OLEOMARGARINE. 609 



10 cents per pound. The 83,000,000 pounds .made last year would be 

 worth, according to this, $8,300,000. 



Now, if the 5,000,000 head of cattle would be depreciated $2 per head 

 by the passage of the Grout bill, the loss to the live-stock man would 

 be, according to their claim, $10,000,000. Then upon the conservative 

 estimate of 15,000,000 head of hogs marketed last year, upon which this 

 "vicious measure" would entail a loss of 20 cents per head, would be 

 an additional loss of $3,000,000. This makes a total loss, according to 

 their statement, of $13,000,000 upon a business aggregating $8,300,000 

 per year. And this is not taking into consideration the "loss" claimed 

 by the cotton-seed oil men, who sell the oleomargarine people in this 

 country about 3,400,000 gallons of oil, valued at about $1,000,000, com- 

 pared with the 40,230,784 gallons, valued at $10,137,619, which they 

 export, in addition to that used in soap making and as salad oil in the 

 United States. 



THE COLORING OF OLEOMARGARINE AND BUTTER. 



Here is the next statement of Swift & Co. : 



Sixth. The question of color is urged against the use of oleomargarine. It goes 

 without saying that we have the right to make our goods as attractive and as pleas- 

 ing to the eye and as desirable to the purchaser as we can, provided that we do 

 nothing to injure the quality of the goods. The same color is used in coloring oleo- 

 margarine that is used in coloring butter, and the use of this butter color (so called) 

 in coloring butter is just as much a deceit and a fraud upon customers as is its use 

 in coloring oleomargarine. It is further a fact that the oleomargarine manufacturers 

 were the first to see the advantage of having a uniform color in their goods and were 

 the first to use butter color (so called). The creameries throughout the country 

 were quick to take advantage of the new idea, and to-day it is rare to see butter on 

 the market which is not colored a bright yellow, although the natural color of but- 

 ter ranges all the way from white for the ordinary winter butter to a light yellow 

 for summer butter. 



The above is certainly a bold position to openly assume before Con- 

 gress. We would refer Swift & Co. to the noted speech made by Con- 

 gressman Tayler, of Ohio, upon the question of Brigham H. Eoberts's 

 right to a seat in Congress. Mr. Taylor said: 



This is a representative Government; it springs from the people, from the people 

 who make the law, and their representatives are such because they are believers in 

 the law and subject to the law. Many may entertain opinions as to the unwisdom 

 of certain laws, and a hope that these may be erased from the statute books ; but 

 in the very nature of things they can not stand for defiance of law. And as they can 

 not stand for defiance of any law, how much the more must they stand as respecters 

 of and obedient to such laws as have proceeded from the people, at the people's 

 initiative, and sustained by the deliberate and intelligent approval of substantially 

 all the people. 



Swift & Co. stand for defiance not only of the laws of their own State, 

 but of the laws of more than two thirds of the States of the United 

 States. They come before Congress, a large majority of which repre- 

 sent States whose laws they are violating, and openly say: "It goes 

 without saying that we have the right to make our goods as attractive 

 and as pleasing to the purchaser as we can, provided that we do noth- 

 ing to injure the quality of the goods." 



State laws are as naught. The opinions of our most learned jurists 

 are not worthy of consideration. What four- fifths of the people 

 through their legislatures have condemned, in the estimation of Swift 

 & Co., "goes without saying." 



But let us see what the courts say about this right which Swift & 

 Co. claim "goes without saying." 



Tn December, 1894, the Supreme Court of the United States handed 

 * S. Rep. 2043 39 (*27) 



