point I would like to make, if tiie conmiittee 168 OLEOMARGARINE. will permit me, is that this butter originally, when they conceived the idea of gathering- it up from the farmers or the stores, had never been used. When they found they could use it, they began to gather it up, and there came a demand for it, and they gathered it as fast as it was brought, and that raised the price. Mr. Lestrade. This gentleman may possibly be correct about that, Mr. Chairman, thirty years ago, but I am not going as far back as that — thirty or forty years ago, when there were pioneers in the West — but it is not correct since twenty -five years ago; and a quarter of a century is pretty far back to go. I will say also that I do sell the home trade in creameries. I am interested in two or three creameries, and I was about to go on to the creamery question. The same thing applies in regard to the cheapness of creameries. The poor creameries that were coming East up to the time that oleomargarine dawned upon the United States were some- thing abominable. There was hardly such a thing as knowing what your next shipment would be. You would get a fine piece of butter in to-day, and from the same creamery next week you would get a poor piece of butter. I state as a fact that oleomargarine did for butter all I have stated. The time came when my export trade and the demand for creameries was so great from this country, on account of our being able to start a little bit of a process of our own, an imitation of the Danish process, that I found I had to make some arrangement with some creamery in this country to make my butter, I went to two or three of the best creameries in New York State and they were unable or unwilling to make the high grade of butter that I wished for. I went West and the same thing happened. I was then obliged to go in and put myself in a position to make this butter, and the consequence is that to-day — and there is no egotism on my part, because the proof of the pudding is in the eating of it — we are sending now butter in competition with the well-known world-renowned Danish butter. We are sending it all over South America, all over the West Indies, down in China, and down in South Africa, but we could not do it until we put up and became inter- ested in our own creameries. Even to-day the creameries of this coun- try are not making the butter they should make. Now, another thing right here in regard to the creamery question, and I am endeavoring to lead up to a point here, gentlemen of the committee, which I trust I will be able to make clear to you. Another thing that is detrimental is that the wonderful mechanism and discoveries that we have made in regard to centrifugal force and the different machinery used in making butter is really a detriment to butter for this reason: That to-day the dairyman, the creamery man, wants to turn his butter out in fifteen minutes, and from the cow he wants to give you a piece of butter on your plate twelve or fifteen or twenty minutes after you have seen the milk taken from the cow. That is all they are aiming at. I heard one of my neighbors say that he thought he would soon be able, with the discoveries that were being made and the new processes tnat were being used, to milk his cow and put butter into the market the next day. I do not believe it needs a very brilliant mind to know that butter of that character will not stand up. The Chairman. What is the Danish process you have been speak- ing of ? OLEOMARGARINE. 169 Mr. Lestrade. The Danish process, without going into too much detail — there may be other butter men here and they might catch on — is a slow process. It is an old-fashioned process of making butter, really. The Chairman. Do they make the butter with the hands or machine ? Mr. Lestrade. With crude machinery, in almost the same way you would make it by churning with your hand. The Chairman. That is, they let the milk turn ? Mr. Lestrade. Yes. The Chairivian. Is there nothing about it except more care? Mr. Lestrade. More care and knowing how to work it, really. What we aimed at was to get the consistency of body so that it would keep, so that we can guarantee to the United States Government when making purchases, which we are obliged to do, that the butter will keep a year without going into liquid form, without going into oil or without getting strong. I do not dare to take the butter from any creamery into this country and put it into my stock with the idea that it will keep like that. So the old-fashioned wa}% after all, is best. You and you and you used to buy your butter and keep it all winter, and it kept all winter; but to-day you take one of our fresh creameries and you keep it a week and it will go strong. However, that we con- sider is in the long line of progress and promotion, and getting toward the perfection of butter. In one sense it is and in another sense it is not. Senator Hansbrough. You were obliged to compete with this Danish process, were you not? Mr. Lestrade. Yes, sir. Senator Hansbrough. You were obliged to make butter in the same fashion, on the same plan, in order to compete with them? Mr. Lestrade. Yes, sir. Senator Hansbrough. That brought your butter up to a higher standard ? Mr. Lestrade. Up to a higher standard. Senator Hansbrough. That it was not altogether oleomargarine that brought the standard up ? Mr. Lestrade. The point with oleomargarine was that for years I was bothered to get these men interested to make better butter. They would not do it. I would show them this butter. I would show them the necessity for making better butter, but their butter sold for a figure, and consequently the}^ were satisfied; but when oleomargarine came in — I do not know whether some of these gentlemen represent- ingthese different States were interested in butter then; 1 do not know that they are interested in butter now — but it created a tremendous furore in the West, and every butter man knows positively beyond question that oleomargarine had more to do with raising butter and bringing up to a better condition and a better quality than all the lec- tures and all the talks and appeals that we could give them bv letter or otherwise. That is known. Mr. Adams. If the gentleman will permit me — I do not want to bother him with interruptions — he makes his statement too sweeping. We have no objection to the statement of your belief, but some of us who have been interested for many 3'ears in the butter interest do not agree with you; so you should not say ail. Mr. Lestrade. I am perfectly willing to answer every question put 170 OLEOMARGARINE. to me, and if I am not able to back it up l)y facts and figures, I am willing to apologize and withdraw m}- remarks. Up to the present time I am not. The Chairman. I was in the Isle of Jersey and in Denmark a few years ago, and 1 noticed that the Jersey cattle have mostly gone to Denmark. Mr. Lestrade. That is very true in one sense. The Chairman. The Jersey farms seem to have sold all of their best cattle to Denmark. Senator Money. Mr. Chairman, it seem to me we ought to have some rule about the time these gentlemen are to be allowed to speak. If their time is to be limited, I think interruptions are unfair. Senator Heitfeld. It will perhaps take Mr. Lestrade soidc time to rearrange his notes. It is now 5 minute.'? to 12, and we might as well take at recess at this time. The Chairman. Can you tell us anything about how much more time you want for the oleomargarine peopled Mr. Potter. There are a number of gentlemen who want to be heard to-morrow, and several cotton-seed oil representatives will be here Sunday. They would also like to be heard. The Chairman. Yes; I promised to hear them Monday. You will want all the time to-day and to-morrow, will you? Mr. Potter. Yes, sir; and perhaps Monday and Tuesday. The Chairman. Leaving out the cotton-seed oil people, 1 have promised Senator Penrose that some butter friends of his miglit be heard to-morrow for a little time, but I will tr}^ and not let it inter- fere with you very much. Mr. Potter. We have some gentlemen here who are anxious to be heard on lines that have not been'taken up before. Senator Hansbrough. Who, in behalf of the Grout bill, desire yet to be heard? Mr. Knight, you can tell us. Mr. Knight. Mr. Adams. I think, can give you the information. He and Governor Hoard, I think, arranged that this morning. The Chairman. That had better be postponed just as far as possi- ble, without too great inconvenience, until the oleomargarine people have finished. Senator Hansbrough. I am trying, Mr. Chairman, to get at the length of time we are to be employed here, because there are members of this committee who have other things to do. Mr. Adams. I can state, Mr. Chairman, with your permission, that so far as the friends of the Grout bill are concerned, I think if all our representatives were here we could close our part of this testimony in three hours. Governor Hoard and myself will remain here during this week. The Chairman. We will take a recess now until half past 2 o'clock. The committee, at 11.45 a. m., took a recess until 2.30 o'clock p. m. At the expiration of the recess the committee resumed its session. Present: Senators Hansbrough (actiny- chairman), Foster, and Heit- feld. ^ V - The Acting Chairman. You may proceed, Mr. Lestrade. How much further time do you desire ? Mr. Lestrade. About half an hour, I should think. OLEOMARGARINE. I7l STATEMENT OF FEANCIS W. LESTRADE— Resumed. Mr. Lestrade. The question may arise in jour minds, gentlemen, why am 1 opposed to this bill, as all my interests — m}- money, what little 1 haye, or the greater part of it — are in butter. It is merely this: That, as I haye stated, oleomargarine has been a friend to butter — has made us dairymen, farmers, creamery men, make better butter. The second reason is that the dairymen throughout the United States are getting a good profit on their l^utter. We are making money. My creameries are making money. 