224 OLEOMAKGARINE. 



STATEMENT OF W. F. DRENNAN, OF PHILADELPHIA, PA. 



Mr. DRENNAN. I would like to state my reasons for being in favor of 

 the Grout bill; and I will try to confine my reasons to facts. 



As a commission merchant, of course I might be called somewhat 

 selfish in the handling of genuine butter. We used to handle oleomar- 

 garine many years ago. We handled it largely up to the time the first 

 law was enacted, and we have handled it pending the decision on the 

 constitutionality of our State law. After it became a settled fact that 

 we could not handle it without violating the law, we quit it. 



As a dairyman, as a land owner and a man interested in the dairy 

 business, I am in favor of the Grout bill, because 1 think it offers the 

 best protection to the legitimate industry of butter making. 



I also would be glad to offer what testimony I can give you as to 

 some points which I have heard discussed here to-day, and which I 

 have seen through the medium of the press. One is the claim that 

 olemargarine is largely sold for what it is; that the people demand it 

 and want it, and that the manufacturers and wholesale dealers are 

 anxious that it shall be sold for just what it is. 



Now, I deny that in toto. Our experience, which I will try to verify 

 here to-day, has been exactly to the contrary. After being in the 

 commission butter business over twenty years I can call to mind only 

 one instance in which a consumer .ever admitted that he bought it 

 willingly or bought it for what it was. That may seem very strange 

 to you, and yet it is true. I repeat that I can recall but one instance in 

 all my lifetime where any person admitted that he bought it knowingly 

 for what it was because he wanted it on his table. 



Now, then, I think the facts will bear me out in that. As chairman 

 of the executive committee of the Pure Butter Association, we were 

 compelled two years ago to enforce our State law through the medium 

 of what money we could raise on the street and through appointing 

 our own attorney and our own detectives. After having purchased 

 about 161 samples and having them analyzed, and having those pur- 

 chases recorded in a book where we could have access to them, the 

 question came up: "How many purchases were made in which the 

 vender gave them to the purchaser for oleomargarine ? " Butter was 

 asked for, of course. Out of 161 cases, one was sold for exactly what 

 it was. The 160 were sold for butter and at practically butter prices. 



Now, are those facts sufficient to convince anyone here that these 

 goods are not sold for what they are ? Less than 1 per cent in that 

 particular, instance was sold for what it really was. 



You can have those facts if you want them. It has been stated here 

 on this floor to-day that there is only a small percentage of oleomar- 

 garine sold for other than what it is or what it purports to be. I 

 think that this case disproves that claim, and even if it does not, I have 

 enough knowledge of the oleomargarine business to know that it is 

 not sold for what it is; that there is no wholesaler who wants it sold for 

 what it is, and that in fact there is no manufacturer who really wants 

 it sold for what it is, for the reason that he can make a great deal more 

 out of it and sell a great deal more of it through having it sold for 

 butter. 



My friend Mr. Jelke, here (a man whom I have known a long time, 

 and whom I respect), would probably tell you that he would prefer 

 1 hat these goods should be sold for what they are. I think that the 



