282 OLEOMARGARINE. 



Bight there I would suggest that if no other privilege is granted us, 

 we would like to have the ability to make colored goods to the order 

 of the consumer. He does not grant that. 



Now, we quote from his statements before the Senate committee. 

 He says: 



I will only add that the bill is for the purpose of preventing the counterfeiting of 

 food, so far as the constitutional power of the Federal Government can go. 



Now, the main point. He says to you, gentlemen : 



The Federal Government is limited in its constitutional power. It has no right 

 to enact prohibition. 



If this is prohibition, and is so shown to the committee, Governor 

 Hoard says you have no right to enact it. "It has no police power." 

 If it is police power, you have no right to enact this law. 



Those things you are as well aware of as I am, but it has taken ground upon cer- 

 tain lines, like the taxation of State banks in the interest of a sound currency, etc. 



And he brings in his " great army" again. He alleges that the color 

 ing of butter is not a vehicle of deception. And Senator Allen, at 

 page 12, asks him the question : 



Why does the prudent farmer ordinarily in June endeavor to put down enough 

 butter to carry him through the winter tor his own use? 



Mr. HOARD. Senator, that is not done at the present time to any appreciable 

 extent. 



Senator ALLEN. It has been done ever since I was a boy. 



Mr. HOARD. It may have been done when you were a boy and when I was a boy. 

 As to that you are right, but at the present time the whole system of butter making 

 is changed. 



That is what we claim. 



Not one man puts down butter in June for the next winter where 10,000 did it 

 forty years ago. This wonderful change has come through the organization of 

 creameries, where now a very large proportion of the best butter is made. 



We also claim it comes through the organization of creameries, as 

 we aimed to show, and not through any competitive work of the oleo- 

 margarine interests. 



The next witness is Mr. Charles Y. Knight, who was the main wit- 

 ness before the House. And I want to disclaim in the start any per- 

 sonal attack on Mr. Knight. I am only attacking his argument. An 

 argument can not be proven bad by proving the man who made it is 

 bad, and the man is not necessarily bad because it is a bad argument. 

 But we must look at motives and the inducements to get on the wrong 

 side. I think Mr. Knight is honest, but mistaken. 



Mr. KNIGHT. Thank you. 



Mr. SCHELL. He began, according to the record before the House, 

 fourteen years ago; according to his statement this morning, twenty 

 years ago. It seems he can not quit. He can not realize the changed 

 conditions. We might say it is due to his phrenological construction. 

 We admire a man who sticks to a proposition. He starts after a thing 

 and can not stop until be gets it, even if it is no longer desirable. And 

 this is not desirable now, as we will show later on. But then, he repre- 

 sents the farmers ; and he is better off, a better manager, than Governor 

 Hoard, because from 24,600 farmers he has been able to collect 50 cents 

 apiece, and from some of the balance of his 30,000, as he states in his 

 testimony (p. 62, House Com.), some of whom might have contributed 

 as high as $1,000. He was probably paid in advance, and he must 

 earn his money. The only trouble is that he is working them no 

 working for them too much for that amount. 



