542 OLEOMARGARINE. 



people who were selling these goods. He said he would be very glad 

 to ship me some of the goods. Since then I have been a seller of oleo- 

 margarine in the city of Philadelphia since 1881 continuously, except 

 probably a few mouths when the law was so severe that I had to quit. 



.Senator MONEY. What law? 



Mr. PAUL. Our State law. The State law, though, from 1881 to 1885 

 was of no account at all. The gentlemen who were here the other day 

 representing the butter interests were the largest handlers of oleomar- 

 garine at that time From 1881, probably, to 1885 the competition in 

 oleomargarine became so great and the profit became so small that 

 these people who are fighting oleomargarine to-day were the cause of 

 having the national law made at that time. It was not made for the 

 regulation of oleomargarine, but it was made to drive it out entirely. 

 They put a 2-ceut tax on the product and a license of $600 for the 

 manufacturing of the goods, $480 for the wholesaler and $48 for the 

 retailer; and no man wanted to go into the business. Very few of the 

 commission men of our State pay that much rent for their buildings, 

 for their storerooms. They can not afford to do so, on account of their 

 expenses and the sinalliiess of their profits, etc. The competition of 

 oleomargarine had become so great that there was very little profit in 

 it. They thought they would drive it out by putting on this excessive 

 tax, as they called it at that time. A prohibitory law was passed in 

 Pennsylvania, but they believed that law was unconstitutional, and 

 some of them continued along until 1886. When the 1886 United 

 States internal-revenue law went into effect we immediately took out 

 a license there and commenced selling oleomargarine as the Chicago 

 Butterine Company of Philadelphia, and we have continued from that 

 time up to the present time. We have sold it for wh at it was. The 

 people have bought it for what it was. We had been harassed on the 

 street by these men continually. 



Senator MONEY. In what way? 



Mr. PAUL. By bringing suits against us under the State law. 



Mr. KNIGHT. Mr. Paul, will you pardon an interruption? 



Mr. PAUL. Yes, sir. 



Mr. KNIGHT. Were you not violating the State law ? 



Mr. PAUL. Yes, sir; the prohibitory law; but we believed it uncon- 

 stitutional. 



Mr. KNIGHT. Had not the courts pronounced it constitutional? 



Mr. PAUL. No, sir; they had not. 



Mr. KNIGHT. What law was that? 



Mr. PAUL. The State law of Pennsylvania. 



Mr. KNIGHT. Passed at what time? 



Mr. PAUL. Passed in 1885 or 1886, I don't know which. 



Mr. KNIGHT. The courts have since passed on it and pronounced it 

 constitutional, have they not? 



Mr. PAUL. No, sir. 



Mr. KNIGHT. Did not the Pennsylvania court pass on it? 



Mr. PAUL. No, sir. 



Senator MONEY. How many States have legislated on this subject? 

 Can you tell me that, Mr. Knight ? 



Mr. KNIGHT. Thirty-two States have the anticolor law. I was under 

 the impression that the supreme court of Pennsylvania had passed on 

 the law Mr. Paul refers to. 



Mr. PAUL. I will come to that. In 1889 they forced this to an 

 issue, tinder this State law. The first package we sold in 1889 was 

 sold to a detective. I recollect when the gentleman came into our 



