496 OLEOMAKGAKITSTE. 



leaning toward the other, but neither party is right in making these charges. If 

 I ain called before the agricultural committee, I shall be glad to tell what I know, 

 and that is more than I can tell the public in my present position. The books of 

 this department are not open to the people, but I can assure you that many violators 

 of the oleomargarine laws have suffered." 



Now, I want to say in this connection that I have worn the soles off 

 my shoes going up to that collector's office and giving him evidence of 

 violations of the internal-revenue laws. And I will give you a c^se 

 which we took to the supreme court there on mandamus. I have it 

 right here. 



Mr. JELKE. I think Mr. Coyne ought to have an opportunity to be 

 heard in self-defense. 



Mr. KNIGHT. 1 have no doubt that a good many people would like to 

 be heard here, and it would prolong this hearing until after the 4th of 

 March; but I will give you the facts right here, and then if Mr. Coyne 

 wants to make a statement, all right. 



M. A. Wright, a retail dealerin oleomargarine, sold to myself, in the 

 presence of another witness, a wholesale lot of oleomargarine as butter. 

 Now, in selling that oleomargarine to me as butter, he did not violate 

 any internal-revenue law, because the internal-revenue people do not 

 care whether it is sold as butter or not, so long as it is stamped. He 

 sold me two 10-pound pails. A retail dealer there is not permitted to 

 sell over 10 pounds at a sale, with a retail license for which he pays $40 

 a year. He must take out a license, for which he pays $480 a year, in 

 order to be able to sell more than 1 pounds at a time. 



These pails were stamped faintly on the bottom, as was the case with 

 many of these packages I have shown, the marks being concealed. 



I took that evidence, and had a chemical analysis made by Mr. Dela- 

 fontaine, one of the leading chemists of Chicago a chemist of forty 

 years' experience. I took that chemical analysis to Coyne, offered him 

 the evidence in the case, sealed the packages up, and put them away 

 for him. Gentlemen, that was in September, 1899. I have never been 

 called on for that evidence yet; and yet there was an opportunity for 

 him to make a case against this man. 



There is one specific case. Then we proceeded against this man in 

 the justice court, and tried to do something with him; but there is one 

 specific case in which I offered that man evidence which was absolutely 

 indisputable, and absolutely no attention whatever was paid to it. Fur- 

 ther than that, we have been told, when we go into that internal-revenue 

 collector's office, that the more oleomargarine there is sold, the more 

 revenue the Government gets, and the higher class the internal-revenue 

 officers are. 



Senator DOLLIVER. Now, Mr. Knight, while all this is very inter- 

 esting, I doubt the propriety of making an attack upon an officer of the 

 United States, of a character which would tend to prolong this inves- 

 tigation. 



Mr. KNIGHT. That is true; but I had to do that, Senator, in answer 

 to the telegram which was introduced here. 



Senator DOLLIVER. But I would suggest to the committee the query 

 whether this whole matter is not somewhat immaterial to the question 

 before us ? 



Mr. KNIGHT. I would like to be able to state this, Senator, that the 

 refusal of the internal-revenue collector of the city of Chicago to 

 enforce these laws, and my continued hammering at him to do it, has 

 made him very sore toward me, and that fact is exhibited in this tele- 

 gram. There is no other reason in the world why he should feel that 

 way. 



