5*22 OLEOMARGARINE. 



the said John Fewer of the fact and proportions in which said oleomargarine, snine, 

 beef fat, lard, or other foreign substances had entered into the composition of said 

 article, contrary to the form of the statute, etc. 



The language used in the complaints is almost exactly the same as that used in 

 the latter part of section 28 of the criminal code, as above quoted. 



There can be no convictions under these complaints for the following reasons: 



First. The act in itself is not an act to prevent the selling of oleomargarine for 

 butter. It is "An act to prevent and punish the adulteration of articles of food, 

 drink, and medicine and the sale thereof when adulterated." To be more specific, 

 this section is limited to the mixing of oleomargarine or any other foreign substance 

 with any butter intended for human food. If oleomargarine or butterine are sold, 

 there can be no conviction under this section, even though they are sold for butter. 



It is very evident that the man who sells an article can not know the propor- 

 tions that any adulterant enters into the butter unless he mixes or manufactures it. 

 Mere hearsay from the person from whom the seller purchases the article would not 

 be evidence of the correct proportions or ingredients, so as to relieve the seller of 

 any liability. The labeling by the manufacturer or the mixer of the article would 

 not bind the seller with the true knowledge of the constituents of the article sold. 



Manifestly, it would be impossible for the retailer, or seller, to make a chemical 

 analysis of 'every article of this kind that entered his place, because it would make 

 such' additional expense that it would prohibit the sale of the article. If it would 

 prohibit the sale of the article, the statute would be unconstitutional. 



The above is one of the most remarkable defenses ever set up in any 

 food case ever brought into court, as in order to make a defense where 

 a law requires labeling the claim is made that no retailer can be sure of 

 what he is selling unless he has it analyzed, and that analysis would 

 cost so much that it would prohibit the business. It is a denial of the 

 right of the State to protect its citizens in any way in the purchase of 

 food, as it claims that the retailer himself can not know what he is sell- 

 ing, and that any law which forced him to ascertain that fact would be 

 unconstitutional. 



The above illustration is given to prove that sellers of oleomargarine 

 defend their customers in the sale of oleomargarine as butter, which 

 sale was in open violation of both State and Federal laws, and to show 

 that they will not comply with the most reasonable regulations. In 

 other words, they hold themselves to be wholly above the State laws, 

 and defend violations of such laws, which violations are in effect viola- 

 tions of the Federal laws and which would have been prosecuted in 

 the Federal courts but for the fact that the collector of internal reve- 

 nue refused to make the prosecutions upon evidence of outsiders, and 

 stated that he had neither time for the work nor money to purchase 

 samples with which to do the prosecuting in his own department. 



These cases were dismissed by the justice of the peace upon 

 grounds that a subsequent statute had repealed the law under which 

 the warrants were drawn, but not until after $1,600 had been spent by 

 the parties interested in an effort to stop this gigantic fraud in the 

 city of Chicago. The decision admitted of no appeal, the Dairy Union's 

 funds were exhausted, and while the decision was looked upon as the 

 most ridiculous piece of justice ever perpetrated upon the public the 

 oleomargarine manufacturers stood ready to enter into other contro- 

 versies upon any points or under any laws we might proceed under in 

 order to stop their swindling of the public in the city of Chicago, where 

 not one in twenty- five dealers has ever pretended to comply with the 

 national law, and not one ever observes any State law. 



CAN A STATE PROTECT ITS CITIZENS FROM FRAUD? 



Swift & Co. go on to say: 



Eighth. Some of these bills propose to withdraw from oleomargarine all the rights 

 and protection of interstate cpmmerce, and to turn it over to the tender mercies of 

 the various State legislatures, which may be interested in restricting or prohibiting 

 its manufacture or sale, because of its competition with local interests or products. 



(*40) 



