316 OLEOMARGARINE. 



to be bought that much cheaper in order to sell the oil at the depreci- 

 ated price, because of the absence of this market. It has got to be 

 shipped, then, to Rotterdam to make butter, which is done now to a 

 very large extent. There are enormous shipments of cotton-seed oil 

 made now to Rotterdam, and the butter of a large proportion of those 

 people in Europe who can not afford to use anything but cheap butter 

 comes from this cotton-seed oil product, just exactly as the oleoinar 

 Marine made in this country is largely made up of it. 



Now, in respect to other interests which are interfered with, you have 

 heard from the stockmen, and you know the extent to which the bill is 

 considered adverse to their interest. But there is still another interest 

 which I have not heard anybody speak of. I was lormerly an employee 

 of the Bethlehem Iron Works, in Pennsylvania. 1 lived with the work- 

 ing people, because 1 was one of them, and the food stuffs that were* 

 bought there had to be economical food stuffs. It was exceedingly 

 desirable that they should be able to buy wholesome food stuffs; and if 

 your bill were directed to the question of whether these products are 

 wholesome or not, it would be quite a different situation. But that is 

 not the proposition. And as far as this butter being more or less manu- 

 factured is concerned, the dairy butter itself is really manufactured; 

 while the very coloring matter which you are proposing to refuse the 

 use of in connection with butteriue is identically the same thing, and is 

 used to identically the same extent in many cases in the butter that 

 comes from cattle, and there is just as much deception in the one case 

 as in the other. As a matter of fact, there is not any deception in either 

 case. 



If in the renovation of butter it is considered desirable to give it a 

 uniform color, that is all right. If it can be done without injury, it is 

 all right. If the same thing can be done in butterine, I do not see any 

 objection to it, any more than you should attempt to object to a girFs 

 wearing a pretty color on her clothing to make her look better. The 

 dressing up of goods is practiced all the world over all the time. The 

 exhibition of goods in show windows, with the brightest colors put for- 

 ward, is simply creating an attraction by which the goods can be sold. 

 And to undertake to pass upon coloring matter simply because it is 

 coloring matter and nothing else is identically the same thing as to 

 attempt to prevent one class of women from wearing a particular color 

 because it makes them look like another class of women who are 

 assumed to have the right to wear those colors. 



Take the matter of ginghams. We have the same situation all the 

 time. We buy a French or a Scotch gingham over here that costs any 

 where from 30 to 60 cents a yard. Immediately, the next year, those 

 patterns are all copied and sold for 10 cents a yard. Xow, is the fact 

 that the same colors are used, the fact that a girl who perhaps works 

 in a factory undertakes to dress herself up in a similar manner to a 

 woman who is worth a fortune, but in a very much cheaper way, a legiti- 

 mate subject for legislation? And is not this proposition to legislate 

 with respect to the color of food stuffs identically the same proposition ? 



For this reason, Mr. Chairman, practically the whole forming inter 

 of the South are very much interested in seeing this bill defeated, 

 The stock interests in the whole United States are very much inter. 

 in seeing this bill defeated; and there are undoubtedly working people 

 from Maine to California who are interested in seeing that a whole, 

 good, and cheap foodstuff, made at a price which they can afford to 

 pay, is not legislated out of existence not because the richer man 

 the poor man not to eat butter at all (and I am not making any 



