440 OLEOMARGARINE. 



Mr. ADAMS. Yes, sir, 



(The committee, at 12 o'clock and 10 minutes p. m., took a recess 

 until 2.30 o'clock p. m.) 



At the expiration of the recess the committee resumed its session. 



Mr. ADAMS. I should like to give way for five minutes to a represen- 

 tative from Maryland, Mr. Medairy, for a simple statement of not over 

 five minutes in length, 



STATEMENT OF SUMMEBFIELD B. MEDAIRY. 



Mr. MEDAIRY. Mr. Chairman, I feel that there is very little for me to 

 say in the interest of the dairy more than has been said by those who 

 have preceded me. I have listened with great satisfaction and instruc- 

 tion to those who have addressed the committee with respect to this bill. 

 I realize the fact that there really is nothing more important before the 

 committee than the bill itself, which carries with it the charge that oleo- 

 margarine, as manufactured and sold to-day, is sold surreptitiously, which 

 accounts for the magnitude of the industry. That is demonstrated by the 

 experience of those who are practically engaged in the dairy business. 



The city of Baltimore about two years ago was flooded with the sale 

 of oleomargarine, surreptitiously sold to such an extent that it was 

 felt by every one engaged in the dairy business. We felt that some- 

 thing ought to be done. The outcome of it was the organization of an 

 association for the protection of the dairy interests and of the people 

 of our city against the imposition that was being practiced by the 

 unscrupulous vender of oleomargarine, made possible by the fact that 

 oleomargarine was colored in semblance of yellow butter. 



During two years I personally supervised the administration of our 

 law, and I found that we were deficient by virtue of the fact that many 

 people were unable to distinguish oleomargarine from butter and 

 thereby suffered the penalty. At the last meeting of our legislature, 

 Mr. Hewes, our attorney, and I went to Annapolis and succeeded in 

 having passed an anticolor law, which has aided greatly in the result we 

 sought to accomplish. During that time, as well as my memory serves 

 me, out of nearly one hundred and forty-one cases I think that was the 

 exact number, although I may be mistaken in regard to one or two cases 

 there was not a single retail sale in the course of prosecution but 

 what was sold as and for butter by the storekeeper or the restaurateur, 

 and in many instances we found that the people who were being pros- 

 ecuted were innocent of any intention of violating the law, but had been 

 deceived by the vender, who in turn had bought his product from the 

 manufacturer's agent, but had, subsequent to its purchase, taken the 

 product from the original package and placed it in a basket or a box, a 

 vessel of some kind, and sold it as and for butter. The uninitiated, 

 not being able to distinguish one from the other by virtue of its 

 semblance, bought the same for butter and in turn sold it as such. 



We had many such cases in the course of prosecution, the benefit 

 derived therefrom inuring to the manufacturers, to the discomfiture and 

 to the detriment of those who innocently bought the stuff for butter. 

 We found that to be the case not only with respect to a few store- 

 keepers, but with respect to the hotel keeper, to the restauranteur, to 

 the lunch- counter proprietor. We found without an exception that 

 they bought their goods from the manufacturer's agent as and for what 

 ' it was, but in turn palmed it off on the consumers as and for butter. 

 That has been our experience for the last eighteen months. Out of the 

 hundred and forty-one cases there was not an exception but that the 



