332 OLEOMAEGAEINE. 



By the last census you will find that the State of New Jersey is not 

 far behind those which lead in the magnitude and variety of its manu- 

 factures, which leads mo to suggest that in this continuing controversy 

 between oleomargarine and butter (good or bad) the mechanics, oper- 

 atives, artisans, or other workers for a modest wage have rights which 

 a white man is bound to respect, be he butterman or Congressman, 

 and should at least be permitted to exercise his God given and Consti- 

 tutional right to cater to the normal requirements of his inner man. 



This brings me to the point I wish to make, that butter, the best of 

 it, is now retailing at 28 to 30 cents per pound, and in some instances 

 double and treble these figures when sold under the mark of cattle 

 which carry the pretensions and prestige of a long lineage and small 

 fortunes invested in them because of their pedigrees. As contrary to 

 this condition, consider the prices of the "poor man's' 7 butter, which 

 under a name designed to hinder its sale steadily and continously sells 

 at a much lower price to the everlasting credit of the little French 

 chemist, who first evolved it from the fat of the steer and gave to the 

 cattle interests of the United States an added impetus and value, and 

 to the world at large a food product, which, measured in the light of 

 coming generations, will be beyond human calculation or measurement 

 in its benefit to mankind. 



This may seem like an overdrawn statement from an enthusiast, yet 

 let us probe into the future a trifie to see how far away we are. 



In the hundred years intervening between 1790 and 1890 the popu- 

 lation of the United States increased from 3,929,214 to 62,622,250 

 people, or an increase of 1,493 per cent. 



Is it a wild proposition to suggest that in the next hundred years 

 our population will increase half as much as it did in the preceding 

 hundred years, or, say, 700 per cent? If you will concede this, let me 

 mirror the future for you in four sections of time and you will have in 



1925 125,000,000 



1950 230,000,000 



1970 350,000,000 



1990 500,000,000 



Now, let us bear these figures in mind while we consider their rela- 

 tion to the question of butter versus butterine. If the estimate of 

 future population is correct, I am bold to assert that in the period 

 between 1925 and 1950 there will be no milk available for the making 

 of butter, which of course would be no great hardship, provided you 

 or your successors do not tax butterine out of Existence. You may 

 smile at the gloomy outlook, yet it is a fair prophecy in saying that if 

 the present rate of increase of population is maintained with the esti- 

 mated shortage of the cow supply, the supply of milk in the coming 

 years will all be required for table purposes, invalids, and let us hope 

 as a saving and salvation for our race butterine. 



In confirmation of this I may cite Secretary of Agriculture Wilson, 

 who stated a short time ago that there are 10,000,000 less cattle in 

 this country than there were ten years ago. Think of it, a decrease of 

 1,000,000 a year. His reason for it was the conceded impoverishment 

 of the grazing lands, which he stated would only feed the present num- 

 ber of cattle at best. 



Some of you gentlemen will recall the drought of last summer, espe- 

 cially in the eastern section of the country, when many farmers sold a 

 part of their herds because of lack of pasturage and feed, the effect of 

 which is still felt in an enhanced cost of those products largely depend- 

 ent upon a good grass crop, of which may be instanced condensed 



