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 r 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 w r holly 

 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 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 oleo- 

 margarine law consists in the facility with which the retail dealer, in selling from 

 0the 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 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 butter, either in its colored or uncolored state. 

 In fact, the radical advocates of the Grout bill 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 absolutely 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 w r ould 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- 



