532 OLEOMARGARINE. 



he could depend ; that he liked it better than the country butter that 

 he could get, and better than the creamery butter that he could get in 

 the city stores. 



Senator DOLLIVER. Have you studied the question of how far this 

 continual conflict with State laws, and the almost universal duplicity 

 of the retail trade in dealing with its customers, such as was described 

 here yesterday by Mr. Knight, with an appearance of truth and veracity 

 at least how far that has contributed to bring the whole business into 

 disrepute and reproach in the commercial world? 



Mr. SCHELL. I have not considered that, because in Cincinnati we 

 have not the same situation which Mr. Knight described as to a certain 

 portion only of Chicago. 



Mr. KNIGHT. It is all over Chicago, every place. 



Mr. SCHELL. After all, that is largely hearsay, and covers only a 

 very small amount of business. We do not have that condition in 

 Cincinnati. 



Senator HANSBROUGH. You say all over Chicago? 



Mr. KNIGHT. Yes, sir. I do not say every dealer, but I will say 

 eight out of ten dealers in Chicago, and that will leave about 200 honest 

 dealers in the city. I consider that 90 per cent of the oleomargarine 

 that is sold in Chicago is sold as butter. 



Mr. MILLER. I think if the oleomargarine manufacturers would put 

 up these goods in packages so that retail dealers could not break them 

 that would settle the difficulty. For instance, say we put it up in 

 2-pound packages for the retail dealer, with the word ''oleomargarine" 

 printed on the wrapper. 



Senator DOLLIVER. Is that the Wads worth bill? 



Mr. MILLER. That is practically the Wadsworth bill. 



Mr. KNIGHT. May I ask why he could not break the package just as 

 well as he could mark the package? The present law requires it to be 

 marked; and a recent ruling of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue 

 plainly and explicitly states that any hiding of the seal or stamp is a 

 violation of the law, and subjects the violator to a punishment. I do 

 not know how much. What is the difference between laying himself 

 liable to a fine for a violation of the stamp law as it is now and laying 

 himself liable to a fine for taking off the stamp, as he would under the 

 Wadsworth bill? 



Mr. MILLER. Increase the penalty. 



Mr. KNIGHT. I want to say to the committee now that in my judg- 

 ment the higher the penalty the less possibility there is of enforcing 

 the law. It is almost impossible to procure the evidence, and, besides, 

 to fine a man a thousand dollars for selling 15 cents' worth of oleo- 

 margarine for butter only defeats the ends of justice. 



Senator ALLEN. It seems to me there is an insuperable objection to 

 your proposition, Mr. Miller. Suppose the retail dealer has his goods 

 in 2 or 3 pound packages, with the wrapper properly stamped with the 

 word "butterine," what is to hinder him, when he gets 100 or 200 

 pounds, from taking those packages down cellar and taking off the 

 wrapper, and running the stuff through the machine and recasting it 

 and selling it as butter? 



Mr. MILLER. I do not think he would do so. 



Mr. TOMPKINS. That kind of work is done with liquor all the time. 



Mr. . It seems to rne that the greatest preventive of frauds of 



this kind would be a redaction in the retail dealer's tax. 1 think that 

 would reduce 99 per cent of the frauds. 



Mr. KNIGHT. So far as the enforcement of the law by the Internal 



