No. I.] IIEPORT OF DAIRY BURKAIT. 3H3 



discovered this year. This is a case wliere all stamps, 

 brands or marks which would indicate in any way that the 

 contents of the tubs Avas renovated butter had apparently 

 been removed, and the tubs were not stamped to}), bottom 

 and side, as our State law^ requires, and the goods were sold 

 as " Hawkeye Creamery Butter." One retail dealer alone 

 testified that he had sold several hundred tubs of this brand, 

 under the impression that it was straight creamery butter ; 

 and we find indications that seven different stores were retail- 

 ing this particular brand of goods. The wholesaler pleaded 

 guilty, and was fined $100, the limit for first offences, most 

 of the retailers being fined $25 each. 



Preservatives have been conspicuously absent from the 

 renovated butter sold in this State during the past year. 



In prosecuting renovated butter cases the Bureau has 

 adopted this year a somewhat different policy. No case 

 has been entered in court except where a sufficient number 

 of samples were previously purchased to indicate that the 

 violation of the law was the habit of the dealer, and not an 

 accident on either his part or that of his clerk. The result 

 has been that all the violations of law entered in court since 

 the adoption of this policy have finally been punished, wdth 

 but the one exception elsewhere mentioned. As a rule, the 

 proprietors or owners of stores are brought into court to 

 answer these charges, whether the sales were made by them 

 or their clerks, the Bureau believing this to be the correct 

 policy. 



There is one marked result in the prosecution of these 

 renovated butter cases, in contrast with violations of the 

 oleomargarine anti-color law, namely, that it is seldom that 

 a man is found violating the law a second time after con- 

 viction. 



The last Legislature changed the penalty for violation of 

 the renovated butter law, making the fine $25 to $100 for the 

 first offence, with heavier penalties for subsequent oftences, 

 the law going into effect June 20, 1908. Since that date but 

 little ditHculty has been experienced in securing the impos- 

 ing and payment of fines. But two parties have appealed 

 their cases during the year. 



