OLEOMAEGAKINE. 865 



The statement of Professor Wiley (House Hearings, p. 186) will be 

 read with interest by any member wishing to fully inform himself as 

 to the chemistry of~ the article, and the statements of Internal Rev- 

 enue Commissioner Wilson (House Hearings, p. 167 et seq.) should 

 have great weight in deciding this question. At page 168 he specific- 

 ally recommends a regulation similar to that incorporated in the 

 Wadsworth substitute bill, and at page 182 considers it will meet the 

 requirements of preventing fraud "in the fullest possible way." He 

 commends the article as at present manufactured and the dealers gen- 

 erally as giving his department no particular trouble. At page 168 

 he pronounces the 10-cent tax prohibitive and thinks it would defeat 

 the end of deriving any revenue from it. 



The most important of the oleomargarine manufacturers have been 

 before you, either personally or by counsel, and tell the same story in 

 a slightly different manner. They unite in claiming cleanliness and 

 wholesomeness in their product, in obeying the laws, in inviting a full 

 investigation of their every act, and in offering their assistance in pass- 

 ing and enforcing any law which will reduce the fraud to a minimum, 

 in denying the charges that they connive at the alleged fraud of the 

 retailer or that they defend him for selling oleomargarine for butter, 

 and in insisting that it is utterly impossible to market uncolored oleo- 

 margarine, and that to be compelled to abandon the use of color would 

 mean the total destruction of the industry and an abandonment of their 



Elants. A strong presentation of the case, from both a practical and 

 jgal standpoint, was made by Mr. Gardner early in the hearing before 

 this committee, and I would earnestly recommend that his article be 

 given a second reading before taking the committee vote on this 

 subject. 



MERITS AND DEMERITS OF THE BILL ACCORDING TO THE TESTIMONY. 



Now, as to the merits of the respective sides from the evidence 

 produced. 



Briefly stated, the friends of the bill base their claim on 



Alleged public sentiment in its favor. 



Alleged fraud in competition and on consumers. 



Threatened absolute destruction of the dairy industry. 



Failure of state legislation. 



Nonenforcement of existing revenue laws governing retailers. 



The opponents of the bill deny all this, and claim that the bill is 



1. Dishonest in name and in purpose. 



2. Class legislation. 



3. An exercise of police power. 



4. Destruction by taxation. 



5. Confiscation of property without due process of law. 



6. Delegation of control of interstate commerce. 



And the bill is dishonest in that it is not what it purports to be nor 

 what its friends claim for it. They admit that under the guise of a 

 revenue measure it is an exercise of police power for the aUeged pur- 

 pose of preventing fraud and regulating competition. But the testi- 

 mony shows that it is for the actual purpose of destroying one industry 

 in the interest of another. 



It is class legislation of the most vicious kind. That it is unconsti- 

 tutional is not disputed, but they depend upon the unwillingness of 

 S. Rep. 2043 55 



