OLEOMAKGARINE. 91 



The ACTING CHAIRMAN. Have the} 7 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 generally 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 

 year 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 but 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 ingre- 



