OLEOMARGARINE. 277 



be far better protected under the Brosius bill, wliicb is pending before Congress, 

 than under a special bill, because all tbe interests would be placed on the same foot- 

 ing. The Brosius bill absolutely prohibits the sale of any product as an imitation 

 or under the name of another, and provides penalties for that specific purpose; so 

 that it would be absolutely impossible under the law, if that bill were passed, to sell 

 oleomargarine for butter anywhere in this country. 



Now, I have not seen that bill, but I have heard of it from time to 

 time. It is backed by all the pure-food congresses and commissioners 

 and everybody else, I think, in any way interested in the absolute 

 purity of all that goes on our tables. I do not know what the bill is; 

 but if such a bill could be conceived it would have the support of every 

 oleomargarine manufacturer in the country, and, I think, of every labor 

 organization, of every farmer, and of everybody who eats. And most 

 of us subsist largely on what we eat. 



Mr. ADAMS. If the gentleman permit me to correct a statement, which 

 he undoubtedly made in good faith, I will say that he is mistaken in 

 saying that that bill is supported by all the dairy commissioners in the 

 States. While they concede certain merits in the bill the dairy com- 

 missioners of this country, as a rule, are not in favor of that law, as at 

 present informed, so far as my knowledge extends. 



Senator HEITFELD. To what do you refer? 



Mr. ADAMS. The Brosius bill, the national pure-food law. 



Senator HEITFELD. You say the dairy commissioners are not in favor 

 of it? 



Mr. ADAMS. They are not in favor of the bill in its present form. 

 They are in favor of some of the essential principles of the bill, but not 

 as worked out in that particular act. 



Senator HEITFELD. I have read that bill, and I have heard of it. It 

 is universal, of course, is it not? 



Mr. ADAMS. Yes. 



Senator HEITFELD. It would also compel dairy products to be labeled 

 as to coloring matter and everything else? 



Mr. ADAMS. Well, that depends upon the interpretion of the general 

 principles laid down in the law. They do not object to that part of it 

 at all. 



Mr. SCHELL. Whatever it is, such a law should be enacted and 

 should be enforced. We> have a splendid law in the State of Ohio 

 which would be well to incorporate into some national law. 



The ACTING CHAIRMAN. I think the main difficulty in that matter 

 is to frame a law which would be within the jurisdiction of Congress on 

 the subject. 



Mr. SCHELL. Exactly, Mr. Chairman. I was going to touch on that 

 later on, when I came to discuss the bill. Then I want to call special 

 attention to the statement of Professor Wiley at page 228 of his testi- 

 mony, in which he distinguished between th.e chances of contagion or 

 chances of danger in the two rival products, if they are rival products 

 oleomargarine and butter. He discriminates in favor of oleomargarine 

 as containing the least danger to the public health. 



So much, gentlemen, in a general way, for the enemies of the bill, for 

 those who are opposing this legislation. 



Now as to the friends of the bill. I can not give them the attention 

 I would like. I will try to be very brief and I will try to keep within 

 the record. 



They rest on alleged numbers. They say, " We, the people we, 

 the dairymen, want it as a remedy for (imaginary) injuries." They 

 have neither proven their numbers or their injuries. 



Their argument is to abuse oleomargarine, every one connected with 

 its manufacture or sale, and branch out to judges, juries ? revenue ofjti- 



