122 OLEOMARGARINE. 



State courts. In 1885 the State passed a law providing it should not 

 be sold in imitation or semblance of butter, bo much for the propo- 

 sition that they would like to stand out before the world and sell these 

 goods for what they are. There is not one solitary word of truth in 

 it from the standpoint of our experience in the State of New York. 



For nearly seventeen years 1 have seen this work go on. From the 

 city of Chicago last year several hundred tubs came into the State of 

 New York without the national stamp; not a thing on them would 

 indicate that the five tacks had ever been in the tub as required by hi\v, 

 and it was sold as renovated butter and branded as such. It was traced 

 back to Chicago by our detectives and traced to one house there whose 

 representative, I am told, is here to-day. 



Let me modify that statement by saying this: Our detective went 

 back there and traced the goods as best he could. It was reported to 

 the National Government. They seized the goods and sold them in 

 Detroit, and my informant told me it was traced to dangerously close 

 proximity to a certain oleomargarine manufactory. Our detective 

 reported that a person, said to represent Braun & Fitts, appeared and 

 gave bail for the defendants and otherwise interested himself in their 

 behalf. The indications pointed to that manufactory. But, be that 

 as it may, whichever one of the concerns it came from, it came in car- 

 load lots, in semblance of butter, with not the iota of an intention on 

 the face of it to comply with the State or national law, and a violation 

 of both of them. 



Now, sir, an argument was made as many as fifteen years ago before 

 the governor of the State of New York, wherein these people said, 

 "Let us sell oleomargarine for what it is, and we will do it." We 

 replied, "For six years we have tried to let you sell it for what it is, 

 and you would not do it. Now you must be made to be honest with 

 the people." That was the experience in Ohio, Iowa, Pennsylvania, 

 Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Vermont, and all the 

 States of the 32 which have passed such laws, as I understand it. 

 New York and the other States passed these laws because forced to 

 do it to protect the consuming public. 



After that we had our litigation, and the law under question went to 

 the court of appeals of our State, and in the case known as the People 

 v. Arenburg the law was declared to be constitutional. The Massa- 

 chusetts law w T as declared constitutional. The Pennsylvania law was 

 declared unconstitutional. Finally a case was made up which went 

 from Massachusetts, which was discussed here to-day, and I was aston- 

 ished at the discussion and conclusion coming from the gentleman it 

 did. The conclusion he drew is, in my judgment, absolutely wrong. 

 What did the Plumley case involve? He said had the pleadings been 

 right he thought the decision would have been different. He said it 

 did not appear in the pleadings, as I understand it, that that was an 

 original imported package of oleomargarine on which had been paid 

 the duties as required by the national law. 



Mr. SPRINGER. I said it did. 



Mr. FLANDERS. Very well. I did not so understand you; and now I 

 do not understand what could have been your thought when you agreed 

 that the decision would have been different under certain conditions 

 which you seemed to think should have prevailed. In my judgment, 

 the case contained all the necessary and proper questions of fact, and 

 was well presented and considered by the court. As to the particular 