1 do not know of any creameries that are not making money. We are making from 10 to 50 per cent. Legitimately we are making from 10 to 20 per cent; speculatiyely we are making a great deal more. Mr. Hoard. Will you allow me to ask you a question ? Mr. Lestrade. Yes, sir. Mr. Hoard. Are you a creamery man;' Mr. Lestrade. Yes, sir; that is, I am interested in creameries; I am interested in three of them. Mr. Hoard. You say you are making from 10 to 50 per cent? Mr. Lestrade. I said from 10 to 20 per cent legitimately, and we do make as high as 50 per cent at times. Mr. Hoard. Do you mean as the owner of a creamery? Mr. Lestrade. No, sir; in selling our butter. 1 will giye you an illustration in a yerj' few minutes. As I stated this morning, the prices of butter are gradually adyancing in this country. The output is larger eyery year, as I presume you know from statistics, yet the price is gradually going up each spring when new butter comes in. A few years ago, as I stated, we could buy this packing stock, this original stock which I described, at all the way from 6 to 9 and 10 cents. At times it would run as low as 3 cents a pound. I bought thousands and thousands of pounds of it within ten or twelye years at 3 to 4 cents a pound. The markets were flooded with it. Latterly, on account of the general prosperity of the country and the increase of inhabitants, it has maintained its position, until in the year 1898, I think it was — a 3'ear ago last spring — prices went to 13, 13^, and 14 cents. This year it went as high as 15 to 16 cents — that is, when the new butter came in. That is supposed to be the lowest price of the 3"ear, and there has been an adyance of -1 to 6 cents a pound oyer pre- yious years. This is in the face of increase of oleomargarine also throughout the country, and in the face of the howl that is set up by those Avho realh' do not study the true condition of the dairy interests. If I remember rightly, in the j^ear 1898 or 1899 the output of oleo was from 8(.),O00,000 to 100,000,000 pounds. Mr. Clark. It was 107.000,000 pounds last year. Mr. Lestrade. It was about 91,000.000 pounds in 1898. Notwith- standing that, the cheapest kind of butter, that we used to buy at 9 to 10 cents a pound started in this year on a basis of 13 and 14 cents a pound, and I put away thousands of pounds at 15 cents. Mr. Hoard. What do you mean })y saying you put it away? Mr. Lestrade. We are obliged to put it away for use in the winter, for we can not get it in the f;dl and in the winter. It is not made throughout the West. Mr. Hoard. How do you put it away ^ 172 OLEOMARGARINE. ^Ir. Lestuadk. Cold stonio'o. Creamery sturtcd in on a basis of 17 and 18 cents. I am speaking of 1898, a year ago last s[)ring. That is when the new creamery butter begins. They begin to come in the last of May, and during June and July. The market started at IH^ to 17 cents. Even that leaves a profit to us creamery men. The market gradually rose from IH.V and crept up. It kept quiet during the month of July, and then the export men started in again. Then we gradually raised the price of our held creameries — I nu>an our June goods that were put in cold storage — and some of us sold out as high as 28 and 30 cents. That is where the illegitimate profits come in. Mr. Hoard. You are not a patron to creameries ? Mr. Lestuade. I am a part owner of three creameries. Mr. HoAUD. You are not a man who supplies milk to the creameries? Mr. Lestkade. No. Mr. Hoard. You are not speaking of the cost of butter to the farmer, are you '( Mr. Lestrade. No; the cost of butter to the creamery man, to the patrons, to the farmers who own the creameries. Mr. Hoard. Not to the patrons^ The patrons are the farm(>rs who supply the milk? Mr. Lestrade. Yes; and they are also interested in creameries, as I am. Mr. Hoard. No; only very few of them. Mr. Lestrade. They ought to be, then. They are not looking after their own interests if they are not. Every farmer ought to be inter- ested in a creamery. INIr. Hoard, ^^'e haA'e 80 patrons in 10 creameries and not a man of them owns a dollar in them. Mr. Lestrade. Then it is a monopoly. Mr. Hoard. You may call it what you please. They control the proposition. Mr. Lestrade. They should own them. That is what I am advo- cating, gentlemen, now, as a butter man. I say to the farmers: ''Put up your own creameries. There is money in it." I am now advoca- ting l)uying farm land in Massachusetts that has been lying idle, and farm land in New Hampshire. I went up to see some most elegant land, where the springs are constant!}" cold in midsummer, and I said to those gentlemen: "Why, men, fellow-dairymen, fellow-farmers, there is money in butter. Wh}' don't a^ou put your mone}" in it? Instead of growling that you can not get an3'thing out of milk, put your money into creameries instead of selling your milk.'' The gen- tleman who preceded me, the food commissioner of one of the Western States, made this remark, at which I could not help smiling, that in the winter, when butter is hard to get and high in price, then the oleo man gets in his licks. He did not use that term, but that is what he meant. You have no business to have butter so high in winter and hard to get if you manage your milk right, if you feed your cows right, if you look after them and take an interest in them. In other words, I do not blame the farmers so much. They are being educated every day. We are all trying to educate them — we who have other indus- tries, we who are distributing this ])utter right and left throughout the United States and throughout the world. We are endeavoring to educate the farmer to that extent, l)ut he works slowly. It is hard for him to make a change. It is hard even to induce him to use new imple- OLEOMARGARINE. ] 7o ments — these new ideas of makino- butter fa.st by ii)achiii(>i-v and by centrifugal force, and all that sort of thing. The}' will oradually get there, but the great dairy industry of this countr}^ has not begun to show itself. There is a tremendous field for it. Now to go back. Butter started in 1898 — notwithstanding this 80,000,000 to 100,000,000 pounds of oleo— started in at the beginning of the season, with new butter, when prices are supposed to be the lowest of the year, on a basis of from 16^ to IT cents. Mr. Hoard. That was creamer^' butter? Mr. Lestkade. I am speaking now of creamery. The demand was so great throughout the United States and abroad that the price grad- ually arose to 21, 22. 24, 26. and some of it sold at as high as 27 and 28 cents. That butter cost all the wa}^ from 17 to 20 cents. The export that 3^ear was about 14,000,000 pounds, if I remember rightly. In the spring of this year, to our dismay — for we have not felt the effects of it yet; 1 fear we will — this packing stock I spoke of this morning — this ladle stock, this original butter out of which we make ladles — started in on the high basis of from 14 to 15 cents; and a great deal of it was bought during the low prices, what we call low prices, the spring prices, at 15 to 16 cents. This is a most phenomenal price. It can hardh' be conceived of. This spring creameries started in at 19 cents. Verj^ few of them were sold below 19 cents. These were put away in cold storage, for that is the business of the country generally to-day. It is an under- stood thing. It is hardly called speculative to-da}^ although it is speculation; but there is hardly ever a time that a creamery man or a dair}' man or a commission man or a speculator can not bu}' his creameries in the spring and put them in cold storage during the months of June and July, and keep them until summer or fall and sell them at a handsome profit. Creameries started in at a very high figure, 19 cents, one of the highest figures that they ever reached for the spring of the year. The price gradually rose from 19 to 21, 22, and 28 cents, and they have been selling as high as 24 cents. I, myself, on account of the demand that I have had from abroad, bought within a month over a thousand tubs of creamer}- that cost the creamery from 16i to 17 cents, not over 17 cents. I bought them at 23^ cents in St. Lawrence County, put down in New York. If the farmers are patrons of those creameries they should also be part owners and have derived the benefit of that advance of from 4 to 5 cents a pound. Now, you see the position of the Initter industry in this country. It is a money-making industry and always will be, if properly conducted. You ask, What has oleo to do with this, and wdiy is it that there is such an earnest attempt on the part of somebody to crowd out that product? Speaking from the standpoint of an expert, on account of the legitimate rise in value of cheap goods and of creameries, we exporters are hav- ing a hard time of it. leaving the oleo out. We Hnd that we can ship this cheap roll butter, this packing stock that I spoke of. at 10, 17, and 18 cents in