154 OLEOMAKGAEINE. 



resenting their citizens and representing about two-thirds to three- 

 fourths of the citizens of the United States, do not understand what 

 they want, is so ridiculous that I can scarcely believe that anybody can 

 present such an argument. The voice of the people in this country, if 

 it is properly expressed, is the ruling power; and there is no stronger 

 argument in favor of the passage of this bill than that very fact, that 

 32 States have for years been passing laws and amending laws with a 

 view to regulating this traffic within their borders. 



Mr. SPRINGER. Excuse me a moment. Will you explain why it is, 

 then, that in the State of Illinois, where they have a law prohibiting 

 the sale of colored oleomargarine, 18,000,000 pounds were sold within 

 that State and 38,000,000 pounds were manufactured? 



Mr. HAMILTON. I will answer you, if you will excuse me just a 

 moment. 



Mr. SPRINGER. Does it not show that the people are not in favor of 

 these laws and will not enforce them ? 



Mr. HAMILTON. My time is very limited, and if the gentleman will 

 make a note of things as I go along, when I get through I will be very 

 glad to answer any questions that I may be able to answer. 



I will say in reply to the Judge that in some of these States the laws 

 are defective. They are not sufficiently rigorous, and the legislatures 

 have not been able in those particular States to pass laws that will 

 restrict. The effort is to do it, but in many cases it has been so resisted 

 by the interests in the State that they have not yet succeeded in pass- 

 ing laws that the people desire. I reiterate that the effort of 32 States 

 of this Union, representing, I believe you said, sir, about 60,000,000 

 people 



Mr. SPRINGER. Sixty millions of people; yes. 



Mr. HAMILTON. Sixty millions of people out of 76,000,000 that 

 the representatives of those 60,000,000 people do not know what they 

 are about is inconceivable. 



Now, with regard to this bill. It is constitutional. That is clear to 

 the committee. I will not argue that to the committee, because they 

 know it already just as well as it is possible to know it. The bill is 

 constitutional, and the discussion of the bill should be upon its merits. 

 Is it a wise measure ? Is it a proper measure ? That is the point. 



Now, the real argument that is presented and about the only argu- 

 ment that is presented on the other side so far as I know, is that the 

 article is a healthful and proper article of food, and that it is equally 

 nutritive and harmless with butter, and that therefore it should be 

 permitted to go into the market and be sold colored as butter. I 

 believe that is the argument that is presented, so far as I am able to 

 understand, that they claim that it is equally nutritious with butter, 

 that it is a substance that the public desires, and that it is equally 

 digestible with butter, and that therefore it is a wrong to undertake 

 to do anything that would limit its sale in this country. 



That is at least one proposition. Now, in reply to that they give 

 the testimony of some of the most eminent chemists in the country. 

 The testimony is guarded, it is true, but they put it in a somewhat 

 unequivocal form. What does the analysis of oleomargarine and but- 

 ter show as compared with each other ? The first thing that can be 

 said is that they are not identical. The analysis shows that while the 

 amount of fat in the two is practically the same, yet the composition 

 of these fats that go to make up what is called fat in a chemical sense 



