

OLEOMARGARINE. 255 



ARGUMENT OF ATTORNEY CHARLES E. SCHELL, REPRESENTING 

 THE OHIO BUTTERINE COMPANY, OF CINCINNATI, OHIO; THE 

 BOLD BUTTERINE COMPANY, OF KANSAS CITY, MO.; THE UNION 

 DAIRY COMPANY, OF CLEVELAND, OHIO, AND OTHERS. 



Mr. SCHELL. Mr. Chairman, I was sent here by the Ohio Butterina 

 Company, of Cincinnati, Ohio. 



The ACTING CHAIRMAN. Is that institution being operated now? 



Mr. SCHELL. The institution is being operated now. 



The ACTING CHAIRMAN. Has it ever been closed f 



Mr. SCHELL. It has never been closed. It only came into existence 

 a short time since. The charter was issued, I think, the same day that 

 the Grout bill passed the House. 



The ACTING CHAIRMAN. It is very new, then? 



Mr. SPRINGER. An infant industry. 



The ACTING CHAIRMAN. Yes; an infant industry. 



Mr. SCHELL. I am also attorney for the Jacob Dold Packing Com- 

 pany, of Kansas City, Mo., and I want to state that although originally 

 manufacturing oleomargarine under the name of the Jacob Dold Pack- 

 ing Company, yet in order to more closely associate what has been 

 called the "legislative name" of the product with the product, they 

 have incorporated their oleomargarine department under the name of 

 "The Dold Butterine Company," and were, as I am told, the first com- 

 pany to adopt a name identical with the product. I am duly author- 

 ized to speak for them. 



I am also attorney for the Union Dairy Company, of Cleveland, Ohio, 

 and have been for years; but Mr. Seither, the president and general 

 manager of that company, will be here to speak for it, and I will only 

 quote him as favoring any law which will distinctly and without dis- 

 crimination place butter and butterine distinctly on their separate and 

 individual merits, but as being against the Grout bill as being class leg- 

 islation of the most vicious kind. 



I am also attorney for wholesale and retail dealers in oleomargarine; 

 for commission men, whose main business is butter and eggs; for dairy- 

 men; for farmers; for consumers, who have within two weeks person- 

 ally expressed to me their condemnation of this bill. 



In the years I have been fighting the State color laws, 1 have 

 discussed the question of color discrimination in dairy laws on all pos- 

 sible occasions, opportune and otherwise; and I have hundreds of 

 expressions from all classes and conditions of mankind uniformly con- 

 demning the discrimination between the two products allowing the 

 farmers to color their butter and not allowing the oleomargarine manu- 

 facturers to color their product. 



Reference has been made from time to time to people appearing here 

 as "paid attorneys;" and intimations have been made that the same 

 degree of consideration should not be given to what they have to say 

 as to what might be said by somebody directly interested. 



I must resent that. So will any fair minded attorney. So will every 

 man who has had dealings with the legal profession. Attorneys do not, 

 as is sometimes supposed, accept employment for the purpose of win- 

 ning by fair means or foul; but merely to see that their clients receive 

 every benefit to which the law and the facts entitle them. 



Now, since this hearing is what it is called, " a hearing," and not a 

 trial, as I argue for my clients, I want to go beyond the bounds with 

 which custom has hedged an attorney, and within which I generally 

 try to confine myself, and mingle some testimony with my talk and 