tins to the hot countries or throughout the world and get back a reasonable profit, but we find that through legitimate sources and the call for these cheap goods throughout the country, as I. say, they have put the price of original stock up to 15 or 10 cents. We are crowded pretty hard to see where our profit is coming in. for the rea- son that tiic foreign market — the Danish market, the Italian market, the French market, the Irish market, and the Australian market — are able 174 OLEOMARGARINE. then to compete with us. They can put their butter in South America, in South Africa, and throughout the West Indies on a basis of 17 to 18 cents. That is, tiieir clieap butter. When we come to creameries, when we are obliged to pay 21, 25, and 2(3 cents for creameries, we find that we are being again crowded close, because the foreigners can put their foreign butter throughout the world at that price, and a little less. It may surprise you, gentlemen, l)ut within ten years we were selling and sending to the hot countries a])out 10 per cent of the l)utter that they use. Ninet}" per cent has been placed l)y the foreign markets in those countries. We have increased that, I am happy to say, about 1 per cent, mostly through our creamery butter. We have had a hard time of it to get our creamery l)utter into these foreign markets on account of the fact, as I remarked this morning, that we did not make creamery butter as it should be made. With our usual way of doing things here, the high nervous temperament in which we all live, our great ambition is to turn out butter quick — turn it out with a magnifi- cent flavor, and let it take its chance to keep^ Consequently we could not ship that butter. The process I am using now, that I am advo- cating right and left among the best creameries I can get hold of, is to change that all and make a better butter, costing a little more; but the demand for butter is so great that they can w^ell afford to do it. If you put this tax on oleomargarine, which, I think we all agree, means a prohibitory tax, means the wiping out of the 80,000,000 pounds or the 107,000,000 pounds per year, what is going to take its place? What am I going to do to take the place of oleomargarine? In my study as a practical man, and having come in contact with it in my butter industry and seeing the effect it had on butter twelve or fifteen years ago, I noticed and recognized fully it is, as it were, a counterbalance to a small extent on butter. It keeps the price of butter down to a certain extent. It prevents, to a larger' extent, manipulation and speculation in Dutter. You gentlemen from Illinois well know, and I know also, that 3'ou would love to corner butter if you could, but you have not been able to do it. You have tried it over and over again and met your fate. I have been asked to go into it many a time; but fortunately having my interests in the East more, although I buy largel}^ from you, I have refused; but every time you have tried to corner butter j^ou have failed, for up to this time there has been sufficient butter to prevent it, although you, gentlemen, readily see by the remarks that have gone before me on the part of the dairy interests that we do not begin to have suflicient butter to supply this country. Butter goes higher and higher every winter. It starts in higher and higher every spring. Consequently I say from my oljservation that if you wipe out oleo and place 107,000,000 pounds of that stuff, you open a dangerous channel, and butter is bound to be hurt by it. We dair3^men are bound to be hurt by it. It will give an opportunity to men like Swift or Armour or any other man who has large sums of money to invest to go in and speculate. Do the farmers want that? My friend says the farmers are not interested as a rule in the cream- eries themselves. Then, consequently, in the end they will be hurt by it. Butter at times will go up high, it is true, on account of specula- tion, by taking away that which up to now has regulated it. After all, I ask you again, what hurt does oleo do^ If it were not for a few agitators who really are theorists, who really do not have the best OLEOMARGARINE. 175 interests of the dairy industry at heart, you would not know anything about oleo in the dairy interest. I have proven that by my figures. You would never think of it. Every year our butter interests are growing, and we are making more money, and it is a better profit en our speculation or on our investment. Consequently I say let well alone. Do not wipe it out. Mr. Hoard, Do you say that the average wholesale prices of butter have been increasing for a number of years? Mr. Lestrade. 1 say that the lowest prices in the spring have been gradually working up on a higher level for the last five years. Mr. Hoard. Have the average prices of butter for the whole 3^ear been increasing for, sa}^, five or six years? Mr. Lestrade. Yes; they have been increasing. Mr. Hoard. Have they ? Mr. Lestrade. Yes. If you will allow me, Mr. Chairman, I will read from a report that I happened to pick up yesterday in my ofiice just before starting. This is a report from Mr. Kracke, of New York, the associate of the gentleman who spoke this morning. Mr. Kracke is your associate, is he not? Mr. Flanders. Yes, sir. Mr. Lestrade. This report is as follows: ""BUTTER trade OF 1900 — RECEIPTS SHOW A GAIN OF NEARLY 48,000 PACKAGES FOR THE YEAR — LARGE FALLING OFF IN EXPORTS — HOME CONSUMPTIVE DEMAND VERY LARGE, WHICH GIVES A HIGHER AVERAGE PRICE FOR NEARLY ALL DESCRIPTIONS. ''Not for man}^ years, if ever, has the butter trade of the country seen just such conditions as we have had during the year 1900, and while many of the dealers and speculative operators will have no regret that the year has closed, because of the small margins they have had, the producers of butter will find much of encouragement and satisfaction in the larger consumptive demand and better average prices realized. "The product of the country has been larger; how much it is impos- sible to say. New York's receipts show an increase of 2i per cent, the total arrivals being 1,999,871 packages, as compared with 1,951,957 packages the preceding year, 1,971,071 packages in 1898, and 2,109,503 packages in 1897. This is the first time for more than three years that there has been an increase rather than a decrease. What is true of New York is to some extent true of other large distributing centers, and with the known fact that the consumption in the producing sec- tions has been expanding steadily, we are inclined to think that the total output of butter for the country has been fully 2 per cent greater than in 1899. This increase is encouraging, as it indicates a disposi- tion to give the dairy a better place on the farm. "The first three months showed a considerable falling oft* in receipts, due to only fair conditions for making butter and the fact that the storage stocks of the (country were entirely exhausted." Some of these men endeavored to get me interested in this dairy association. I am opposed to them merel}^ on the ground that I con- sider that they are working against my interests as a dairyman, against my interests as a creanKM y man, and against my interests as a farmer. They said to me, "Look at the surplus of butter we have constantly 176 OLEOMAEGAKINE. over." I said to them, " My dear sir, go and study the statistics for last year and you will find there was no surplus. The year before you made no surplus. The year before that you made no surplus; and the year before that 1 think there was a surplus on account of the depression in this country, which all of us have been through. I will proceed with this i-eport: "Not until June did the arrivals begin to run ahead, and the gain was less than 10 per cent during the summer months. From Septem- ber on, however, the increase was marked, and during December the gain was a little over 30 per cent. This was due in large measure to the rapid unloading of western refrigerat-rs, the butter coming this way because of the strength of our market. " There has been a marked falling off in exports of butter from all the ports of this country. New York shipped 9,723,397 pounds, only a little more than one-half the amount that was cleared through this port during 1899. Of these shipments 81,786 packages, or, say, 4,089,300 pounds, went to the markets of Great Britain, Germany, Denmark, and Scandinavia, and about 5,633,097 pounds were sent to the tropical countries, mainly South America and the West Indies. This shows a falling off in the latter business of nearly 1,000,000 pounds, which was lost to us during the early part of the year when packing stock was so scarce and high. Wc have found it impracticable to attempt to compete much with other countries for the English trade, except in certain grades of wdiich we had a sutHcient surplus here to undersell other points. Most of the year the table grades of butter have been relatively higher on this side of the ocean than in Great Britain. "After the little flurry just at the opening of the year when prices momentarily touched so dizzy a height — 30 cents." That w^as for old goods, held goods, goods bought in June and put away and sold in the fall at 30 cents a pound and costing from 16 to 17 cents. Mr. Hoard. Sold where'? Mr. Lestrade. That is in the creamery. Mr. Hoard. Sold at 30 cents a pound; cold-storage butter? Mr, Lestrade. That is, according to Mr. Kracke. Mr. Hoard. Sold in the United States? Mr. Lestrade. Sold in New York City. Mr. Hoard. Do jn^u know of any cold-storage butter selling last year at 30 cents? Mr. Lestrade. Yes; I sold them at 30 cents. I sold June goods a year ago in September at 30 cents — a year ago this fall. Mr. Knight. What was the market for fancy creameries at that time in New York? Mr. Lestrade. For fresh goods ? Mr, Knight. Yes. Mr. Lestrade. Very close. They ran right along together, because the fresh goods were very scarce, and that is the reason old goods went up. We could not get the fresh goods, because they were not being made. "The market got down to a fairly conservative basis until the storage season opened, when the competition set in keen because of the large profits realized on the 1899 crop, and speculative operations largely controlled values during the summer. The average price of OLEOMARGARINE. 