OLEOMARGARINE. 281 



who put out full v one- third of the product, being, according to Dun, only 

 $400,000. Then they go on : 



The dairy sentiment of the county would be willing that the uncolored compound 

 should be relieved of all taxation. The tax as provided in the bill, however, is 

 trifling and nominal. This is done in the spirit of fairness. 



It is done as the grossest kind of unfairness. He then goes on: 



To give added force to the first section of this bill, it is also provided in the second 

 section that a tax of 10 cents a pound shall be imposed on all oleomargarine in the 

 color or semblance of butter. In plain words, this is repressive taxation. 



That is the nearest we have been able to get them on record. 1 want 

 it remembered, and want to comment on it later on ; but I must pass 

 the larger part of this. He goes on to say: 



It has been found, through the inefficient administration of State laws and the 

 powerful influence of this oleomargarine combination, that this protection is insuf- 

 ficient. 



The only testimony we have here is from the States of New York, 

 Pennsylvania, and Ohio. The New York laws are in force. The Ohio 

 laws regarding fraudulent sales are enforced. The Pennsylvania laws 

 were allowed to run riot, but now they have them in hand. As soon 

 as they took charge they enacted a law, a necessarily unpopular law, 

 and put in a commissioner, and expected him to enforce that law over 

 the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for $12,500 a year! Mr. Sharpless 

 does not think that Mr. Hamilton tries. I do not know Mr. Hamilton, 

 but I have no doubt he does the best he can with the amount of money 

 at his disposal. But when they get together and contribute, and pay 

 an attorney, and go after the frauds, the laws are capable of enforce- 

 ment. According to the testimony, they have reduced the licenses 

 from some 500 down to 32, I think, in the city of Philadelphia. This 

 shows that they are capable of enforcement. 



The hoped-for effect of the legislation asked of Congress is not to destroy the 

 oleomargarine industry, but to force it over onto its own ground; to compel "it to 

 be made in its own guise and color. Is there anything unjust or unreasonable about 

 this? 



There is nothing unreasonable about a law to force it onto its own 

 ground. The factories to a unit will help to enforce any such law. I 

 want to speak of the attitude of the factories on that point later on. 

 But to try and get one of the main advocates of this bill where the 

 committee will know where he stands, and so we may know where he 

 stands and what he wants whether to tax us out of existence or 

 merely to confine us within our proper limits is a thing that I have 

 not been able to do. He goes on : 



tax one 

 would 



answer "No." The oleomargarine business is not conducted legitimately. It is 

 based, from manufacture to sale, on wrong and illegitimate methods. 



They have not proven it. They concede that the manufacturer com- 

 plies with the law now. It is only the retailer; and the manufacturer 

 will help to compel the retailer to sell his product for what it is. 



Mr. Hoard refers to the unhealthful part. That is a matter too plain 

 for discussion. He then says (p. 4) : 



The whole proposition is in a nut shell. Force out the color or semblance to but- 

 ter and you put a stop to its being imposed on the consumer for butter. 



He evidently means to force out the manufacture of colored oleo, no 

 matter how badly the people want it, 



We are met by certain abstractionists with the question, "Would you t{ 

 legitimate industry out of existence for the benefit of another?" To this I 



