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 WARREN. 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 188485." 



Is that along the point? 



Senator WARREN. That is along the point, but it does not touch it 

 exactly yet. 



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 report? 



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 WARREN. What 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 $62,760,000. 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 honorable competitor? Why should my State, the 

 State of Missouri, suffer a depreciation of $2,775,230 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 