177 isincj creamery during June was 19f cents and for July 19i cents, which was more than 1 cent per pound higher than in the previous year. Relatively full rates were maintained later, and when we got well into the fall business was so good that prices steadil}^ hardened, reaching the high figure of 27 cents about the middle of November, which held for a week and then settled back gradually." Mr. Hoard. That is, New York? Mr. Lestrade. Yes; New York, and there was only about a cent's difference in Chicago. Senator Heitfeld. That is the wholesale price? Mr. Lestrade. Yes, sir; wholesale prices. "The average for the year was 22f cents for creamery as compared with 21i cents in 1899 and 19i cents in both 1898 and 1897. The lowest point of the season — 18 cents — was late in April, before we reached grass butter." I wish to call your attention, gentlemen, to the fact that in 1898 and 1897, when the output of oleomargarine was in the neighborhood of 60,000,000 pounds, or possibly 70,000,000 pounds, the price of butter was only 19 cents. Senator Heitfeld. What year was that? Mr. Lestrade. In 1898 and in 1897. The average, I mean, for the year was only about 19^ cents when the output of oleo was, I should imagine, from 60,000,000 to 70,000,000 pounds, and butter went up to from 19i to 22^ cents average price on an output of 108,000,000 pounds oleomargarine. Senator Heitfeld. Does the price of oleomargarine fluctuate? Mr. Lestrade. No; I do not believe it ever does. Does it, gen- tlemen ? Mr. TiLLiNGHAST. Oh, yes; it changes some. Mr. Lestrade. I suppose it does. We send a good deal of oil to Rotterdam, and I suppose that is what makes the fluctuation of it. Mr. TiLLINGHAST. YcS. Mr. Lestrade. In the report of Mr. Kracke, the assistant in the agricultural department of New York State Mr. ScHELL. He is the principal, is he not? Mr. Flanders. Mr. Kracke is in charge of the work in the central division. Mr. Knight. May I ask you, Mr. Lestrade, the market price of butter in New York to-day? Mr. Lestrade. About 25 or 26 cents is the average price. Mr. Knight. Is that the quoted price — the oflScial price? Mr. Lestrade. Yes. Mr. Knight. And what was it a year ago at this time; do you remember? Mr. Lestrade. I think 27 or 28 cents ; possibly higher. I do not remember, exactly. It may have been 30 cents. Mr. Knight. It is about 5 cents cheaper than it was a year ago ^ Mr. Lestrade. Yes. I do not want the sale of oleomargarine pro- hibited. I want it for a balance, so to speak, to keep wild speculation down. I can not afliord as a creamery man, a man interested in butter, to put myself in the position, if I can help it, of allowing speculators to come in and manipulate butter. It is bad enough now as it is; but wipe out oleo, which you will if you put this 10-cent prohibitory tax on, and there is not a man in the country coukl do anything in regard S. Rep. 2043 12 178 OLEOMARGARINE. to steady pricc^^. They can no more sell oleomargarine white than you could sell butter white. I have made white butter up in small quantities, and the only people who take white butter are our friends, the Israelites, and they only take it in small quantities. Mr. Hoard. One tirm in Milwaukee sells 30,000 pounds of white oleomargarine a year — one retail firm. Mr. Flanders. Did you read the first column of this paper 3'ou had in your hand? Mr. Lestrade. I read all that article. Mr. Flanders. That is not ))y Mr. Kracke. Mr. Hoard. You say oleomargarine would not be sold at all in its natural state? Mr. Lestrade. 1 say it would not. Mr. TiLLiNGHAST. What class of people use this 30,000 pounds you spoke about. Governor? Mr. Hoard. The Polaks and Bohemians. Mr. TiLLiNGHAST. I Venture to say there aie not 30,0()0 pounds of uncolored oleomargarine in the United States. Mr. Hoard. You may venture to say so, but the statement wiis inudc by the firm in Milwaukee who sold it. Mr, Lestrade. In regard to this report from which I read, which 1 picked up ^^esterday in my olfice, I wish to say that it is in The New York Produce Review and American Creamery. 1 inquired who wrote this article, or w^ho gave the figures, and th(\v told me Mr. Kracke. You say he did not write this article? Mr. Flanders. The last column is an excerpt from his report to us at the Albany office. The first two columns are not his, and you read from them. Mr. Lestrade. These were not compiled by him, then ? Mr. Flanders. No. 1 was a little astonished, because his report comes to me personalh", and I did not recognize what you read as part of his report. Senator Heitfeld. Whose report is it? Mr. Lestrade. It is the New York Produce Review and American Creamery, a dairymen's paper from the city of New York. Senator Foster. What you read was probably written by some editor ? Mr. Lestrade. Yes. I asked one of the assistants yesterday where they got their figures, and I understood him to say they got them from Mr. Kracke. The record of cases he has tried, etc., is on the same page. Now, if you will allow me one minute longer, sir, I will try to finish what I have to say in my crude manner. If I had the eloquence of you three gentlemen as public men, I do not question that I could con- vince you of the fallacy of attempting to put what I consider a dangerous precedent upon the dairy interests of this country. I know conclu- sively that it will wipe out the export trade. I know conclusively that it will open the door for gigantic speculation, for cornering. It will be possible to do that. We can almost do it now at times. I am free to confess that I have lieen in where we have made some money cor- nering certain butter in certain ])arts of the country; and why is not the question pertinent to you as well as to me and to all of our dairy- men and men interested in butter ? Then what is the trouble i Merely that we are not making butter enouofh. If we want to fight oleomar OLEOMARGAEINE. l79 garine, let us fight them with their own weapons. Let us make more butter. Let us malve bettei l)utter. Let us make more creamery butter and fight them that way. We have got a wide margin yet. We have got a good profit yet in butter. There is no danger of oleomargarine, as one gentleman said this morning, wiping out the butter industry. It has not wiped out the butter industry. Oleomargarine has been advancing year after year in quantit}'^, and butter has been advancing year after year in quantity and going up in price, and there has been a better profit year after year. Consequently there is no danger in that way. So, if you want to do anything, if you want to go to an extreme, why not propose to }' ou gentlemen down here in Washington to take the 2-cent tax on oleomargarine — there is a good deal of talk about subsidies just now — and give that 2-cent tax as a subsidy to the farmers to make better butter and fight oleomargarine in that way, the same as England did with Australia. The dairymen down in Aus- tralia made nothing but the same kind of truck which we were making before oleomargarine came into the country. It was so bad that it was dumped in the sea when it arrived in England; and England offered a subsidy. Mr. Hoard. Did England offer the subsidy or did Australia offer it? Mr. Lestrade. England. Australia is a colony of England. Mr. Hoard. I know that, but did England offer the subsidy? Mr. Lestrade. What difference does it make? Mr. Hoard. It makes a great deal of difference. One is a colonial subsidy and the other is a general subsid3\ This was a colonial subsidy. Mr. Lestrade. I do not think it is a matter of argument. It makes no difference whether the colonial government offered it or whether Eng- land offered it. There was a subsidy offered to Australia for a better grade of butter. If it came up to a certain test they were to receive a certain percentage. I do not recall it now, but possibl}^ we will say, a shilling on so many pounds. To-day the quantity of butter has advanced from 250,000 pounds a year to two or three or four million pounds a year, and they are putting as fine a piece of creamery butter into England as 3'ou want to see. That was done by subsidy. I say to the farmer and 1 say to Congress, if 3'ou want to do something for the farmers, give them 2 cents as a subsidy and fight the oleomargarine, so that we will make a l)etter creamery. In talking to some of the gentlemen connected with the dairy asso- cation I have said to them, "As a matter of fact, j^ou and I know that oleo is not hurting butter in this country." They said, "Well, we are going to wipe it out. It has got to be wiped out." Then