38 OLEOMARGARINE AND BUTTERINE. 



CONVICTIONS IN NEW YORK AND BROOKLYN. 



N. Y. Star, January 27, 1886. 



For a long time past the .dealers engaged in the illegal sale of spurious butter and the capi- 

 talists interested in its manufacture have found fault with State Dairy Commissioner Brown 

 and his able and energetic assistant in this city and Kings county, Mr. Van Valkenburgh, for 

 not enforcing the provisions of the law of 1885 against manufacturers as well as retailers. The 

 fact that but few of the former were brought to trial was used as a conclusive argument against 

 the constitutionality of the law, so far as the manufacturing of the article was concerned, and 

 was held to be presumptive proof that the Dairy Commissioner considered the act too weak to 

 bear enforcement. Those who deceived themselves with these sophistical arguments were 

 abundantly undeceived yesterday when the case of The People against Lipman Arensberg was 

 called for trial belore Judge Moore in the Brooklyn Court of Sessions. Arensberg is a well- 

 known manufacturer of oleomargarine, and has an extensive factory on Furman Street. He 

 was represented in court by Messrs. Wheeler H. Peckham and Frederick Coudert, and the 

 former distinguished himself in cross-examining the expert chemists who were called as wit- 

 nesses on the part of the prosecution. 



State Expert Thomas C. DuBois testified that on July 16, 1885, he visited Arensberg's oleo- 

 margarine factory, No. 61 Furman Street, and purchased three tubs of oleomargarine. He 

 asked specifically for oleomargarine and not for butter. The substance closely resembled nat- 

 ural butter. The remainder of his testimony related, as is usual in these cases, to what he had 

 done with the goods purchased, and then Dr. Charles L. Stillwell, one of the chemists of the 

 New York Produce Exchange, was placed upon the stand. He testified to the receipt of the 

 sample, and said that upon analysis he found it to be oleomargarine. In the cross-examination 

 of this witness, which was conducted by Mr. Wheeler H. Peckham, the distinction between 

 oleomargarine and natural butter was very clearly described, and though questions cleverly 

 designed to confuse him were rapidly poured forth by Mr. Peckham, the chemist never wav- 

 ered, but seemed rather more positive than in his direct examination. He, too, described the 

 sample as being colored in imitation and semblance of butter. 



Dr. Thomas Gladding, Dr. Stillwell's partner, and also chemist for the Produce Exchange, 

 passed through the ordeal of another searching cross-examination with equal success, and then 

 the defense offered to put Professor Morton, of Stevens College, Hoboken, on the stand, an- 

 nouncing their intention to prove by his testimony that oleomargarine contained precisely the 

 same chemical constituents as natural butter. The introduction of this testimony was objected 

 to by the prosecution, and Judge Moore announced that he should rule out any evidence o 

 this point unless the defense were prepared to prove that the substance sold was made from 

 pure unadulterated milk, or cream from the same. To this Mr. Coudert replied that the de- 

 fense made no such claim, and the objection was sustained. 



The defense next offered to prove that the goods sold were wholesome, and Judge Moore 

 again ruled that such evidence was inadmissible. Their third proposition was to prove that 

 butter could be made from substances not derived from the milk of the cow, and this shared 

 the fate of its predecessor, Judge Moore holding strictly in his ruling to the opinion of the 

 Court of Appeals in the Cipperly case, in which it was held that the courts have nothing to do 

 with the question of the wisdom or the natural justice of any particular law, and that its power 

 to fix a standard for food products for the protection of the public health could not be ques- 

 tioned. The defense took exceptions to the exclusion of this evidence, and there rested. 

 Then Judge Moore fined the defendant $125 or 125 days' imprisonment, suspending the exe- 

 cution of the judgment pending the decision of the Court of Appeals, and Arensberg and his 

 counsel retired. 



"This case is important," said a leading butter merchant, " as involving the disputed point 

 as to whether the Legislature has the constitutional right to prohibit the manufacture of any 

 substance in semblance or imitation of butter. The oleomargarine manufacturers nave long. 



