872 OLEOMARGARINE, 



At page 65 of the House hearings Mr. Hewes says: 



And so it went on until the year 1886, when we appeared here for the purpose of 

 having Congress exercise its police regulations, and of course we could only get to 

 Congress and ask for a revenue measure, and, as the late lamented Mr. Dingley said 

 to me only a year or two ago: " Mr. Hewes, you know well enough that that was a 

 ruse of yours to get this thing into Congress under the head of a police measure by 

 drawing the revenue to the Government; " but we knew what we were talking about. 



And at page 69 he says: "We [the butter men] said [to the Govern- 

 ment] * * * we will give you a million and a half dollars of reve- 

 nue, and we ask you simply to act as policemen." At page 109 of the 

 Senate hearings, referring to a fraud mentioned by Judge Springer, 

 Mr. Flanders says: "It is not a proper subject of the police power. 

 We are invoking the Police power." At page 6 of the House Hearings 

 Mr. Knight s&ys: 



The matter of legislating against the counterfeit article, however, was found to be 

 a complex proposition for Congress because of the constitutional restriction, which 

 prevents the Congress of the United States exercising police powers except for the 

 protection of its revenue receipts, interstate commerce, and other matters absolutely 

 within the limits of the Constitution. * * * 



The markings of the "wolf" appear very much in evidence regard- 

 less of his "sheep's clothing." 



On the Wadsworth substitute bill, allow me to say, from the stand- 

 point of an attorney who for years has been aiding the manufacturers 

 and wholesalers in keeping oleomargarine on the market for what it is, 

 what I have already said at your hearing, that 1 agree with Commis- 

 sioner Wilson and others who have testified that it will reduce the 

 possibility of fraud to a minimum. 



And as to the Grout bill, I repeat what I have heretofore said, that 

 it places a premium on fraud. It does not prevent the sale of oleo- 

 margarine for butter. Every rogue in the business can greatly increase 

 his profits and be safer than at present. And I believe the law was 

 drawn partly for that purpose. The coloring by the retailer is one 

 way and an easy one, and there is no law to prevent, but it is crude. 

 There are other and better ways and they will be used. But, gentle- 

 men, prevent it by preventing this useless and iniquitous law from 

 becoming a blot on the statute books of this great country. 



This is a history -making age, and as you value justice and your 

 records as legislators do not allow an otherwise fairly clean chapter 

 to be marred by the actual taking of the worst backward step with 

 which this country has been threatened since it first placed a premium 

 on freedom in all the word implies. 



I had intended to submit a brief on the law applying to this subject, 

 but to do it justice it would be necessary to begin with the constitu- 

 tional debates and review all decisions on delegation of power, enlarg- 

 ing of power, police power, taxing power, and interstate commerce, 

 and how far a supreme court will allow a dishonest or a misguided 

 Congress to impose on the people (under proper headings) improper 

 laws. 



And again, this committee needs no enlightenment on whether or not 

 this is a lawful measure. Every member knows it is not, every Con- 

 gressman knows it is not, every advocate of the bill knows it is not, and 

 friend and foe alike concede that only as a revenue measure would it 

 .stand a constitutional test for a minute. 



I can not leave this question without mentioning the methods of 

 intimidation that have pervaded the pressing of this bill, from the 