I used the arguments that I have used to you. I told them my position per- sonally — that cheap butter was getting to that price that very soon if it kept on I could not ship it; that all our export would stop. They had no answer to that except to say, " Well, we are going to wipe out oleo if we can." I said, "All right; it will give a chance to you fellows who have a lot of money to go ahead and speculate." They said, ' ' That may be. We won't make money on the other side of the grave. " I said, "That will be benefiting the few at the expense of the dairy interests again, and they will be the losers." I am trying now to interest a certain number of farmers up in Massachusetts to buy cer- tain lands that L know of where there is good cold water and endeavor to luake a cooperative society there for the making of fancy creameries by the Danish process, 180 OLEOMARGARINE. The butter that I am making to-day will })ring from 1 to 2 aiid 2^ cents more a pound than the best fancy extra butter that you can send out of Chicago, and there is butter which is selling to-day, as you dairy- men know, if there are any of you here, as high as 40 and 50 cents a pound. Do you think that it is merely being sold on the brand ^ It is not. It is being sold on the exquisite flavor and the perfection of being made as it should be made. That is not to say that we are all going to get 40 and 50 cents a pound, but I do mean to say that for a long time to come, if you make good butter, you are going to get a good price, I said to these gentlemen from Chicago representing this asso- ciation: "You remind me a great deal of the walking delegates of the Knights of Labor. You are looking around for something to do and to earn your salaries, and consequently you are taking up this oleo- margarine question, which in the past has been, and, 1 think, even to-day is, a good friend of butter, and you are agitating it and all that sort of thing to endeavor to show the dairy interests that you are per- forming functions and doing your work as it should Ijc done; whereas, if you would let the thing alone and spend your time in edu<-ating the farmers how to make good creamery butter, j-ou would be doing a noble work and a grand work, and a work that every farmer and every dairyman through this country would bless you for in the end." Mr. Flanders. Mr. Chairman, may I ask the gentleman a question? The Acting Chairman. Yes, sir. Mr. Flanders. Do you not know, you being from New York, that it is a part of the work of the department of agriculture of the State of New York to do just exactly what you have suggested, and do you not know that ^ey keep live or six men continually employed in this division work? Mr. Lestrade, Yes. Mr. Flanders. And that department spends $20,000 a year in fai-m- ers' institutions throughout the State in that work? Mr. Lestrade. Yes, sir; but the work is not being done fast enough. It is going too slow. Mr. Hoard. Do you know that the men representing the dairy interests here are on a salary ? Mr. Lestrade. No. I know some of them are. Mr. Hoard. Who among them are on a salary ? Mr. Lestrade. I do not suppose every one of them is doing it Avith- out compensation. Mr. Hoard. I want to say to you, as president of the National Dairy Union, that I never have drawn a penny even for my expenses, and 1 have paid out over $1,100 in the prosecution of this tight. Mr. Lestrade. Well, my remarks were made to two or three of these gentlemen, and I said if they would only spend their time in the noble work of educating the farmer, and spend on that the money that is being spent in fighting oleomargarine, they would be doing a far nobler and grander work. Mr. HuRD. I have been engaged in dairy educational work for thirty years and 1 have never heard of you before. Mr. Lestrade. I am glad to make your acquaintance. Mr. Knight. I would like to ask a question, if the gentleman will allow me. Mr. Lestrade. Certainly. The Acting Chairman. The gentleman has been plied with a good OLEOMARCIARINE. 181 many questions and his tinic^ has about expired. 1 hop<^ the <|iiestions will bo limited. Mr. Knight. As another offieer of that organization he has referred to in conneetion with a salary, I want to go on record here as stating that I, as secretary of the National Dairy Union, never have in the four years I have been connected with the association had one cent of salary, nor has there ever been a salary attached to the office. Mr. Lestrade. I did not mean that as a slur in the slightest degree. There was no slur in my remark at all. Mr. Knight. I do not like to be referred to as a walking delegate. Mr. Lestrade. I was not referring to you personall3^ Mr. ScHELL. Just one question: You say the farmers who supply your milk are interested in your creameries? Mr. Lestrade. Some of them are; and that is what I am educating them to do. Mr. ScHELL. You really buy just the cream, as I understand? Mr. Lestrade. No; we buy both milk and cream. At some of our creameries we buy the cream alone and at others we buy the whole thing. Mr. ScHELL. How do you estimate what you pay the farmers for this milk and cream? How do you get at the value of the milk and cream ? Mr. Lestrade. How do you mean ? Mr. Schell. How do you fix the price you pay them for it; by contract, or how ? jVlr, Lestrade. In both ways; sometimes by contract and some- times otherwise. That part I am not familiar with, for I do not attend to it. STATEMENT OF WILLIAM H. THOMPSON, PRESIDENT NATIONAL LIVE STOCK EXCHANGE, CHICAGO. The Acting Chairman. Whom do you represent, Mr. Thompson ? Mr. Thompson. The National Live Stock Exchange. The Acting Chairman. How much time do you want? Mr. Thompson. I just w^ant the time that you think I ought to have. It is simply a business proposition, or a business talk, rather, that I propose to present. The Acting Chairivian. It would be agreeable to the committee to have you cover as little time as possible in making your statement. Mr. Thompson. I should hate to say ten minutes and only occupy five. The Acting Chairman. We will give you fifteen minutes. Mr. Thompson. Thank you, I am pleased to come l)efore you gentlemen to place the people whom I represent on the side of right and justice and against this Grout bill. To explain who I represent I ma}^ be permitted to briefly enlighten you gentlemen regarding the nature, make-up, objects, and purposes of the National Live Stock Exchange, which I. as its president, have the honor to represent. The National Live Stock Exchange is a commercial organization without capital stock, organized, not for the transaction of business, 182 OLEOMARaAKINE. but to fo.ster, promote, and protect the interests of the live-stock trade in all of its many branches. It is composed of local liv^vstock exchanges located at the principal live-stock market centers of the United States, and counts among- its members in the great corn belt and beef -produc- ing- sections the local exchanges located at Sioux City, Iowa; St. Paul, Minn. ; Omaha, is'eln-. ; St. Louis, Mo. ; East St. Louis, 111. ; St. Joseph, Mo,; Fort Worth, Tex. ; Chicago, III.; Indianapolis, Ind. ; Pittsburg, Pa.; Louisville, Ky.. and Milwaukee, Wis. Each of these local exchanges are composed of live-stock bi-eeders, raisers, feeders, shippers, sellers, slaughterers, buyers, bankers, and commission merchants, and some of their employees, and have a rep- resentation in the deliberations of the national exchange based on the local membership roster, such representation being fixed at 1 repre- sentative for every 25 members. It is the official mouthpiece of the live-stock trade, and while it aims to protect, foster, and promote the interests of the producer of liv:^ stock on the one hand, it is equally as zealous in its protection of the interests of the consumers of live- stock products on the other. It is to this organization. The National Live Stock Exchange, that all these interests look for advice, assistance, and relief or protection on any general live-stock question of an interstate or iTiternational charactei". The Yearbook of the United States Department of Agriculture for the year 1899, page 818, gives the number of cattle in the United States other than milch cows on elanuary 1, 1900, as 27,610,054. From this numl)er I would deduct 1,610,054 head, which I believe i:o be a fair estimate of that number which are bulls, which jdeld little or no butter fat. This would leave 26,000,000 steer cattle, from Avhich I would deduct 12,000,000 head of young cattle, called in the parlance of the trade " stockers and feeders," which would leave 14,000,000 head of fat cattle immediatel}" affected and depreciated by this pro- posed legislation. At the rate of $3.42 per head, provided the manu- facture of butterine is prohibited by legislation, this would entail a loss on the prochicers of this country of $47,880,000. We adopt those figures from the manufacturer, because we simply consider him as a manufacturer or as a creature of circumstances, as it might be termed. He goes onto the market and buys what we term the raw material — the bullock — and if he is enabled to manufacture out of that bullock the different articles that we know to be in the bullock, and make a healthful food for the people, he certainly should have a right to do so, and if in doing so he can pay this $3.42 a head, the pro- ducer receives the benefit. If he is not allowed to do it, he simply goes onto the market and buys those cattle at about $3.42 a head less, which is most assuredly a total loss to the producer. The National Live Stock Exchange has repeatedly and publicly solicited Congress and other legislative bodies to cause a critical exam- ination to be made through a committee of its own selection into the methods employed and ingredients used in the manufacture of this wholesome article of diet, with the request that, if after such informa- tion is satisfactorily and officially obtained it shall appear to any such committee that butterine is a legitimate article of commerce and a wholesome article of diet, they shall in their report recommend that no coloi'ing restrictions or taxes be imposed, except such as .shall appl}" also to the manufacture and sale of its only competitor, butter, OLEOMARGARINE. 