25G OLEOMARGARINE. 



Mr. KAUFFMAN. No, sir. 



Mr. TILLINGHAST. And that is so with 32 States, as I understand. 



Mr. KAUFFMAN. Yes, sir. I do not know- 

 Mr. TILLINGHAST. So that no matter if we pay 10 cents a pound 

 tax, we have no more right to sell colored oleomargarine in Pennsyl- 

 vania than we had before. 



Mr. KAUFFMAN. No ; but we are not talking about the Pennsylvania 

 law, but the United States law. 



Mr. KNIGHT. Do you not believe that if this Grout bill were to 

 become a law, and colored oleomargarine should be taxed 10 cents a 

 pound, there would be no difficulty in repealing* our present law in 

 regard to oleomargarine in the State of Pennsylvania ? 



Mr. KAUFFMAN. I can only speak as an individual. I think if this 

 Grout bill is passed, the legislation of the States will conform to the 

 United States law. That is only a matter of personal opinion, however. 



Mr. TILLINGHAST. I do not know that I understood you in reference 

 to the original-package question. Do 1 understand you to say that if 

 the Wadsworth bill were adopted, and if there were no sales of oleo- 

 margarine except in the original package, the police laws of the State 

 would not apply to that original package ? 



Mr. KAUFFMAN. Not a bit. 



Mr. TILLINGHAST. Do I so understand you? 



Mr. KAUFFMAN. Yes, sir. 



Mr. TILLINGHAST. That would be exactly contrary to the case of 

 Plumley vs. The State of Massachusetts? 



Mr. KAUFFMAN. Yes. 



Mr. TILLINGHAST. Does not the police regulation already extend to 

 oleomargarine shipped in from another State ? 



Mr. KAUFFMAN. Yes; when colored. 



Mr. TILLINGHAST. Now, would not that same decision, if it is law 

 to-day, be law after the Wadsworth bill were passed? 



Mr. KAUFFMAN. My impression is that if this Wadsworth bill were 

 passed, Congress having acted upon it, the decision of the United 

 States Supreme Court would be changed to conform to that legisla- 

 tion. Congress would then have passed upon the matter, and that 

 would have been the law. 



Mr. TILLINGHAST. I think your opinion is contrary to the opinion 

 of lawyers generally. 



Mr. KAUFFMAN. Now, the United States Supreme Court was almost 

 equally divided on this question; it was three against four. There 

 was only a difference of one. It was a very narrow question ; and if 

 the Wadsworth bill were passed, I would not be a bit surprised if 

 that decision should be changed. 



Ask your questions, gentlemen; I shall be glad to answer them. 



Mr. SPRINGER. Before you conclude I want to correct one misap- 

 prehension under which 1 think you are laboring. That is, you claim 

 that the friends of this bill comprise all of the farmers of the country. 

 I want to enter the appearance of the farmers who are engaged in the 

 raising of cotton, hogs, and cows in the South as opposed to this bill, 

 who outnumber the farmers engaged in raising butter three to one. 

 (Laughter.) 



Mr. KAUFFMAN. Oh, I must differ with you as to that. Why, just 

 of it! Just think of it! Here are 11,000,000 cows that are interested 

 in dairying. We have 100,000 men in that line of business in the 



