630 OLEOMARGARINE. 



devise restrictions that will apprise the consumer of the identity of the 

 substitute other than through the agency of color? Wbat we call the 

 field of pure butter is that portion of the consuming public that calls 

 for butter either at the store or at the table. It is at the table where 

 the invasion of our rights is being carried on. Of course, it might be 

 said that the dairy farmer has the same right to obtain a license and 

 engage in the business that the present oleomargarine manufacturer 

 has. We answer that he would then be a manufacturer of oleomarga- 

 rine, and not a dairyman. And, besides, where is there a farmer, or a 

 neighborhood of farmers, that could afford to pay $600 a year for the 

 privilege of going into the business? 



ALL MUST ADULTERATE OR NONE. 



Fourteen years ago the dairymen of this country were confronted 

 with this crisis: They must either become adulterators and meet the 

 competition of those who made oleomargarine without restriction (as 

 was the case prior to the passage of the law of 1886), or they must 

 crush out the counterfeit in order that they might deal honestly with 

 the public and preserve their business. 



They chose to be honest and force others to be the same. That is 

 why they came to Congress for the Hatch bill then. 



Stop and consider a moment, if you please, that the dairymen and 

 creamery men have all the facilities for adulterating butter, and might 

 with profit be adulterators if not forbidden by law. They chose, how- 

 ever, to make the pure article, and the laws they secured were as 

 restrictive upon themselves as upon those who prefer the dishonest 

 business of adulteration. 



Now look around at the wholesale butter business. Not a wholesale 

 butter dealer in the city of Chicago handles oleomargarine at whole- 

 sale. Why? Because they will not violate the laws of their State and 

 encourage the violation of the laws of the Government. Every whole- 

 sale butter man is as well qualified to sell oleomargarine as the oleo- 

 margarine dealer. He sells to the same trade. 



Because the butter merchant obeys laws and refuses to encourage 

 their violation, his business is being ruined by other merchants who 

 are willing to defy law and incite violators by guaranteeing protection 

 in case of prosecution. 



Is it not an outrage that the law-abiding citizen should suffer as a 

 result of his good citizenship, and should not every lawmaking body 

 do everything to protect those who respect the decrees of this branch 

 of the Government? 



The dairymen fight for the preservation of the purity of the dairy 

 product. They do not want to be forced to become adulterators, as 

 has been the case with manufacturers of nearly every other article of 

 food, as shown by Senator Mason's report. They will fight anybody, 

 no matter who he be, who comes before the public with a counterfeit of 

 their article which can not be detected by the unwary consumer. 



In whose interest are they doing this? Is it in their own interest 

 any more than in the interest of the public? 



MARCH 14, 1900. 

 The committee met at 10.30 a. m. 



The CHAIRMAN. The meeting this morning is for the purpose of 

 hearing a delegation of gentlemen from Philadelphia on the Grout 

 bill. 



(*48) 



