OLEOMARGARINE. 193 



very composition and manufacture, it is an article that commends 

 itself to the most fastidious person and especially to the literate, who 

 positively know that its manufacture is conducted under the rigid 

 supervision of the most punctilious revenue officials and, in most 

 States, under the prejudiced and biased supervision of food and dairy 

 departments. The best indorsement for the purity of butterine is the 

 fact that Government and State analytical experts have never found a 

 flaw in its ingredients or its manufacture; otherwise they would have 

 been compelled, and in State cases would have been glad, to wipe the 

 manufacture and sale of butterine out of existence under the now 

 oppressive and unreasonable laws. 



The adherents of the Grout bill make the bold and astounding an- 

 nouncement that there is nothing in this bill to prevent the sale of 

 uncolored butterine, and even refer with great pride to their magna- 

 nimity in the reduction of the present tax of 2 cents per pound to one- 

 fourth cent per pound on butterine free from coloring matter. This 

 astounding declaration either precedes or succeeds a statement that 

 butterine is unfit for human food. I therefore would ask if it is their 

 acknowledgment that this Congress should be asked to encourage the 

 sale of uncolored butterine by a reduction of the present tax, and 

 should by an exorbitant tax prohibit its sale simply because it is col- 

 ored with a harmless coloring matter, and such a coloring matter as 

 the butter makers admit using in their product. It is certainly the 

 height of inconsistency to ask Congress to encourage the sale of a 

 product which they claim unfit for human consumption. Everyone 

 knows that color in butter and butterine is a nutritive ingredient, 

 adding neither flavor, texture, nor weight, but is used in very minute 

 quantities, and therefore can not possibly make colored butterine any 

 more unhealthy than colored butter. I can not, therefore, understand 

 the logic of such attempted legislation, which presumably intends to 

 increase the sale of uncolored butterine at a lower rate of taxation and 

 intends to prohibit the sale of colored butterine through an exorbitant 

 tax. 



It has also been common phraseology in the dairy journals to refer 

 to colored butterine as being adulterated, which, in my judgment, is a 

 two-edged sword, provided the term is used correctly. Upon refer- 

 ence to Webster's Dictionary, however, we find the definition of the 

 word "adulterated" to be as follows: " To corrupt, debase, or make 

 impure by an admixture of baser materials." It is readily perceived, 

 therefore, that the term "adulterated " as applied to the coloring of 

 butterine is inconsistent, unless the makers of butter or the editors of 

 the dairy journals desire to establish a new definition for the word 

 "adulterated," or that they will admit that they have debased their 

 product or made it impure by the admixture or addition of baser mate- 

 rials, such as coloring matter. 



Another one of their prize cries in the dairy journals is that they 

 want protection. Who asks for it ? The manufacturer ? The merchant ? 

 The retailer? The mechanic? The artisan? The laborer? No; my 

 dear sirs, not these. It is the publishers of the creamery and dairy 

 journals and a few would-be promoters for a creamery butter trust. 

 Nor is it, as they publish in their papers, the farmer that asks for pro- 

 tection, because, in the first place, the farmer does not have to eat but- 

 terine, and consequently needs no protection on this point, and, besides, 

 butter making on the farm never was an important factor, and during 



S M Rep. 2043 13 