183 thereby permitting the manufacture and sale of butterine under such safeguards as the Federal Government may see tit to impose to insure its being sold on its merits. In round numbers there are 75,000,000 people in this country. I believe a reasonable estimate of the number of Indians and children under a butter-eating age to be 25,000,000, which would leave a popu- lation of 50,000,000 outside of these classes who are consumers of butter. Of this 50,000,000 people at least one-half are able to buy the best butter manufactured, irrespective of price, while the other 25,000,000 are a class of people whom the butterine manufacturers aim to reach and benefit, and are a class of our citizens known as laborers, not in the common acceptance of the term, but as a class of people following a variety of pursuits at small salaries, and in most cases, owing to their dependencies and meager earnings, compelled to go without the luxuries of life. It is this class of people whose interests need careful consideration, whose claims upon you as their representatives are invariably backed b}^ justice, who are always the greatest sufferers by and the most sensitive to inimical legislation, who always are the first to respond to and cheerfully compl}^ with all just and reasonable laws. As the representative of the National Live Stock Exchange, I also plead for a consideration of the rights of this class of our citizens, who, from the nature of their surroundings and conditions, are unable to appear before you in their own behalf. They, who are the principal consumers of butterine, are not asking for any legislation. The producers and raisers of fat cattle are not asking you for any legislation in this respect. Why should it be any more unlawful to put into butterine, the prod- uct of the beef steer, the same coloring matter as is put into butter, the similar product of his sister, the dairy cow? Is there any equity or justice in such denial? Is it made necessary by the conditions? Is it warranted upon any grounds? If it is, I am at a loss to comprehend it. This kind of legislation is most assuredly the worst and most vicious kind of class legislation, because it is inaugurated solely for the pur- pose of destroying a competitive industry equally as important and equally as deserving of legislative support and protection. The Grout bill represents an attempt on the part of Congress to tax one legitimate industry out of existence for the benefit of another industry. The ostensible purpose is protection to the consumers against ""imitation butter;" but the public has never asked for such protec- tion. It does not even object to the coloring of butterine the same as butter, so long as the butterine is properly labeled and sold on its merits. As a matter of fact, the consumers of butterine prefer to have it colored, so long as the coloring material used is harmless. They like butterine because of its cheapness and because they are satisfied with its purity and wholesomeness. The enactment of this bill will not only deprive the consumer of a healthy and nutritious article of food, but immediately it becomes a law will depreciate the value of the beef cattle and take from the pro- ducers of this country upwards of forty-five millions of dollars. In conclusion, I desire to thank you for granting me the privilege of recording our organization on the side of right and justice and in favor 184 OLEOMARGARINE. of the man}^ believing that you will act in this matter for the best interests of the people as a whole. This kind of class legislation, if enacted, would establish a very bad precedent, one of the worst kind, as it is against a healthful article of food. A remark was made by a gentleman before you this morning that this article could be produced for 7 cents a pound. That shows to me most conclusively that it comes within reach of the laborer, just the man we should protect. Now, in regard to taxes. Suppose there was a tax of 10 cents put upon this butterine, and it should still remain upon the market, who pays the tax? The laboring man, of course. The man of wealth buys butter. The burden of the whole thing rests upon the consumer, who is the laboring man. If it is legislated out of existence, then the bur- den or the loss goes back to the producer. Mr. Flanders. May I ask one question ? The Chairman. Yes. Mr. Flanders. Have you any knowledge what the consumer pays for these goods ? Mr. Thompson. I can answer for a consumei". I pay 15 cents a pound for it. Mr. Flanders. In our State it never has been sold, taking it gen- erally — there may be isolated cases — cheaper than butter. For the last fifteen years, as far as I know, and I have been looking after it, I myself bought it for butter in the city of Troy and paid 22 cents a pound, and the butter right opposite it was 22 cents a pound. It is sold to consumers for butter and at butter prices. There is no excep- tion to it in the State of New York. Mr. Thompson. If you will allow me to answer for one consumer, 1 will say that I pay 15 cents a pound for it for use on my table. I do it for this reason, that to get the best butter, which at times seems almost impossible, I would have to pay 30 cents a pound, to go to our grocer and get the butter, as they term it. It does not seem to me as though it was near as good as the butterine, and I would have to pay from 20 to 25 and 26 cents for it. Mr. Flanders. In our State that is just what has been done right along. It is sold for butter at butter prices. Mr. Thompson. I am speaking of Chicago. Mr. Knight. Do you bu}' the best grade of butterine at 15 cents? Mr. Thompson, I do not know, sir, what they call the best grade. I buy as good a grade as I can get and pay 15 cents for it. Senator Foster. Do j^ou call for butterine when you go to the store? Mr. Thompson. I do not buy it at the store. I buy it at the manu- facturer's. Senator Foster. Do you call for butterine ? Mr. Thompson. I call for butterine. The Acting Chairman. Have you finished, Mr. Thompson? Mr. Thompson. Yes; unless there are some other questions. I have a memorial here which is rather lengthy, and I would like to attach it to my remarks. The Acting Chairman. You can file it, and it will be printed with your remarks. The memorial referred to is as follows: oleomargarine. 185 The National Live Stock Exchange, Office of the Secretary, Union Stock Yards, Chicago, III. , December '21, 1900. The Honorable the Senate of the United States: Your orator, The National Live Stock Exchange, respectfully rep- resents unto your honorable body that it is an association composed of local live-stock exchanges located at all the principal live-stock centers throughout the country, having a roster of over two thousand mem- bers actively engaged in breeding, raising, feeding, shipping, buying, selling, and slaughtering all kinds of live stock; was organized, among other things, for the purpose of promoting the best interests of the live-stock industry as a whole, jealouslj^ guarding the interests of the producer and consumer alike, and is the recognized and official mouth- piece of the live-stock industry on all questions of an interstate or international character, especially when the interests of the producer or consumer are in any way affected. Your orator in behalf of its constituency desires to enter its emphatic protest against the enactment of what is commonly known as the Grout bill, and in support of its protest desires to record a few of the many reasons in support of its contention. This measure is a species of class legislation of the most dangerous kind, calculated to build up one industry at the expense of another equally as important. It seeks to impose an unjust, uncalled for, and unwarranted burden upon one of the principal commercial industries of the country for the purpose of prohibiting its manufacture, thereby destroying competition, as the manufacturers can not assume the addi- tional burden sought to be imposed by this measure and sell their product in competition with butter. The enactment of this measure would throttle competition, render useless the immense establishments erected at great expense for the manufacture of butterine, deprive thousands of employees of the opportunity to gain a livelihood, and deny the people, and especially the workingmen and their dependents of a wholesome article of diet. In butterine a very large proportion of the consumers of this coun- try, especially the working classes, have a wholesome, nutritious, and satisfactor}^ article of diet, which before its advent they were obliged, owing to the high price of butter and their limited