306 OLEOMARGAKINE. 



ute that was ever put on the books. This is that kind of a bill; and 

 in this statement I am not referring to a constitutional test. The bill 

 fails of its alleged object regardless of the Supreme Court. The bill 

 makes business for lawyers and lobbyists, but all others suffer, includ 

 ing the people who are supposed to be interested in the passage of this 

 l aw "the dairymen of the nation." 



But to return to my clients and my country : The bill is not fair on 

 either side. I have wondered if it was drawn by the lawyers who 

 brought forty cases under the repealed statute in Chicago, or by one 

 who knows his business. The enactment of this bill would mean, in 

 my opinion, that the same fight would be fought over next session. 

 But, then, there are 24,600 farmers at 50 cents to $1,000 per head! 



Now, as to the main question, its legality or otherwise: What is it 

 good, bad, or expedient? Certainly not the former; and assuredly no 

 circumstance has been shown to justify a bad measure on the grounds 

 of expediency. In this case the ends do not justify the means. 



Is the bill police, revenue, or repressive legislation ? If police legis- 

 lation, Congress has no power to enact it. It is not claimed. If repres- 

 sive legislation, Congress has no power to enact it. That is not claimed. 

 If for the purpose of raising revenue, it fails of its purpose. See the 

 testimony of Commissioner Wilson. See the concession by Governor 

 Hoard, who admits of record (p. 7, Senate hearing) that the one-fourth 

 of a cent per pound tax is scarcely enough to police the bill, and will not 

 bring in any revenue. 



But it is repressive legislation, alleged to be such. Governor Hoard 

 says (p. 2, House committee) : " In plain words, this is repressive legis- 

 lation," justified by police pretension, and attempted to be legally clothed 

 by a revenue cloak. 



Gentlemen, the United States Supreme Court decisions have been 

 ably argued by my brothers Gardner and Springer and by others, with 

 different conclusions. I need not comment upon them. We do not 

 need the interpretation of any court. We who oppose this bill are con- 

 vinced that the bill is wrong, is unfair, is dishonest, is illegal. The 

 friends of the bill have the insolence to admit of record its dishonesty, 

 its illegality. They venture to question both the intelligence and the 

 integrity of the Congress of the United States. They come here and 

 say, "We will admit you can not openly exercise police power in 

 a State. We admit that you can not exact repressive legislation and 

 call it so; but you can, and for us you will and must, pass this act as a 

 revenue measure. You must pass, under a false name, a law to pre- 

 vent the oleomargarine manufacturer from giving his product a color 

 which has been given it from the beginning." 



Then, while asking you to do an unfair thing for them and stultify 

 yourselves before the nation and the whole world, they are not playing 

 fair with you. They claim that they only want to keep oleomargarine 

 on its own merits; and yet the only result of an enforcement of the 

 act would be an absolute prohibition of the manufacture of the colored 

 article, if not of the article itself, arid they know it. 



Gentlemen, I have talked long. I hope not needlessly. 



I would have liked to have summed up all that has been said, briefly; 

 but I will omit a summing up of the whole subject. 



But regardless of any general summing up, the subject is reduced to 

 the question, u ls the bill right? Is it just? Is it honest? Is it what 

 it purports to be? Is it constitutional colored or uncolored?" 



If so, consider it. But if it is wrong if dishonest if class legisla- 

 tion if not what it purports to be if not a revenue measure, and a 

 wise one relegate it to the oblivion which it so richly deserves. 



