290 OLEOMARGARINE. 



Then, if they do not want it, and there is no reason for it outside of 

 their wishes, the committee certainly will not do something which will 

 tax it out of existence. 



General Grout says further : 



All that it seeks to destroy is the fraud that is perpetrated when it is colored like 

 butter. 



At page 9 he says: 



But if you will put this 10-cent tax on it, and stop coloring it like butter, the 

 game will then be up. 



On page 11 (sustaining my statement as to the friends of the bill 

 having closed their case) he says : 



The friends of the bill submit their case, and give the field to those who are 

 opposed to the measure. 



I wanted to mention, at some length, Mr. Hamilton's argument; but 

 I will only refer to the fact that in Pennsylvania now, according to his 

 testimony, as I interpreted it, and according to the statement for the 

 commission men who were here, the State law is practically enforced 

 at least, in Philadelphia. 



The ACTING CHAIRMAN. Is that a law which forbids the sale of 

 colored oleomargarine? 



Mr. SCHELL. It forbids the sale of colored oleomargarine. They 

 have reduced the licenses in Philadelphia from over 500 to some 32. I 

 will say from my knowledge, which is hearsay, but accurate, that in 

 western Pennsylvania they have not been as successful in enforcing 

 the color law as they have been in the eastern part of the State, 

 because there is such a sentiment against it that the people rise up en 

 masse and say, " We won't have it." 



I now want to refer to the statements of the Ohio commissioner, who 

 believed in the national law. He says he can enforce the oleo-for-butter 

 clause in the Ohio law, but can not enforce the color law. He says 

 that 75 per cent of the oleomargarine sold in his State was sold for 

 butter. He is wrong there, I think. He is basing his statement on 

 the percentage of oleo-for-butter cases that he wins rather than upon 

 actual knowledge. I think he stated that he had no actual knowledge 

 of the case. 



Mr. Flanders, of New York, was so violent and so evidently preju- 

 diced, that while there were a great many things I wanted to say about 

 his argument, I think it will probably speak for itself on our side. He 

 claimed general rottenness, scoundrelism, and so forth, and then owned 

 up voluntarily that abuse was no argument. 



Mr. Flanders claimed that the Government did not enforce these 

 laws, and the States could not. Yet he has shown that the laws of his 

 own State (and it is a fact) are very rigidly and successfully enforced, 

 and that his department had time and money to make a "gum-shoe" 

 expedition to Chicago. 



The Pennsylvania crowd which appeared yesterday was rather amus- 

 ing. They were here for the same purpose that farmers are sent to camp 

 in the yards of State legislatures when their dairy laws are to be con- 

 sidered; and for the same cause that members receive telegrams and 

 letters; but they were all evidently actually interested, since they 

 handled process butter, with one exception. That exception was Mr. 

 Sharpless, who wants 50 cents per pound for his butter. 



Mr. KNIGHT. Mr. Sharpless was not a dealer. 



Mr. SCHELL. No; I say, except him. One objected to the filth of 

 country butter. They were all kept pretty well in hand until about 