means, to go without. The "butter fat" of an average beef animal for the purpose of mak- ing butterine is worth $3 per head more than it was before the advent of butterine, when the same had to be used for tallow, which increased value of the beef steer has been added to the market value of the animal, and consequently to the protit of the producer. To legislate this article of commerce out of existence, as the pas- sage of this law would surely do, would compel slaughterers to use this fat for tallow, and depreciate the market value of the beef cattle $3 per head, which would entail a loss on the producers of this coun- tvy of millions of dollars. Your orator submits that it is manifestly unjust, unreasonable, and unwarranted to deny the manufacturers of the product of the beef steer the same privileges in regard to the use of coloring matter that are accorded the manufacturers of the product of the dairy. The rights and privileges of the producers of beef cattle should be 18() OLEOMARGARINE. as woU respected as those of others, and as theyai'e the henticiaries in the manufacture of this wholesome article of food, they should not be burdened with unnecessary special taxes or needless restrictions in the manufacture of this product, other than is absolutely necessary for the support of the Government and the proper goyernmental regula- tions surrounding the handling of same. This product of the ''"beef steer" should receive at the hands of Congress no greater exactions than those imposed upon competing food products. It is already surrounded by numerous safeguards, which Congress in its wisdom has seen fit to provide, stipulating severe punishment for selling same under misrepresentation as to its com- position. It has by experience proven to be just what a large majority of the people of this country want, and in behalf of the producers and consumers of this great country we do solemnly protest against the enactment of legislation calculated to ruin a great industry, and to deprive not only the working classes, but man}- others, of a cheap, wholesome, nutritious, and acceptal)le article of food. The Executive Committee of the National Live Stock Exchange, By W. H. Thompson, President. Attest: C. W. Baker, Secretary. STATEMENT OF HENEY C. PIRRTJNG, GENERAL MANAGER OF THE CAPITAL CITY DAIRY COMPANY, COLUMBUS, OHIO. The Acting Chairman. Where are you from i Mr. PiRRUNG. From Columbus, Ohio. I am the general manager of the Capital City Dairy Company and the general manager of the Colum- bus Cream and Milk Company, producers of creamery butter and deal- ers in milk and cream. The Acting Chairman. You may proceed. Mr. PiRRUNG. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am present to-day to defend the butterine interests in the capacity of a manufacturer, being general manager of the Capital City Dairy Com- pany, of Columbus, Ohio, makers of high-grade butterine. It has been suggested to me to be as brief as possible in ni}' state- ment, and 1 will endeavor, therefore, to present the matter in as con- cise a form as possible, and yet as terse as I hope will meet the con- venience of you gentlemen. First of all, 1 desire to take up the sul)ject of so-called *' natural" butter. In my humble opinion, the term *■' natural" is an idiosyncrasy, fostered and fathered by the creamery and dairy butter churners and by the proprietors and editors of dairy papers, for the purpose of alluring, perhaps, more particularly the illiterate into the belief that butter is absolutely a product given to us in its entii'cty and tinished shape by nature. I, however, have never been able to find a cow, no matter of what breed, color, or size, that gives to us this much-talked- of product, "'natural" butter. Nor have I ))een able to find any tree, shrub, or plant upon which grows this much-talked-of "natural" but- ter. We, however, do know that l)utter is churned from natural prod- ucts, chiefly the milk of the cow, which milk undergoes a process of manufacture conducted through a system of mechanical hand or steam- OLEOMARGARINE. 187 ]i()ucr app.iiiitu.s, to which is custoiiiiiriiv a. quotations from learned men, unbiased and unprejudiced, from various parts of the United States, full}' in tu'cord, and perhaps exen stronger in fa\'or of butterine than 188 OLEOMARGARINE. the two previously quoted, from which opinions we ciin only derive that butter and butterine are identical, save in the diti'erence ot" the percentage of butyric acid and the difference in the process of manu- facture. The rancidity which makes butter so objectionable to taste and smell comes from the liberation of butyric acid, and thereby is explained the reason why butterine never gets rancid, because it con- tains only a small percentage of this butyrin, wholly insufficient to cause any objectionable odor. Having thoroughly explained that both butter and butterine are artificially made food products, and that the ingredients of both compounds are extracts from the animal provided by nature, and that they are nearly identical in every particular, we come to the all-important subject of "'coloring." We need not go back fifteen or twent3^-five years to remember that dairy butter was mostly white, or of a very light yellow, and very rarely, if ever, seen in that golden-yellow color so prominent and characteristic of butter to-da3^ Let us take up the subject of the color of dairy butter to-day — with all the advanced ideas of dairying, of making, and with all the advanced ideas of keeping, caring, and feed- ing the cow — and what is the results We find that the color of dairy butter is as varied to-da}^ and perhaps more so, on account of the inter- breeding of cattle, uncommon and perhaps not known twenty -five years ago. AVe also find that there is a difference in color of butter from nearly each different herd of dairy cattle, conditioned upon the care and the feeding of the cattle, and these different colors avo again mul- tiplied })y the different seasons' changes affecting the color of butter which is churned free from artificial coloration. This proves unde- niably and indisputably that ''nature" has made no changes in the milk-giving properties of her cow, and therefore we must in all reason firmly believe that the universal golden color of butter is due solely and alone to the introduction of an artificial ingredient called "color- ing." I beg to call your attention to the fact that not all butter is col- ored artificially, because there are a number of conditions from artificial feeding and caring for the cattle and certain seasons of the year during which different shades of yellow butter can be produced. In my opinion good fresh butter is better suited as an article of food when it is colored with a harmless coloring matter, yet one is very apt to be deceived in the purchase of colored butter, because the introduc- tion of coloring matter, which is allowed to be introduced and is most frequently used in inferior makes of butter, is calculated to deceive even the most wary. In this lies the greatest danger, not only in the deception of the quality, but also in the price of butter, because 1 do not believe that any person using only the sense of sight can distinguish rancid from fresh butter which is colored alike. I will not attempt to state that the introduction of coloring in butter should be prohibited. On the contrary, in my humble opinion the coloring of butter should be allowed, because even the school child who has passed the primary grade will define the color of butter as "yellow," and every adult expects at this advanced age to have the product served to him '\yel- low." Now, why should not all of the foregoing be applicable to this new food product legislatively called "oleomargarine," and why should not every argument in favor of colored butter be applied to buttei'ine? Butterine is as decidedlj^ a farm product as butter, because there is absolutely no ingredient in its composition that does not come from OLEOMARGARINE. 189 the farm, and being identical in their nature and composition they should enjoy the same relative privileges for their appearance. There must be a reason for manufacturers of butter coloring their product, and as I am a manufacturer of butter also, owning four large creameries in Ohio, I think that I am entitled to give my opinion for the using of such coloring matter, and which, in my vast experience, has not been disputed, and that is that coloring is added to the butter made in our creameries at all seasons of the year to give it, first, a uniform color; second, to maiie it more marketable, and third, to enhance its value as a food product. Does not this same reasoning hold good for the coloring of butterine, and should not the manufac- turers of butterine enjoy the same privileges as those enjoyed l)y their competitors. I am assuming in my argument that there has been nothing said before the House committee hearing this testimon}^ nor have I heard that anything has been said before this committee against the healthfulness of either butter or butterine, and desire it to be understood that when making comparisons between butter and butter- ine I am describing the fresh products of both. The subject of col- oring butterine is not a new one, nor have our butter competitors confined themselves to "yellow" color, for they have gone so far as to usurp and coerce political influence to the extent of having several State