OLEOMARGARINE. 121 



During the year just closing there were received at this market 

 3,100,000 hogs, 90 per cent of which were slaughtered here and the 

 remainder shipped to other markets. The loss to this industry if the 

 Grout bill become a law, figured by the same experts on cattle, is 20 

 cents per head. A very large percentage of this trade is controlled bj- 

 commission money, and the same depreciation of security relatively 

 obtains as in loans on cattle. Summing up the actual loss to the live- 

 stock industry of the United States if the Grout bill pass, it means $2 

 per head on 50 per cent of the killing grades of cattle and 20 cents per 

 head on 85 per cent of the hogs slaughtered. It would take too much 

 of the valuable time of your honorable body to make a detailed state- 

 ment of the immense loss, but it is appalling. 



In closing, we desire to voice the sentiment that we regard this bill 

 hurtful, vicious, and intended to kill one great and beneficial industry 

 to build up and fatten another whose business during the year just 

 closed has eclipsed all former years in prosperity. We further believe 

 that if this un-American measure is forced upon the people a panic 

 will ensue in the live-stock industry of the United States most dis- 

 astrous; declines will immediately follow, tending to disrupt the whole 

 system of trade as it relates to the live-stock industry. But we have 

 faith that this honorable body will report unfavorably. If to the con- 

 trary, the great court of justice of the whole people, the United States 

 Senate, will not consent to deprive the vast army of the poor, the 

 great majority of the American people, the substantial middle class, 

 even the wealthy, of purchasing a pure, wholesome food product. 



I thank you, gentlemen. 



G. M. WALDEN, 

 President Kansas City Live Stock Exchange. 



KANSAS CITY, Decembw 31, 1900. 



STATEMENT OF GEORGE L. FLANDERS. 



Mr. George L. Flanders, assistant commissioner of agriculture of 

 the State of New York, appeared before the committee. 



Mr. FLANDERS. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I 

 am a little surprised at the length of the argument of the eminent 

 gentleman on the other side. He dwells entirely upon the proposition 

 that there is nothing involved here but a financial question. I come 

 here representing the department of agriculture of the State of New 

 York, and there we feel that we are protecting the consuming public, 

 and we believe that they are a great element in this country. We 

 believe that this business thrives upon fraud, and that the great con- 

 suming public are the ones that are defrauded. 



In 1878 it appeared in the State of New York that oleomargarine 

 was being sold, and sold as butter. It was thought then that the State 

 would try to regulate the matter. It passed a statute that the goods 

 might be sold, but should be branded as such. That law proved inef- 

 fective, and in 1880 the State passed another act providing that when 

 sold it should be branded as oleomargarine. That act, although more 

 restrictive, proved ineffective; and in 1882 the State passed another 

 law more restrictive, and that failed to produce a result, and, finally, 

 in 1884 it passed an act providing oleomargarine should not be sold as 

 a substitute for butter. That act was declared unconstitutional by our 



