128 OLEOMARGARINE. 



Mr. SPRINGER. The Supreme Court so stated. 



Mr. FLANDERS. The Supreme Court did not say that. I should like 

 to hear the statement. It said when the goods are properly made; but 

 I submit the proposition that the Supreme Court is not to pass upon 

 the question of the healthfulness of a commodity. They are to con- 

 strue the laws and the Constitution. If a law contravenes the Con- 

 stitution, they say so; if it is within the powers, they say so; but 

 whether legislation is wise or unwise, good or bad, the court has 

 said time and again is no concern of theirs. I do not think that the 

 court determined or tried to determine that question. 



Here, gentlemen [exhibiting], is one of many samples of paraffin 

 wax taken from oleomargarine sold in the open market in the city of 

 New York, gathered by our agents, and here is a pamphlet prepared 

 by Chemist Joseph F. Geisler, of New York City relative to the mat- 

 ter. I will not read it to you, but will leave it with you. 



Mr. MILLER. Where did he purchase that oleomargarine? 



Mr. FLANDERS. Mr. Kracke, where was that oleomargarine purchased ? 



Mr. KRACKE. It was found on Third avenue in New York City. 



Mr. MILLER. How many samples did he examine ? 



Mr. FLANDERS. Here is the statement of the chemist showing num- 

 ber of samples. If we find any adulteration in the course of our work 

 in enforcing the law we make a note of it. Here are eight cases. 



Senator HEITFELD. When was this analysis made ? 



Mr. FLANDERS. In 1899; some of them. I will read the opening 

 clause of this pamphlet, if the Senators will permit me: 



c ' One often hears of adulterated food, but rarely are such sophisti- 

 cations of a nature that they may be deemed injurious to health. The 

 recent finding of paraffin as an adulterant in a number of samples of 

 commercial oleomargarine may therefore prove of interest. 



"Though paraffin has been mentioned as an adulterant of chocolates 

 and candies, the use of such an indigestible substance as an adulterant 

 of oleomargarine seemed so improbable that the actual separation of 

 the paraffin was required to convince some skeptical minds. 



' ' Its use in oleomargarine is by no means new, for I first observed it 

 in a commercial sample in September, 1893, and reported the fact to 

 the New York State department of agriculture. The general proper- 

 ties of the fat of the sample, its behavior during saponification, and 



100 F. 

 the abnormally low specific gravity , 0. 894 (at z i QQQ y )? indicated 



an irregularity and the probable presence of paraffin. Although the 

 sample under examination amounted to only a few grams, sufficient of 

 the unsaponifiable matter was obtained from the same to show that it 

 was paraffin. It was impossible at the time to get more of this par- 

 ticular sample or duplicates of several others in which paraffin was 

 found between that date and March, 1894, when I was enabled to pre- 

 pare an exhibit of the paraffin extracted from one of the samples. 

 About this time experts of the department of agriculture, in the 

 course of their inspections in New York and Brooklyn, found quite a 

 number of samples of oleomargarine which, upon analysis, were found 

 to contain paraffin. Some of these were analyzed by Drs. Love, Wal- 

 ler, Stillwell, and myself, and the amounts of paraffin in the various 

 samples were found to range from 9.72 per cent to 11.25 per cent." 



Now, gentlemen, those are facts. This pamphlet was issued by Dr. 

 Geisler, of New York. 



