544 OLEOMARGARINE. 



first on the list, he got the preference, and the case is known as the 

 Schollenbarger case. The supreme court of the State of Pennsylvania 

 decided adversely to us. 



Mr. KNIGHT. It decided the State law to be constitutional? 



Mr. PAUL. It decided the State law was constitutional. We carried 

 that case to the Supreme Court of the United States. In the mean- 

 time they persecuted our firm to the extent of 41 cases. These same 

 men who were down here talking against oleomargarine had been sell- 

 ers of oleomargarine up to that time; but because they could not just 

 buy it as they expected to buy it they commenced to persecute us. 



Senator MOJSEY. You mean prosecute, do you not? 



Mr. PAUL. Yes; but it was persecution. 



Mr. KNIGHT. That was after the supreme court of your State had 

 declared the law constitutional? 



Mr. PAUL. It was after the supreme court had decided that the law 

 was constitutional, and after that time until we carried that case to the 

 Supreme Court of the United States we located on the other side of 

 the river, in Camden. We remained in Camden nearly two years, until 

 our case was decided in our favor in the Supreme Court of the United 

 States. Thenweimmediatelybroughtourgoodsbackandwecominenced 

 to sell oleomargarine for what it was. Then they went before the legis- 

 lature at Harrisburg and had a law passed taxing the manufacturers of 

 oleomargarine $1,000 as a State license, taxing the wholesaler $500 in 

 addition to the United States tax, the retailer $100, the restaurant 

 keeper and hotel keeper $50, and the poor butterine-house keeper, $10; 

 but they did not stop at that. They went to work and said, " You dare 

 not sell it colored in imitation of butter." We believed that law to be 

 just as unconstitutional as the former law, and therefore we were sell- 

 ing the goods to the trade. 



Mr. KNIGHT. Mr. Paul, you maintain, do you, that you do not have to 

 comply with a law until it has been passed on by the Supreme Court of 

 the United States? 



Mr. PAUL. Well, we consider that we have the right to sell these 

 goods. 



Senator MONEY. I do not think that question is admissible here. It 

 does not have any effect or bearing on this question before us. 



Mr. KNIGHT. It only brings out the attitude of dealers in oleomar- 

 garine in connection with the laws, Senator. The facts are that any 

 law that we have passed attempting to regulate the traffic is carried to 

 the Supreme Court, and it is absolutely ignored and defied until we get 

 it through the Supreme Court of the United States, as a rule, and they 

 claim to be persecuted if they are prosecuted under those laws. 



Senator MONEY. I understand that, but still it is a matter which is 

 perfectly immaterial to the discussion here. 



Mr. JELKE. Do you call a law which imposes upon a retail dealer in 

 a corner grocery a special tax of $100 a law to regulate the sale of 

 oleomargarine or to prohibit it? 



Mr. KNIGHT. That would be for the courts to pass on, Mr. Jelke. 



Senator MONEY. We will have no time to hear these colloquies. You 

 will have to talk about them on the outside. We want to hear the wit 

 ness here, with only such interruptions as are pertinent to this case. 



Mr. KNIGHT. I thought it was pertinent to bring out tnat point, 

 because that has been our trouble, right in that very connection. 



Senator MONEY. That does not make a bit of difference. 



Mr. PAUL. The animus which was exhibited in this whole business 

 was on the part of people who had been violators of the law in the 

 extreme. This one person I had in my mind was going about the streets 



