820 OLEOMARGA RINE. 



as counsel. Under the instructions of the Illinois Dairy Union Mr. 

 Murray sent the following letter to every licensed olemargarine dealer 

 in the city of Chicago, which, with further details, appears on page 465 

 Senate testimony: 



[Office of H. V. Murray, attorney at law.] 



CHICAGO, ILL., July 29, 1899. 



DEAR SIR : I have been employed by the Illinois Dairy Union to prosecute any 

 cases of violation of the dairy laws of this State which may result from the arrest of 

 any dealer selling oleomargarine when butter is called for. As you probably know, 

 a commission, consisting of a food commissioner and eight assistants and inspectors, 

 was provided for by the late legislature, whose duty it is to enforce these laws. The 

 commissioner has been appointed, and until he has appointed his assistants and gotten 

 to work the Illinois Dairy Union's inspectors will look after the protection of con- 

 sumers of butter and see that those who sell them oleomargarine for butter are pros- 

 ecuted under the State laws, and also reported to the Internal Eevenue Department 

 as violators of the internal-revenue laws. I herewith inclose extracts from three 

 State laws. These laws are not tied up in the courts, and the oleomargarine manu- 

 facturers will not place themselves in the light of protecting those who sell oleomar- 

 garine for butter, although they may consistently fight the law forbidding coloring, 

 which has not yet been passed upon by the supreme court. 



If you sell oleomargarine this year rest assured that the State food commissioner 

 and the Illinois Dairy Union will see that you are not permitted to sell it as butter. 

 Respectfully, yours, 



HUGH V. MURRAY, 

 Attorney for Illinois Dairy Union. 



This letter should be read carefully. It was the intention of the 

 writer to convey clearly to the retailer two things: 



First. That the prosecutions would be for the sale of oleomargarine 

 as butter, and not for the sale of oleomargarine as oleomargarine col- 

 ored in semblance of butter, as prohibited by a law passed two years 

 previous, but at that time tied up in the courts. 



Second. That the prosecutions would be begun under the laws which 

 were not tied up in the courts, thereby giving the manufacturers no 

 excuse for defending such prosecutions without coming out in the open 

 light and defending fraud. 



These letters created consternation in the ranks of the dealers. The 

 sale of pure butter increased immensely, and the sale of oleomargarine 

 decreased correspondingly. The manufacturers of oleomargarine were 

 in desperate straits to save their business, and on August 2 the follow- 

 ing letter, printed on page 465, the original of which was displayed 

 before this committee, was mailed by William J. Moxley, claiming to 

 be the largest maker of oleomargarine in the United States: 



[William J. Moxley, manufacturer of flue butterine, 63 and 66 West Monroe street.] 



CHICAGO, August 2, 1899. 



-, City. 



DEAR SIR: Our attention has been called to two circulars which have been mailed 

 to you one signed by Hugh V. Murray, an attorney, and the other by Charles Y. 

 Knight, editor in chief of a periodical without subscribers named the Chicago Dairy 

 Produce. The circular bearing Mr. Knight's name has at its head an imposing lot 

 of names, gentlemen whose aim it is to prevent the manufacture and sale of butterine, 

 so that the butter trust might be enabled to get from 30 to 40 cents a pound for butter, 

 depriving, as they would, a great many of the industrial classes from being able to use 

 butter through its excessive price. 



With the hired attorney, who is earning his fee, we have nothing to say, only to 

 inform you that these gentlemen are trying to ring in a bluff. You will notice in 

 their circulars that by insinuations they would have people believe they represent 

 some official authority. The Internal Revenue Department looks after their own 



