460 OLEOMARGARINE. 



Mr. HEWES. No, sir; it is not that way in England. In England he 

 has to make up his own package and mark it "margarine,' 7 just the 

 same as we do here; and he must mark it so that the buyer can see 

 what he is buying. 



When we came into this Congress in 1886 we said to you gentlemen, 

 "We want you to do the policing for this thing. We want you to put 

 this under your jealous care, so that no man can sell oleomargarine for 

 butter," because we thought they could do it. We knew how zealous 

 they were in trying to enforce the law in respect to tobacco. We knew 

 that no man could possibly work up half an ounce of tobacco unless he 

 had the Commissioner of Internal Kevenue or his deputy upon his heels 

 to say what the product was,' and we thought they could enforce this 

 law. They do not enforce the law. They do not see that people carry 

 out the nineteen sections of this bill. 



Senator DOLLIVER. In the matter of tobacco, do they go further than 

 to collect the tax? 



Mr. HEWES. That is that compromise you were talking about. 



Senator DOLLIVER. No; do you mean to say that the tax provisions 

 of the law of 1886 have not been executed? 



Mr. HEWES. I mean to-saj' that whenever they find a person who is 

 not doing exactly as that law says, they send for him and they make 

 some settlement with him. 



Senator DOLLIVER. Do they do the same with the tobacco people 

 and the whisky people? 



Mr. HEWES. They compromise. 



Senator DOLLIVER. They arrest them for violating the law. 



Mr. HEWES. But nine times out of ten they send for them to come up 

 and settle, and they do settle. 



With respect to this oleomargarine business. In the State of Mary- 

 land last year we had 141 cases, and we are now standing before the 

 bar of our court of appeals with this original package case, with no hope 

 of winning it. That is the trouble. We have no hope of ever winning 

 that. Why ? Because Judge Taylor, who is as fair a man as ever sat 

 upon any court whatever, and who is a friend of the dairy and a friend 

 of ours, has told me, and he has written in that Fox case, in 89 Mary- 

 land, that you can not restrict or prohibit the sale of oleomargarine in 

 its original package unless you prove that it is deleterious to health. 



You see how impossible it is for us to do it. It throws the burden of 

 proof, it is true, upon the traverser to show that it is not deleterious to 

 health, and what does he do ? He brings in his expert testimony, and 

 you have listened to it here by the volume. When these chemists tells 

 you that an article is chemically pure, what do they mean by that ? 

 They mean simply this, that sulphuric acid is chemically pure, that 

 nitric acid is chemically pure; but when it comes to a question of pure 

 food, all the testimony of the chemists falls to the ground. It is not a 

 question of a chemically pure article. It is' a question of pure food 

 you are talking about. 



So we ask you to make a favorable report on this Grout bill, because 

 of two things. In the first place, it reduces to a minimum the chance 

 to deceive ultimately. It is a potential fraud that is reprehended and 

 deprecated in the Plumley Case (155 Mass., 421). That is the trouble. 

 It is a potential fraud, where this man may deceive in the restaurant, 

 or where the purchaser may be deceived. 



Mr. MILLER. What is the difference between pure food and chemically 

 pure food ? 



Mr. HEWES. Pure food is something that is pure, and chemically 



