OLEOMARGARINE. 323 



when I say it would be likely to result in a loss to the mills of anj 7 - 

 where from 3 to 5 cents per gallon, each cent being equivalent to 40 

 cents per ton on seed. Or, taking the whole consumption of cotton seed 

 for manufacturing purposes, it would mean a loss of from $3,000,000 

 to $5,000,000 per annum to the oil industry, each cent per gallon of oil 

 being equal to $1,000,000 per annum on the whole crop of cotton seed. 

 This would mean, furthermore (viewing it in another light), that there 

 would be a clear loss to the oil industry of from 10 to 20 per cent of 

 their total earnings. Of course, there is no doubt that this loss would 

 ultimately fall on the planter, who in a large majority of instances is 

 the small white planter and the negro, and as the working men in the 

 northern and western countries would be deprived of a cheap and 

 healthy substitute for the butter, the poor farmer of the South would 

 get less for his cotton seed. 



The passage of this bill unquestionably means a blow to the indus- 

 trial interests of this entire country. I do not mention the raisers of 

 cattle and hogs, as their case has been already ably represented before 

 your committee. They would also be heavy losers, and who would be 

 the gainers by it? As half of the oil manufactured is exported, it 

 would mean that the foreigner would gain to half the extent of the 

 Southern losses, while in this country the only gainers would be the 

 dairymen of a few States of the Union. In our own State of Missis- 

 sippi, where practically all the available seed is used by oil mills, the 

 loss on the above basis would amount to three-quarters of a million of 

 dollars, which would be equivalent to placing a tax of about 75 cents 

 per bale on the planter's crop. 



If the object of the bill be simply to prevent the sale of oleomarga- 

 rine as butter, we have no objections whatever to a more stringent and 

 searching regulation than now exists, but we certainly protest against 

 the injustice of hampering an industry in which we are largely inter- 

 ested by putting oleomargarine under regulations that do not apply to 

 other products of a similar nature, and branding it thereby as an 

 unhealthful article of food. It seems to me that it is entirely against 

 the spirit of the Constitution of our country to tax one industry for 

 the benefit of another industry. Moreover, the passage of this bill 

 would be an entering wedge and a new argument to the European 

 nation for putting prohibitive duties on our products, for the slur cast 

 upon oleomargarine by the Grout bill will be eagerly seized upon by 

 the foreigners, who wish to keep out products, as an evidence that we 

 ourselves believe oleomargarine to be unhealthy. 



It seems to me very unfair that the manufacturers of oleomargarine 

 are not to be permitted to color their product to suit the public taste, 

 under a heavy penalty, while the manufacturers of butter are not to be 

 hampered in any way, although it is a notorious fact that nine-tenths 

 of the butter put on the market is colored artificially. I think all that 

 the oleomargarine people ask, and all that we ask, is fair treatment; 

 and if there is to be a tax on color, then let both industries be taxed 

 alike. 



Mr. Chairman, I would like to call your attention to the fact that 

 our industry has been built up in comparatively a few years, until now 

 it is one of the most important industries in the United States, after 

 cotton and grain. While cotton seed was formerly a waste product, it 

 may be said that our industry has sprung from a waste. The South 

 now realizes from it a revenue of from $30,000,000 to $50,000,000 per 

 annum. If this Grout bill should pass and the oleomargarine industry 

 is thereby crippled or wholly destroyed, it will mean that one avenue 



