864 OLEOMARGAEINE. 



estly recommend the reading of the entire statement, especially that 

 part in which he estimates an annual loss of $65,000,000 to his people 

 and to the elemental wealth of the country should this bill become a 

 law. His statements and estimates are sustained by numerous others 

 who appeared before this committee and the House committee for the 

 cotton industry, and all of whom produce additional interesting points 

 showing their individual reasons why their industry should not be leg- 

 islated against. F 

 of Arkansas, who 

 Helena they have : 

 and which four mills support 800 people. I would especially ask the 

 committee to read in full the argument of Judge Aldredge, at page 109 

 of the House hearings, in which he presents plain facts and dry statis- 

 tics in a very interesting manner; and also the statements of Mr. Con- 

 ley, at page 322 of the Senate hearings. 



*The first presentation of the cattle growers' interests was by Mr. 

 Cowan, of Fort Worth, Tex. (House Hearings, p. TO, et seq.), whose 

 particular client, The Texas Cattle Raisers' Association, showed a 

 membership of 1,200 cattlemen and a property interest of $100,000,000, 

 but who also represented other identical interests, all of whom figured 

 a probable loss in the value of their cattle of from $3 to $4 per head. 

 He was followed by Mr. Tomlinson, representing the Chicago Live 

 Stock Exchange, who agreed with him as to the loss of from $3 to $4 

 per head on cattle. There were others before both committees who 

 shared these views. However, the statement most in detail on this 

 branch of the subject was by Mr. John McCoy (House Hearings, p. 

 93), who figures the result of the passage of this bill as a net annual 

 loss to the farmers and stock raisers of the country of $62,950,434. 

 Mr. McCoy's estimates are very conservative and were to a limited 

 degree explained before this committee at pages 64 to 72 of the Senate 

 committee hearings. At page 68, Senate Hearings, he read from an 

 agricultural paper to show the increase in the value of milch cows, of 

 milk, of butter, and of cheese. 



Mr. J. A. Hake, of South Omaha, Nebr. (House Hearings, p. 1ST), 

 makes a computation slightly varying, but substantially the same as 

 the others, and setting out the local conditions; also showing, from 

 statistics taken from the Bureau of Internal Revenue and the Agri- 

 cultural Department, that for the ten years ending June 30, 1899, the 

 butter industry had increased more rapidly than had the butterine 

 industry. Mr. Thompson, president of the Live Stock Exchange of 

 Chicago (Senate Hearings, p. 182), figured the loss on each head of 

 cattle as the result of the passage of this bill at $3.42, and sustains the 

 statements and computations of his predecessors before both commit- 

 tees. Judge Springer presented to your committee (Senate Hearings, 

 p. 78) the memorial of the National Live Stock Association, which 

 estimates a loss of from $3 to $4 per head on the cattle of the country 

 as a result of the proposed class legislation. He has compiled numer- 

 ous statistics and has very ably treated all the legal phases of the ques- 

 tion. The argument of Henry E. Davis, at page 392, is also a very 

 able presentation from a legal standpoint. 



The statement of Col. John S. Hobbs, editor of the National Pro- 

 yisioner, of New York and Chicago (House Hearings, p. 130), is full of 

 information on this subject, and especially his detailed statement of 

 the workings of a butterine factory, at page 138. 



