OLEOMARGARINE AND BUTTERINE. 29 



that the Court of Appeals had declared the act of 1884 unconstitutional, the prevailing belief 

 among them was that they might go on selling their compounds of beef fat, neutral lard, and 

 artificially colored counterfeits of natural butter with impunity. A few timely arrests dis- 

 abused their minds of this erroneous impression, but there are still numbers of them who 

 persist in evading the law. Thus far there has been only one conviction in the Court of 

 Special Sessions for violations of the law under the latest act, and this was on the confession 

 of the defendant of his guilt, and one in the Court of General Sessions. The latter is the case 

 of Benjamin J. Hill, a Harlem grocer, who was accused of selling oleomargarine or butterine 

 as butter. In the affidavit upon which the charge was made, which was sworn to by one of 

 the Commissioner's inspectors, it was asserted that Hill had offered to sell him a quantity of 

 butter, but failed to inform him that it was an imitation of the natural product, and also that 

 the deponent had closely inspected the tub containing the so-called butter, and found upon it 

 no brand or printed label, as required by law, designating it as oleomargarine. The bogus 

 butter thus produced the inspector submitted to Charles W. Stillwell, a professional chemist, 

 for analysis, and it was found to be a compound of animal fat, curd, salt-water, and coloring 

 .material, and to contain no characteristic of the genuine article save in color." 



" Can you give me the certificate of analysis in that case ?" 



"No. I have no copy of it. But all the compounds are very much alike, and this, which 

 is the certificate of analysis in another case, will serve equally well. Here is the analysis : 



Animal and butter fat 87.41 



Curd 1.30 



Salt (ash) '- - - 2.91 



Water at 100 deg. C 8.38 



100.00 



"Here is another which shows 85.01 of animal and butter fat, 1.09 of curd, 2.36 of salt 

 (ash), and 11.54 of water. Appended to each certificate are the words : ' This sample is com- 

 posed mainly of animal fat, and was not produced from unadulterated milk or cream from 

 the same. It was not produced from milk or cream alone. It contains coloring matter, 

 whereby it is made to resemble butter, the product of the dairy, and it is in imitation and sem- 

 blance of butter produced from unadulterated milk or cream from the same. ' 



" You will observe that this certificate does not specify what sort of animal fat is used, nor 

 the materials used for coloring. It may be the fat of beef cattle, or of horses, or of hogs, or, 

 in fact, of any animal ; but it is not necessary in these proceedings to go into details. It is 

 sufficient to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the court that the product is not what the seller 

 represented it to be to the purchaser, as herein lies the violation of the law. 



" There are other laws under which we can take action against these sellers of bogus butter 

 besides that of 1885, and the decision of the Court of Appeals in the so-called test case (that 

 of the people against Marx) clearly points out the fact of their existence. Section 403 of the 

 Criminal Code provides that any person who sells, or manufactures, or offers for sale for human 

 food any substance in imitation of any such food product, without disclosing the fact that it is 

 an imitation, and displaying a suitable and plainly visible mark that it is an imitation, shall be 

 deemed guilty of a misdemeanor ; and Section 407 provides that any person selling food or 

 drink, adulterated or diluted, as unadulterated or undiluted, without first disclosing the same 

 and informing the purchaser of the bogus nature of the product, shall be deemed guilty of a 

 misdemeanor, and be subject to an imprisonment not exceeding one year and a fine not exceed- 

 ing $500. 



"This section clearly provides that the intention to defraud shall be shown, and it is held 

 that the withholding of the information as to the fraudulent nature of the product by the seller 

 would be positive evidence of intent to defraud. 



