OLEOMARGARINE. 199 



PITTSBURG, PA., January 1, 1901. 

 Hon. REDFIELD PROCTOR, 



Chairman Committee on Agriculture, 



United States Senate, Washington, D. C. 



DEAR SIR: Being the only manufacturers of oleomargarine in Penn- 

 sylvania, operating under a charter granted by our State, and situated 

 in Pittsburg, one of the largest markets for oleomargarine in the 

 country, we are in such close touch with the trade that we can speak 

 correctly on the situation here. 



We know and can furnish indisputable proofs that scarcely any of 

 our product is sold to consumers as butter. Our goods cost the con- 

 sumer 17 to 20 cents per pound, while creamery butter costs 30 to 

 33 cents. We maintain that 90 per cent of the purchasers of oleo- 

 margarine in the Pittsburg district know exactly what they buy. 



The great difference in prices of the oleomargarine and butter has 

 been the best possible source of enlightenment, especially to the labor- 

 ing classes, and it is on these that such a tax as proposed by this 

 bill will be the greatest burden; being deprived of oleomargarine as an 

 article of diet to which they have become accustomed, they will be 

 compelled to pay a much higher price for the same or a similar article. 

 Custom, habit, and the involuntary influence of the eye on the palate 

 demands that all butter and substitutes for it shall be golden in color, 

 and seeing that natural butter is artificially colored in order to be more 

 palatable, why should oleomargarine not be also? 



If necessary to tax oleomargarine to prohibition because artificially 

 colored, why not also tax all compounds which are vile substitutes for 

 molasses, jellies, vinegars, preserves, liquors, etc., in the same manner. 

 This exorbitant and unjust tax will not prevent, but rather encourage 

 fraud, because the increased cost will bring retail prices so much nearer 

 that of butter, thereby taking away the best possible proofs to the 

 consumer whether he buys oleomargarine or butter. For example, in 

 our market where the prevailing price is 3 pounds for 50 cents it will 

 be 3 pounds for 75 cents, and consequently much more easily repre- 

 sented as pure butter at 2 or 3 cents higher. 



If the sole object of this bill is to prevent fraud and not to deprive 

 the laboring classes of a cheap and wholesome article of food there are 

 many ways of fully advising the purchaser what he buys without 

 changing its present constituent parts or color. 



It is plainly evident that the object of this bill is to increase profits 

 for one class, butter makers, and to do so at the expense of three 

 others, stock raisers, oleomargarine manufacturers, and the class of 

 millions who consumed about 100,000,000 pounds of oleomargarine in 

 1900. This last class mentioned must pay for all in the end millions 

 of dollars in unnecessary taxes to the United States Treasury or else 

 corresponding millions to the "innocents" who furnish them pure 

 butter at advanced prices. 



Is it possible that such legislation can be enacted by our great United 

 States Senate? We hope not. 



Very respectfully submitted. 



HOLLAND BUTTERINE COMPANY, 

 W. W. PRINCE, Manager. 



Mr. TILLINGHAST. In the discussion of this measure I shall make no 

 reference to the legal status of the bill only in so far as it is necessary 



