OLEOMARGARINE. 87 1 



Not illegal traffic, but c ' oleomargarine traffic. " Gentlemen, through- 

 out the record, from the various expressions of those who have been 

 heard in favor of the passage of this bill, creeps to the surface the 

 sentiment that it is not the suppression of fraud. It is not the protec- 

 tion of the consumer. It is not a question of mere regulation of com- 

 petition between rival industries. It is not a question of insufficiency 

 of State legislation. It is not a question of nonenf orcement of existing 

 revenue laws. It is not a question of threatened absolute destruction 

 of the dairy industry. But it is a question of systematic organized 

 effort to legislate out of existence the manufacture of oleomargarine. 

 Not, as some of the friends of the bill reluctantly or unguardedly admit, 

 the driving out of the manufacture of the colored product, because 

 they all know, and the manufacturers all know and have testified, either 

 personally or by counsel, before your committee that the uncolored 

 article is absolutely unmarketable. (Senate hearings, pp. 37, 39, 47, 

 204, 531, 568, etc.) And the same thing is admittedly true with regard 

 to butter. In vain we ask : ' ' Why should one product have a monopoly 

 on color?" The answers would apply equally as well in defending a 

 law regulating the color of a man's clothes or a maiden's cheeks accord- 

 ing to their respective stations in life. 



These men have laid their lines well by working on the credulity of 

 the farmer, by taking advantage of the lack of any resistance, organ- 

 ized or otherwise, on the part of the oleomargarine industry, and they 

 have passed prohibitorj 7 laws in thirty-two different States, laws neces- 

 sarily unpopular, and, as to their unfair features, hard to enforce. 

 And now they come before Congress asking that a bill be passed by 

 which the manufacturer of oleomargarine is crushed, not by the con- 

 flict of laws, but by the coming together of the State and national laws. 



They come before you reeking with dishonesty of purpose and with 

 every claim supported by glaring falsehoods. And, attempting to con- 

 ceal what they can of their duplicity, they still say: "Gentlemen, we 

 want this law. We concede that we can not get it under its proper 

 classification, but if you will impose upon the people and on the 

 Supreme Court by giving us this law under the guise of a revenue 

 measure, the future butter trust and the dairy publications will rise 

 up and call you blest." And they do not hesitate to make you parties 

 of record to this fraud which they want perpetrated. 



At page 2 of the House hearings Governor Hoard says: "In plain 

 words this is repressive taxation." At page 11 of the hearings before 

 this committee he says: "The Federal Government is limited in its 

 constitutional power. It has no right to enact prohibition. It has no 

 police power. These things you are as well aware of as I am." At 

 page 7 of the Senate hearings General Grout says: " I do not think it 

 [the one-fourth-cent revenue] ought to be less, for it ought to be large 

 enough to cover the cost of policing the business." And, in reply to 

 the question as to whether or not the subject is one of police regula- 

 tion in the State: "Yes, but we have got a regulation here in this 

 second section which transcends police regulations; and if the Senator 

 will allow me a moment, I will make it plain to him." Senator Allen: 

 "Can you do that?" General Grout: "Oh, yes, sir; in the way we 

 propose to do it here, as I believe." He does not proceed to tell the 

 way, but the way is to cover up the motive by giving the act a revenue 

 cloak. 