laws passed actually prescribing a "pink" coloring for butterine. This, however, has been a significant failure, precipitating upon their heads the severest condemnation, not only from the consumers of but- terine, but from the butter-makers' liberal-minded constituency. It is an accepted theory that there must be a reason for everything, but following the old adage that "it takes an exception to prove a rule," there has been no reason given by the advocates of these "pink" laws for the enactment of such a measure. We therefore are privileged to draw our own conclusions. First and foremost, it appears that they decided that by prescribing a "pink" color the product would be so disguised that not even the most suspicious would ever entertain the idea it was butterine, and hence its sale would be stopped from lack of identification, or, even if identified, a refusal to eat such a discolored product as prescribed by these "pink" laws would follow. I may state, to the credit of the attempting destructors of this new food product, that they introduced these ''discoloring" laws in only a very few States, becoming quickly and painfully aware that the general public would not countenance such a glaring destruction of an industry and a desirable food product in such an insincere and unpardonabl}^ outrageous manivM-. Failing in their attempt to compel manufacturers of butterine to discolor their product with a "pink" coloring matter they are now attempting (and somewhat successfully, too) the " forbidding" the use of a " yellow" coloring matter, and the same coloring matter that they testify is used in their product, called butter. You will therefore readily perceive the reason for their astounding acrobatic performance in the guise of legislation, turning from the outrageous enactment of actually pre- scribing a "pink" discoloration to the enactment of laws prohibiting the use of any coloring matter. They have played their part splen- didly and somersaulting was well suited, because of the very impor- tant fact that by stopping the introduction of yellow coloring matter in butterine it would leaVe this product in its natural color of nearly 190 OLEOMAKGARINE. white, Jind which color would be quite as repugnant and as offensive to sight in this twentieth century of culture and science as the prescribed introduction of a "pink" color, and would result in a positive and absolute refusal of the consumer to purchase butterine in a "white" color at any price. In order to prove that my reasoning comes from the most learned source, I would beg the privilege of quoting from Justice Peckham, of the United States Supreme Court, in his decision in the case of Collins v. The State of New Hampshire, which State had enacted one of the now invalid ""pink" color laws: He says: "Although under the wording of this statute the importer is permitted to sell oleomargarine freely and to any extent, provided he colors it 'pink,' yet the permission to sell, when accompanied by the imposition of a condition, which, if complied with, will effectually prevent an}^ sale, amounts in law to a prohibition. "If this provision for coloring the article were a legal condition, a legislature could not be limited to 'pink' in its choice of colors. The legislative fancy or taste would he l^oundless. It might equally as well provide that it should be colored blue, or red, or black. Nor do we see that it would be limited to the use of coloring matter. It might, instead of that, provide that the article should onl}- be sold if mixed with some other article, which, while not deleterious to health, would nevertheless give out a most offensive smell. If the legislature has the power to direct that the article shall be colored 'pink,' which can only be accomplished by the use of some foreign substance that will have that effect, we do not know upon what principle it should })e confined to discoloration, or why a provision for an offensive odor would not be just as A^alid as one prescribing the particular color. The truth is, however, as we have above stated, the statute in its necessary effect is prohibitory, and, therefore, upon the principle recognized in the Pennsylvania cases, it is invalid.'' Now, gentlemen, you will note from the above abstract of Justice Peckham's decision that he sa3\s a legislature can not be limited to "pink" in its choice of colors, and that the legislative fancy would be boundless. He further states the legislature might equally as well provide that it should be colored blue or red or black, and he might nave gone on and said "white," for it is the very commonest knowledge that "white" is one of the most distinctive colors known in this age, and has been from time immemorial. Justice Peckham confined him- self to the mention of only three colors, because we all know that to have recited the entire list of colors would have filled a book nearly the size of an encyclopedia. We must, therefore, presume that by his recitation of only three colors he meant to convey, and in fact does say, that the legislative fancy or taste for colors would be boundless, and it is only reasonable to presume that he meant to include a "white" color as being equally as repugnant to the taste of the consumer as "pink," "blue," "red," or "black." You can readily see, therefore, why the astounding acrobatic performance of the dairy interests is necessary, and I can plainly see concealed in all of this luidue "yellow" color agi- tation that a no plainer expose of their leg(^rdemain could be given than in the words of »Justice Peckham, and I do not think that anyone will attempt to say that they ha\'e })een a particle overdrawn. It is as plain as dajdight that the attempted legislation forl)idding the use of yellow coloring is only a subterfuge to overcome the invalid law pre- scribing a "pink" discoloration. Since we are on the subject of opin- OLEOMARGARINE. 191 ions from learned men of the Supreme Bench of the United States, it mi^ht not be irrelevant herewith to quote an opinion from Chief Jus- tice Fuller in the case of Plumley v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, in which, among- other things, he says: ''Upon this record oleomargarine is conceded to be a wholesome, palatable, and luitritious article of food, in no way deleterious to the public health or welfare. It is of the natural color of butter, and looks like butter, and is often colored, as butter is, by harmless ingredients — a deeper yellow — to render it more attractive to consumers. The assumption that it is thus colored to make it appear a different article generically than it is has no legal basis to rest on." It is noteworthv that in the first case appearing before the Supreme Court of the United States the court was nearly a unit against butter- ine, because this article at that time was not so well known as at present, but quite as steadily as this product ingratiated itself com- mercially the court in its opinions more equally divided itself, until only recently it gave its opinion almost unanimously in favor of butter- ine; and this further proves, through these learned men, that the product is not such a menace to public health or commerce as the dairy or creamery interests woidd have us believe. I desire to take up a few of the charges by the creamerymen against this product, the most prominent one being that when butterine is colored it is done so to imitate "yellow butter." I do not believe that an}" one person in the world to-day possesses the exact knowledge of the number of "'^^el- low'' colors that could be given to butter l)y any one coloring matter, and therefore say, without fear of contradiction, that there is no one capable of giving the number of shades of yellow colors that can be produced in butter with the numerous makes of mineral and vegetable colors on the markets to-day. We all know that there are very light yellows, canary yellows, straw yellows, light yellows, medium yellows, light and dark golden j^ellows, sunflower yellows, orange yellows, deep yellows and, in fact, yellows indescribable from the almost indistinguishable faint yellow to the most intense pumpkin yellow. They say we color our product to resemble butter. I, for one, would like to have either the adherents of this Grout bill or Congress to decide what yellow we are imitating. It just occurs to me that if these dairy exhorters were really sincere in their motives to have butter and butterine distinct in color, and in con- nection therewith desire to extend the equity due their fellow man, they would ask Congress to regulate and specify a deep, rich, golden yellow for dairy and creamery butter, and specif}' for the butterine maker a lii'ht straw yellow for his product, which, in my judgment, would thoroughly inform the consumer of what he is purchasing. Or, in order not to be a lut choice in the matter, let the regulation of colors be reversed if it should please the butter makers. Other adherents of this Grout bill have said that we make and color our butterine in "sem])lance of butter," which in my opinion is still more indefinable, because it not only takes in all of the ""yellow" colors of butter but the whit«^ and various other hues of butter which I will not even begin to define, but all of which illustrates how ridiculous these charges appear to the most ordinary observer. To those who are interested in this controversy there can 1)e but one conclusion, that either the adher