HEARINGS ON THE OLEOMARGARINE BILL. 



WASHINGTON, D. C., 

 Wednesday, December 19, 1900. 



The committee met at 10.30 a. m. 



Present: Senators Proctor (chair man), 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 dairy 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 



