840 OLEOMARGARINE. 



Senator HEITFELD. If you took that amount out of the use to which it was formerly 

 put, would not that make a difference? 



Mr. HOARD. The Treasury Department shows that there was used of oleo oil in 

 oleomargarine produced in 'this country 24,000,000 pounds. That is a fraction less 

 than 5 pounds of fat from each animal. 



Senator HEITFELD. It takes that 5 out of the gross product. 



Mr. HOARD. It is 4.99 pounds to each animal. At their figures it would be worth 

 about $1 a pound. 



Mr. GROUT. What is the price of it? 



Mr. HOARD. Nine cents. 



Senator HEITFELD. In what way would it? 



Mr. HOARD. Because there are 5,000,000 animals slaughtered and 24,000,000 pounds 

 of oleo oil used. Divide one by the other, and it makes 4.99 pounds to each animal; 

 45 cents a pound. 



Senator HEITFELD. I do not think that is a fair estimate. 



Mr. SPRINGER. I will make this explanation. 



Mr. HOARD. I am taking the amount that would be used in oleomargarine. 



Senator HEITFELD. But you are figuring the 24,000,000 pounds as the entire output 

 from the beef, and the only output that is bringing any money, throwing away the 

 other 95 per cent. 



Mr. HOARD. I am figuring as to relationship and the worth of the oleo oil, and it 

 does not square with that live-stock statement. 



Mr. SPRINGER. I will answer that. 



Mr. HOARD. It is overestimated. 



Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Knight, in his statement before the committee of the House 

 (pp. 26 and 27 of the House hearing), endeavored to expose the figures used by 

 Swift & Co. in regard to this subject. I did not prepare those figures, and I do not 

 know who did, but it appears to me from an examination of both of those statements 

 that the gentlemen and those who prepared these estimates are both out of the way 

 in their estimates upon this subject. In other words, they have, by a loose manner 

 of expression, failed to state exactly what the truth is and what the difference would 

 be. It seems to me that the proper statement is this: We must go for the amount of 

 oleo oil that was consumed in the manufacture of oleomargarine to the Treasury sta- 

 tistics in order to ascertain the exact truth. That does not embrace the amount of 

 oleo oil exported, and a great deal more is used for export than is used in this 

 country. 



Mr. KNIGHT. What has this to do with the oleo oil that is exported? 



Mr. SPRINGER. Nothing, except that the use of oleo throughout the world has 

 created a demand for it, and a portion of that demand is in this country. Now, if 

 all of the caul fat in the beeves that were slaughtered during the year had been 

 used in the manufacture of oleomargarine in this country it would have amounted 

 to the figures stated by Mr. Swift in his circular, which are practically the ones 

 stated in the resolution and memorial of the cattle men. 



Mr. KNIGHT. Is there anything in the Swift letter to Congress indicating that it 

 was not? 



Mr. SPRINGER. I say that I think he was mistaken in placing it upon that basis; 

 but I wish to call the attention of the committee to the fact that it is beyond the 

 power of man to tell what would be the loss to the cattle men of this country by 

 reason of the destruction of oleomargarine as an article of commerce. 



Mr. HOARD. It is beyond the power of man to tell what the destruction to the 

 butter industry is by this business. 



Mr. SPRINGER. You can guess at it. 



Mr. KNIGHT. Now, Judge 



Mr. SPRINGER. Let me finish. You can not tell. Why? There was already 

 created, by the amount of oleo oil used in the actual production of oleomargarine in 

 this country, a demand for 24,000,000 pounds of their product which would not have 

 existed if oleomargarine had not been manufactured in this country. To that much 

 we will all agree. 



Mr. HOARD. Yes. 



Mr. SPRINGER. There is that much increased demand for their stock. 



Mr. HOARD. With a corresponding destruction on the other side. 



Mr. SPRINGER. Excuse me for one moment. There is that large increase. Now, 

 gentlemen, how can you tell what effect that increased demand for the 24,000,000 

 pounds had upon the price of all the other products of animal fats? Who can tell 

 that? Nobody can tell. But it is my opinion that the pending bill and the restric- 

 tive laws in 32 States in this Union will injure the cattle and hog industry to the 

 extent of many millions of dollars annually, and that injury will reach the extent 

 Ftated in the memorial of the National Live Stock Association. 



