358 OLEOMARGARINE. 



Why talk about substituting oleomargarine for butter? The danger 

 exists now in the other direction. That is absolutely true. There is 

 butter at present being sold, or at least on the market, that is utterly 

 unfit for use, unfit for human consumption; and when our citizens, 

 knowing what they are purchasing, desire to purchase a certain article 

 of food in preference to some other article which is not, in their estima- 

 tion, just as good, and when the article which they prefer is in no sense 

 injurious to their health, I can not see, nor can anyone else who looks 

 at the matter properly or studies the question thoroughly, conceive how 

 it can in any sense be a province of government to say to them, " You 

 shall not use it, or you shall use it only under certain conditions." 



The CHAIRMAN. If they prefer oleomargarine, and wish to have proof 

 that it is oleomargarine, why would they not prefer to have it in its 

 natural color, so that no further proof would be required ? That would 

 settle it. 



Mr. McNAMEE. Why, Senator, my answer to your last question would 

 also answer this. They have been used to a certain color. They have 

 become accustomed to consuming this product colored as it is at present. 

 Now, as long as they prefer to use it under that color, knowing what it 

 is composed of, knowing what its ingredients are, where is the justice 

 or right or sense of saying to them, or wherei, is it within the province 

 of government to say to them, "You shall not be permitted to use it 

 colored in this way ; you must use it white ? " The same old question 

 comes up over and over again "Why?" "Because the Congress of 

 the United States says so." "But why does the Congress of the 

 United States say so?" etc. 



The gentlemen defending the butter side of this proposition would 

 be in the same position then that a certain farmer, a member of the 

 agricultural committee of the Ohio house of representatives, before 

 which body I appeared on behalf of the Columbus Trades and Labor 

 Assembly as chairman of its legislative committee, who said to me, 

 "What will we do with all our cows if you fellows are permitted to 

 manufacture and use all the oleomargarine you want to?" 



Just as I told the gentleman at the time, if each of the farmers 

 present had a quarry upon his property, they would probably consider 

 themselves justified in coming to the Ohio legislature as representatives 

 of that body and endeavoring to enact a law prohibiting the manufac- 

 ture of brick. Why? Simply because it would interfere with their 

 quarry industry and curtail the sale of stone for building purposes. 



I can not see any other argument in support of the Grout bill; and 

 there are thousands and hundreds of thousands of our citizens who are 

 in the same unfortunate plight as I am at the present time. 



There is no question, gentlemen, but that the object of this Grout 

 bill is not the protection of the public in general, but the abolition of 

 the oleomargarine industry. This tax is not a reasonable tax. It is a 

 prohibitive tax. There is no question about that. Put 10 cents per 

 pound additional tax upon butterine, and if its use is continued who 

 will pay that extra 10 cents'? The consumer will pay it no one else. 

 Who is at the present time paying the two-cents-per-pouud tax which 

 our paternal Congress has placed upon this product? The man who 

 earns a dollar and a quarter per day; the railroad man who goes out 

 at the risk of his life to earn a living for himself and his family; in 

 short, the citizens who consume the oleomargarine are at present paying 

 this two-cents-per-pound tribute to the existence of this already unjust 

 law. As soon as this tax was imposed the price of the product to the 

 consumer advanced 2 cents per pound and has remained so ever since, 

 since. 



