414 OLEOMARGARINE. 



conscience of the people and excuse itself for not distinguishing between 

 legitimate and illegitimate industry and enterprise in the burden of 

 taxation which is laid. The Government has the power in this way to 

 discourage wrongdoing and encourage honest industry, and the people 

 will hold it responsible for the exercise of that power when the oppor- 

 tunity comes, as in the present case. I ask, can the Senate of the 

 United State, can any Senator, afford to deny to the great dairy interests 

 of this country this prayer for relief from competition with an acknowl- 

 edged counterfeit and fraud? 



The committee (at 5 o'clock p. m.) adjourned until Thursday, January 

 10, 1901, at 10.30 a. m. 



COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY, 



UNITED STATES SENATE, 

 Washington, D. <7., January 10, 1901. 

 The committee met at 10.30 a. m. 



Present: Senators Proctor (chairman), Allen, Dolliver, and Money; 

 also, Hon. William M. Springer, Charles Y. Knight, Mr. H. E. Adams, 

 Mr. Schell, Mr. Tilliughast, Mr. Culbersou, Mr. Miller, and others. 



The CHAIRMAN. The Secretary of Agriculture is here this morning, 

 and we shall be glad now to have him proceed, if he will. 



STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES WILSON, SECRETARY OF AGRI 



CULTURE. 



GENTLEMEN: In response to the courteous invitation of your chair- 

 man, I have the honor to submit the following comments upon the 

 so-called "Grout bill," now under consideration by your committee 

 (being H. R. 3717, entitled "An act to make oleomargarine and other 

 imitation dairy products subject to the laws of the State or Territory 

 into which they are transported, and to change the tax on oleomar- 

 garine"). 



From my examination of this bill and the attention I have been able 

 to give it, I understand the proposition to be to apply the powers of the 

 Government in regulating interstate commerce and taxation for the 

 purpose of preventing counterfeiting and fraud in an important article 

 of food and for assisting the several States in the exercise of their 

 police powers to the same end. This object of promoting and enforc- 

 ing honesty and purity in food products nas my full sympathy. It 

 seems to furnish the main argument, and a sufficient one, for the enact- 

 ment of the proposed law. 



Although the act aproved August 2, 1886, has served well to identify 

 oleomargarine and prevent deception on the part of merchants gen- 

 erally, it has not furnished adequate protection to producers and con- 

 sumers. It must be admitted that for the latter State laws have been 

 far more effective. In States which have not only stringent laws, but 

 which have provided efficient machinery, the element of fraud in but- 

 ter and its substitutes has been reduced to a minimum. In all the States 

 which have made earnest efforts to protect consumers the most serious 

 obstacle has been the introduction of colored oleomargarine in original 

 packages. Hence, I deem the first section of this bill of pressing impor- 

 tance. There ought to be no question of its propriety, expediency, and 

 strict justice, and there seems to me every reason to believe that such a 

 law will be most salutary in its result. 



