OLEOMAKQAEINE. 409 



Mr. DAVIS. Yes; there is a statement of Judge Springer here, I 

 believe, as to the quantity that is sold out there. There are three deal- 

 ers, and there are 79,000 pounds sold. 



Mr. JELKE. If Senator Dolliver will permit me, I will say that before 

 the anticolor law was passed in Iowa there was quite a large business 

 done; but we can not sell uncolored oleomargarine in Iowa, and there 

 is a rigid enforcement of the law against colored oleomargarine there. 



Mr. DOLLIVER. I never met anyone in Iowa who wanted to purchase 

 the article, because there would be very little difference in the price there. 



Mr. JELKE. I will say we have some customers who buy it for their 

 own use in some of the towns in Iowa. 



Mr. DAVIS. I will try to relieve the committee in a few minutes. I 

 want to know if the United States officials are going to do any better 

 for these people than the States' officials do, except in the one particular 

 in which the United States can help; that is, the collection of the tax. 

 If you say yes to that, and that that is the only way, you concede at once 

 that the object of this bill is to suppress the industry. There is no 

 other outcome to it. I put it to you thus : If the laws restricting the 

 fraudulent sale of oleomargarine can not be enforced by the States, 

 they can not be enforced by the United States ; and if for the reason 

 that they are not enforced and can not be enforced by the States this 

 legislation is desired, its object exclusively is to reach above the State 

 laws and above the laws which have merely to do with the fraudulent 

 violation of the act and stop the sale and manufacture of oleomargarine ; 

 and I protest that Congress has no right to do that in the face of the 

 decisions to which I have asked the attention of the committee. 



As to your question a while ago about the color, which I have already 

 answered in part, I protest that no interest, no matter how long it has 

 lived, has a right to protection against a newer and a better industry. 

 It is the fate of all commerce and of all business that new things come 

 in and push out the old; and it would be a most interesting thing, 

 indeed, if Congress or a State legislature were to attempt to close down 

 a shoe factory where shoes are made by machinery in order to save the 

 village shoemaker. Why, I do not know of anything that has impressed 

 me more in my life than the experience that I have been through, and 

 that you have been through, and every man here of my years or older 

 has been through, and that is the painful experience of seeing the 

 gradual destruction of the country village. I have gone through Mary- 

 land, around this city, all my life. I can recall one village after another 

 through which as a boy I went and through which I have passed only 

 lately. There was the village blacksmith, the village tinker, and the 

 village carpenter, and the village tailor name them all. Who is left? 

 Only the village blacksmith, because as yet God in his providence has 

 not endowed the human mind with sufficient intelligence to shoe a horse 

 by machinery; but the carpenter is gone, because the manufacturers of 

 doors, sashes, and blinds have taken his place. The tailor is gone, 

 because the manufacturer of clothing and the sellers of them by whole- 

 sale have taken his place. The tinker is gone, for the same reason ; and 

 so through the list. 



Now, what would have been thought of any man introducing in his 

 legislature a bill to suppress the manufacture of shoes at Lynn, Mass., 

 because the village cobblers were going to be put out of business? 

 That will not do. A very apt expression on that subject is to be found 

 in the language of Mr. Justice Peckhain, in the case of The United 

 State's v. The Freight Association, reported in 166 U. S. I read from 

 page 323. This is one of the trust cases. The argument was pressed 



