704 OLEOMARGARINE. 



not honest in their statements, and why is it that they attempt to con 

 ceal the fact that butter is artificially colored and is not natural, as they 

 falsely represent it to be 1 ? Why should the producers of butter, who 

 are the framers of this bill, attempt to secure to themselves the exclu- 

 sive use of color when the manufacturer of oleomargarine is responsible 

 for its introduction as an article of commerce? Their answer is : To pre- 

 vent oleomargarine being sold as butter. Well, then, I say : Let the pro- 

 ducers of butter discontinue the use of artificial color and sell their butter 

 in its natural state and no one will be deceived in purchasing oleomar- 

 garine. Is it not as fair a proposition to say that butter should be sold 

 free from color as to deny its use in a rival product ? Is this question 

 not pertinent when it is remembered that the article of color is the 

 property of the oleomargarine manufacturer by right of priority and 

 constant use? 



With the introduction of oleomargarine, the very nature of the article 

 made it necessary to introduce a substance that would make it pleas- 

 ing to the eye, and the result was the use of a color. The producers of 

 butter were quick to see the advantages derived from the use of this 

 color, and it is now used in common by oleomargarine and butter 

 makers alike. From this it would appear that if any rights are to be 

 protected by legislative enactment, in so far as color is concerned, the 

 makers of oleomargarine are entitled to such protection, and we 

 emphatically protest against the passage of any law that gives to the 

 dairy interest exclusive rights on color and denies that right to our- 

 selves. 



It has been stated to your committee, by speakers on the other side 

 of this question, that they represented the great dairy interests of the 

 country as well as the consumers of butter, but, gentlemen, no evidence 

 has been submitted here in support of this remarkable statement, and 

 I doubt if the speaker had as many proxies as he desired to lead you 

 to believe he had. 



I also join issue with the statement that large quantities of oleomar- 

 garine are sold as butter. The records .of the Internal Revenue Office 

 show that out of the 80,000,000 pounds marketed in the United States 

 last year only 1 per cent of it was sold in violation of law. 



A significant fact that speaks volumes for the makers of oleomar- 

 garine, and the honest and conscientious manner in which it is sold, is 

 evidenced by the fact that no consumer has ever prosecuted a dealer 

 for violating a State or Federal law, or for selling him oleomargarine 

 when butter was called for, notwithstanding the fact that last year the 

 agents of the butter trust in Chicago offered through the daily press a 

 tempting standing reward for any information against dealers who sold 

 oleomargarine for butter. They also tendered the services of their 

 chemists to anyone for the purpose of analyzing samples of any butter 

 bought by them that was suspected of being oleomargarine, and in the 

 event of the discovery that fraud or deception was practiced by the 

 dealer in making the sale they would assume the prosecution of the 

 case and defray all expenses incident thereto. Even this method failed 

 to produce the evidence they were so anxious to secure, and not a single 

 violation was reported to them. As a matter of fact the comparative 

 price at which oleomargarine and butter are sold by the retailer precludes 

 the possibility of deceiving the customer as to the identity of oleomar- 

 garine, the retail price of which varies during the year from 12 cents to 

 20 cents per pound. 



In reply to the contention of Mr. Charles Y. Knight, who submits in 

 his brief for your consideration a copy in part of some of the corre- 



(*122) 



