OLEOMAKGAEINE. 437 



I have not very much time, Mr. Chairman. The views which could 

 be presented to this committee will tnke more time than I could be 

 allowed. I am sorry for it, because I believe I can present facts which 

 will be considered by the Senate of the United States. In my State 

 what happens? We have, comparatively, a good execution of the law 

 there. We have a stringent law. I drew it myself, with the assist- 

 ance of an able attorney, scrutinizing at the same time the statute of 

 Massachusetts upon which it was based, and after the decision of the 

 United States Supreme Court in the Plumley case, and up to that time 

 we had been unable to stop to any extent the fraudulent sale of oleo- 

 margarine in the State of Wisconsin. I was appointed dairy commis- 

 sioner shortly after that law went into effect. 



Mr. TILLINGHAST. Will you state what your law was before that 

 time? 



Mr. ADAMS. It was simply a labeling law, nothing else. I arrested 

 three men at my home, one of whom was a neighbor and a friend. The 

 oleomargarine manufacturers of Chicago supplied the gentleman ar- 

 rested with the means of defense. They employed an ex- Attorney- 

 General of the United States, a bright, able, vigorous, and skilled man 

 before a jury. It took us two days to get a jury. The citizens knew 

 me, knew the ex- Attorney-General, and knew the defendant, and they 

 did not want to go into the jury box at all. We finally secured a jury. 

 We had a three days' trial, and then we had a disagreement, seven men 

 voting for conviction and five for acquittal. 



Mr. TILLINGHAST. What was the charge? 



Mr. ADAMS. The charge was that of selling colored oleomargarine in 

 violation of law for exactly what it was. We tried the case again. 

 The jury went out and returned a verdict in favor of the State in less 

 than five minutes. I went down into the city of Milwaukee and made 

 16 arrests, 13 for selling in violation of the color law of the State 

 and 3 under the old labeling law, which had not been repealed. My 

 purpose was to find out which kind of a law I could enforce; and I 

 found out. I won every solitary case under the auticolor law in that 

 court, although the judge said he did not believe in it. He was 

 opposed to it and criticised the law from the bench. Officials about 

 the court room were opposed to it, public sentiment in the court-house 

 was opposed to it, and there were half a dozen lawyers on the other 

 side opposed to the one lawyer representing the State; and yet in 

 spite of that the principle underlying these laws, the compelling of 

 men to be honest in the sale of a counterfeit food product, was so strong 

 that a judge and a jury prejudiced and opposed to the law were com- 

 pelled to make such decisions and such a verdict as that the law was 

 sustained; and not only that, but the demonstration was so strong 

 that the principal defendant in those cases came to me and admitted 

 that he was wrong, and that never again would he violate a statute as 

 just as that. 



Senator DOLLIVER. You have stated that it is possible in the State 

 of Wisconsin to sell the uncolored article? 



Mr. ADAMS. I do. 



Senator DOLLIVER. And that it is sold in the ordinary course of 

 business? 



Mr. ADAMS. Will the Senator permit me an explanation, to say what 

 I forgot to say before? Up in Oshkosh this gentleman from whom I 

 have obtained an uncolored sample was violating the law. I went up 

 there and arrested him. I talked with him about it and I said: "Why 

 do you do this ? You have a good business. This is the best butter 



