86 OLEOMARGAKLNE. 



"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 human stomach it 

 might be dangerous to health; but, upon the evidence taken before 

 your committee, there appears to be no foundation for prohibiting its 

 use in the manufacture either of butter or oleomargarine. 



"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 v. 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, 1886 (24 Stat., 209), 4 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 offal fat made in imitation of butter.' 

 The decision in the Schollenberger case holds, c 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 by 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 before 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 

 3 T our 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 offered. 



"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 



