OLEOMAKGAKINE. 465 



[Office of H. V. Murray, attorney at law.] 



CHICAGO, ILL., July 29, 1899. 



DEAR SIR : I have been employed by the Illinois Dairy Union to prosecute any 

 cases of violation of the dairy laws of this State which may result from the arrest 

 of any dealer selling oleomargarine when butter is called for. As you probably 

 know, a commission, consisting of a food commissioner and eight assistants and 

 inspectors, was provided for by the late legislature, whose duty it is to enforce these 

 laws. The commissioner has been appointed, and until he has appointed his assist- 

 ants and gotten to work the Illinois Dairy Union's inspectors will look after the pro- 

 tection of consumers of butter and see that those who sell them oleomargarine for 

 butter are prosecuted under the State laws, and also reported to the internal- re venue 

 department as violators of the internal-revenue laws. I herewith inclose extracts 

 from three State laws. These laws are not tied up in the courts, and the oleomar- 

 garine manufacturers will not place themselves in the light of protecting those who 

 sell oleomargarine for butter, although they may consistently fight the law forbid- 

 ding coloring, which has not yet been passed upon by the supreme court. 



If you sell oleomargarine this year, rest assured that the State food commissioner 

 and the Illinois Dairy Union will see that you are not permitted to sell it as butter. 

 Respectfully, yours, 



HUGH V. MURRAY, 

 Attorney for Illinois Dairy Union. 



The extracts from the three State laws which were inclosed were 

 simply extracts of laws forbidding the sale of oleomargarine for butter. 

 That was all there was to that. We did not attempt to do anything 

 with our anticolor law, because it was tied up in the court. I have the 

 extracts of those laws just as they were sent out. 



That was a letter that was sent out in an effort to get these people to 

 conform to the State laws requiring the informing of the customer of 

 what he was buying and the marking of the package. Everything was 

 done just as you find it on these packages. There was no mark in 

 sight. The oleomargarine was advertised as butter at every place. 

 They put up their signs just as that is shown there. I suppose there 

 are a thousand just such signs as that in the city of Chicago. 



That letter of Mr. Murray was sent out July 29, 1899. On August 2, 

 1899, this letter was sent out by William J. Moxley to his retailers, 

 and probably to all the licensed dealers in the city. I will not say it 

 was sent to every one, but I know it was generally received by those 

 who traded with Moxley. This is his letter : 



[William J. Moxley, manufacturer of fine butterine, 63 and 65 West Monroe street.] 



CHICAGO, August 2, 1899. 



City. 



DEAR SIR: Our attention has been called to two circulars which have been 

 mailed to you one signed by Hugh V. Murray, an attorney, and the other by 

 Charles Y. Knight, editor in chief of a periodical, without subscribers, named the 

 Chicago Dairy Produce. The circular bearing Mr. Knight's name has at its head 

 an imposing lot of names, gentlemen whose aim it is to prevent the manufacture 

 and sale of butterine, so that the butter trust might be enabled to get from 30 to 40 

 cents a pound for butter, depriving, as they would, a great many of the industrial 

 classes from being able to use butter through its excessive price. " 



With the hired attorney, who is earning his fee, we have nothing to say, only to 

 inform you that these gentlemen are trying to ring in a bluff. You will notice in 

 their circulars that by insinuations they would have people believe they represent 

 some official authority. The internal-revenue department looks after their own 

 business, and the State after theirs, and should this so-called dairy union interfere 

 with your business in the way of prosecution as to the State laws, we hereby guar- 

 antee you protection to the extent of paying all fines, costs, etc., until the color law 

 is decided unconstitutional in the supreme court of the State of Illinois, and will 

 further, on receiving complaint, take such action for damages as will make it 

 unpleasant for some of those who are attempting to interfere with your and our own 

 legitimate business. 



We were under the impression that the severe censure they received from the 

 judges during their filibustering of last year would have been sufficient for all time, 



S. Rep. 2043 30 



