OLEOMARGARINE. 467 



Mr. KNIGHT. Let me tell you something. The representative of the 

 firm of Braun & Fitts, Mr. Lowry, attended every trial in which we 

 made a prosecution for selling oleomargarine for butter. He went their 

 bail and looked after them. 



Mr. JELKE. No, sir; not for selling oleomargarine for butter. 



Mr. KNIGHT. I beg leave to differ with you. Did you not go with 

 Mr. Moxley and employ Mr. Worth E. Caylor as attorney? 



Mr. JELKE. No, sir; Mr. Worth E. Caylor has never been in our 

 employ. 



Mr. KNIGHT. Did not your man Lowry attend all the trials ? 



Mr. JELKE. He may have done so. He has such instructions, to keep 

 thoroughly informed on the character of the prosecutions we are having. 



Mr. KNIGHT. Gentlemen, this is a matter of record, that when we 

 began proceedings, a number of times when I was in the justice's court, 

 they telephoned over to Braun & Fitts for Mr. Lowry to come and go 

 the bail of people whom we had arrested for selling oleomargarine for 

 butter. 



I have the briefs in the case. We brought suits in the justice's court 

 in Chicago. We had seventeen people arrested and they were defended 

 by Worth E. Caylor, whom at least Mr. Moxley admits having employed. 

 I do not need to read from the warrant under which these arrests were 

 made, because I can read from Mr. Caylor's brief, in which he states the 

 case, although the warrants are here complete. I read from page 24 of 

 the brief of Worth E. Caylor, attorney for the defendants in these cases, 

 employed by the butterine men to defend the dealers. 



Senator ALLEN. What is the title of the case? 



Mr. KNIGHT. The title of the cases are "The People of the State of 

 Illinois, plaintiff', v. M. A. Wright," and " The People of the State of 

 Illinois, plaintiff, v. Charles E. Horrie, defendant." The two cases are 

 in one brief. Probably I had better read the warrant. 



Senator ALLEN. Oh, it is not necessary. They can be put into the 

 record if you want them. 



Mr. KNIGHT. The warrants, anyhow, were sworn out for the sale of 

 oleomargarine as butter without informing the purchaser of the fact 

 that it was oleomargarine, and without stating the quantity of ingredi- 

 ents therein. What was their defense"? Their defense was, in the first 

 place, that oleomargarine is butter that it is oleomargarine butter 

 and consequently is entitled to be called butter; in the second place, 

 that the law of the State of Illinois requiring you to do as the Ohio law 

 does the Ohio laws were here yesterday, and I believe I have a copy 

 of them here was unconstitutional. We never have had a law yet that 

 they did not call unconstitutional. 



The" brief says: 



It is very evident that a man who sells an article can not know the proportions 

 that any adulterant enters into the butter, unless he mixes or manufactures it. Mere 

 hearsay from the person from whom the seller purchases the article would not be 

 evidence of the correct proportions or ingredients, so as to relievo the seller from any 

 liability. The labeling by the manufacturer or the mixer of the article would not 

 bind the seller with the true knowledge of the constituents of the article sold. 



Manifestly it would be impossible for the retailer or seller to make a chemical 

 analysis of every article of this kind that enters his place, because it would make 

 such additional expense that it would prohibit the sale of the article. If it would 

 prohibit the sale of the article, the statute is unconstitutional. 



That is the same objection they raise to every law that is passed to 

 restrict the sale of oleomargarine u we can not sell it under that law;" 

 consequently that is unconstitutional. I just want to bring your atten- 

 tion to that point to show you that their 'cry that a law is prohibitory 



