OF THE 

 COLLEGE OF 



OLEOMARGARINE AND BUTTERINE. 47 



one in this State would deliberately and openly favor by vote such deception in trade as is used 

 by those who palm off upon consumers bogus butter for real butter. Upon the second ques- 

 tion, as to preventing manufacture or sale, prohibition would be favored by every farmer in 

 the State and by every consumer not personally interested in the bogus butter business. That 

 is to say, there would be arrayed in opposition to 5,000,000 of people a few scores of persons 

 who are engaged in making bogus butter or in selling it, or who depend in some way, directly 

 or indirectly, on this "industry" for support. The people do not want the stuff, and they will 

 not use it if they can help it. Nevertheless, it is made in this city and in other parts of the 

 State in enormous quantities, and thousands of packages imported from other States are sold 

 here every month. 



To the consumer it comes as real butter. The manufacturer and the wholesale dealer sell 

 it for what it is, of course, and the retail dealer may occasionally sell it for what it is to the 

 proprietor of a boarding house or a restaurant, but to those who eat it the stuff is presented as 

 real butter, for the excellent reason that if it were presented as anything else they would not use 

 it. Yet there are newspapers that talk about " denying the people the right to use a food pro- 

 duct of their own choice !" The annual report of Dairy Commissioner Brown should be read 

 with satisfaction by the people of New York, because it shows that he has made commendable 

 progress in the work of enforcing the laws against those who swindle consumers by selling 

 them bogus butter for the real product of the dairy. After the Court of Appeals had declared 

 the law prohibiting manufacture and sale to be unconstitutional dealers boldly defied all other 

 laws relating to this subject. The commissioner has reminded them of the existence of these 

 laws, and the cases of nearly 200 persons who have been prosecuted are pending in the courts. 

 Fines to the amount of nearly $2,300 have been collected. We hope that in the current year 

 the commissioner will be able, by vigorous prosecution, to put an end to the sale of bogus 

 butter by deception and fraud. 



Those who have been retained to defend the manufacturers of the several compounds that 

 masquerade in the form and semblance of butter declare that the stuff is wholesome. They do 

 not go so far as to defend the deception, without which the product of the factories could not 

 be sold, but their plea is that the stuff will harm no one who is led by deception to eat it. The 

 commissioner submits a special report, made by Dr. Clark, who has been at work for nearly a 

 year as an expert in this field. His conclusion is that for several reasons bogus butter is un- 

 wholesome and dangerous to health. Manufacturers who are eager to make a cheap product 

 use unwholesome fats and ingredients that cannot fail to injure the consumer. Dr. Clark's 

 list of acids, oils, and other substances used by the manufacturers can be greatly prolonged by 

 adding the names of substances specified in the patents issued for the various processes. It is 

 possible that in some place there is made bogus butter that will not harm the person who eats 

 it. But in most cases the manufacturer's aim is to produce an article that will look well and 

 sell for a price that will hold the market for him against competitors. The fraudulent com- 

 pounds are manufactured under no restrictions except those imposed by the maker's conscience 

 and the demands of the trade. Under these conditions what must be the nature of the product ? 



There is no room for argument upon the proposition that bogus butter should be sold for 

 just what it is and not for a dairy product. A rigid enforcement of the laws forbidding any 

 other disposition of the stuff is demanded in the interests of public health, our export trade in 

 dairy products and our dairy industry, and for the support of honesty in trade. Those who try 

 to thwart the execution of these laws are the enemies of the people. 



AN ABSURD STATEMENT. 



A\ Y. Times, Jan. 28, 1886. 



A few days ago the Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the General Term of the 

 Supreme Court in the case of the People against Arthur Cipperly, thereby declaring the 

 law forbidding the sale of adulterated or unwholesome milk to be constitutional. The judgment 

 of the court below was overturned, the Court of Appeals said, "for reasons sufficiently stated 

 by Judge Learned," who had submitted a dissenting opinion. In this opinion, thus indorsed 

 by the Court of Appeals, Judge Learned was led to speak of the upper court in the Marx 

 case, which declared the law forbidding the manufacture or sale of imitation butter to be un- 

 constitutional. 



"The object of that law, like that of a protective tariff," wrote Judge Learned, "was to 

 protect the home industry of the farmer against the city industry of the manufacturer, and the 

 court held the law to be void because it prohibits an important branch of industry for the sole 

 reason that it competes with another, and may reduce *he price of an article of food." On the 

 other hand, he declared that the milk law's "sole object" was to "regulate and control the 

 quality of a certain article of food in the interest of the health of the people." 



It is not true that the object of the prohibitory law against imitation butter was " to pro- 

 tect the home industry of the farmer against the city industry of the manufacturer," and a 



