454 OLEOMABGARINE. 



When Germany and other nations placed or threatened to place 

 restrictions on the importations of the packing houses, the whole 

 power of the General Government was called upon to keep the mar- 

 kets open. They fought against these markets being taken from them. 



On the other hand, why should they, if they believe in fair dealing, 

 want to take the home market away from the rank and file of the peo- 

 ple? Why should they seek to diminish the outlet of the American 

 farmer for his products? 



And more especially is this true when this outlet and this market 

 is taken from him by fraud which the yellow artificial color given to 

 oleo enables the retailer to work on the consumer. 



There are only two questions involved: 



1. This "Grout 7 ' bill will suppress fraud. 



2. It will keep open our domestic outlets and markets for the genuine 

 product of the cow. 



Will the Government, through its Senate and House of Representa- 

 tives, stand with the farmer or against him? Will they stand for com- 

 mon honesty or despicable fraud ? 



ADDITIONAL STATEMENT OF JAMES HEWES. 



Mr. HEWES. I would like consideration for a moment, if the com- 

 mittee please, as a veteran. I do not believe that this idea has been 

 advanced here at all. I am one of those who came here in 1880 to have 

 the oleomargarine law, as it is called, passed. Of course it was novel 

 legislation in Congress at that time, and we sought to have the policing 

 feature as prominent as possible in that law. We are now only bring- 

 ing that law to you here for revision, finding that the nineteen sections 

 that look to policing are almost disregarded. There are only two rev- 

 enue sections to the law of 1886. The other nineteen look to the 

 policing of the country, and we ask you now to revise that because we 

 find that State laws are powerless. We can not prosecute people for 

 selling oleomargarine in the original package, because, as Brother 

 Adams here has told you, we are met by the varying opinions of the 

 different judges, and they are as various as the leaves from Valloin- 

 brosa's shades. Judge Adams says one thing, Judge Lochran says 

 another, and Judge Fowler says another. 



I have had the honor of prosecuting all offenders under the oleo- 

 margarine law since 1878. It has been a long fight. First it was a 

 regulating law a law of inspection. Then it became the prohibitory 

 law. Now it is the anticolor law. We come to Congress and we say 

 to you, "This is our law; this is the law of the dairy. We brought 

 this to you. If there is any revenue feature to it, we brought it to the 

 Government," and we promised them a million and a half revenue. 

 We have more than kept our promise. We have given them more than 

 a million and a half revenue from the time the law was passed in 1886 

 to the present time, and now we say we find that will not do. That 

 does not protect the consumer at all from the practice of deception that 

 the color produces, and we ask you to eliminate color. We show you 

 by samples produced here that it is possible to make oleomargarine 

 white and still sell it. We do not crush out the industry. Further- 

 more, we are almost ready to predict now that uncolored oleomargarine 

 will produce a revenue to the United States Government of half a mil- 

 lion dollars. But suppose it does not. Does the dairy interest of the 

 country stand in any different position from what it did before the 

 introduction of the law of 1886 ? Not at all. Was there any revenue 



