822 OLEOMARGARINE. 



tion before the committee by your orator of the original bonds signed 

 by said Lowry for the appearance of some of the most notorious of 

 these swindlers in the city of Chicago, as well as the production of 

 bonds signed by Moxley's man, Gleeson, the charges against each 

 defendant appearing upon the bonds, and reading, "Selling oleomar- 

 garine as butter." 



In these cases the facts set forth were never denied. They were 

 defended purely upon technical grounds, the claim being set up that 

 the statutes under which they were brought had been repealed by 

 implication by a later general food act, and were unconstitutional. The 

 Illinois Dairy Union expended more than $1,600 in an effort to secure 

 a conviction. A justice of the peace took it upon himself to adjudicate 

 the question, and decided in favor of the defense upon this complicated 

 point, and after that we could do nothing in the lower courts, although 

 we carried the matter to the supreme court in mandamus proceedings 

 in an effort to compel the issue of warrants under a law that would 

 enable us to proceed. The judgment of the supreme court was that 

 the issuance of a warrant was a judicial act, and that a judge could not 

 be compelled by mandamus to move judicially. These facts are all set 

 forth in the testimony before the House committee. 



Their very unique claim of unconstitutionality is set forth on page 

 467, which goes to show that they make the same claim about every 

 law that is attempted to be passed to regulate the sale of their product, 

 i. e., that it will prove prohibitory. This is from their brief, filed in 

 the cases alluded to in the foregoing: 



It is very evident that a man who sells an article can not know the proportions 

 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 from 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 enters 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 is unconstitutional. 



In explanation of the above it might be stated that the law under 

 which these prosecutions were brought also required the stamping 

 upon each retail package the ingredients and proportions thereof which 

 go to make up the mixture. What they claimed here was utterly 

 impossible to do is being done in Ohio every day, samples of which 

 stamps were exhibited before this committee by Mr. Schell. 



If further evidence were needed of the backing up of dealers in the 

 sale of oleomargarine as butter, a notorious case occurring right here 

 in Washington a few years ago might be cited, inasmuch as it is a 

 matter of record in the courts and with the Attorney-General. 



Joseph Wilkins was of the firm of Wilkins & Co. , of Washington, 

 whose brother, Walter E. Wilkins, comprised the company, the latter 

 now being president of the new Standard Butterine Company of this 

 city. 



Joseph Wilkins and his clerk, Howard Butler, were, after months of 

 surveillance, detected removing the marks of identification and reve- 

 nue stamps from a carload of oleomargarine in Philadelphia, the prac- 

 tice being to remove the marks in that city in the railroad yards and 

 send the goods here to be sold as pure butter. 



Joseph Wilkins and Howard Butler were sentenced to jail, with fines. 



