896 
THE RURAL NEW-YORKER. 
December 26 
some food and resist strongly any efforts to stop its 
sale. The advocates of hippophagy offer two argu¬ 
ments in favor of the practice. 1. It provides cheap 
and wholesome meat for the people 2. It is a good 
thing for the farmer and prevents much cruelty and 
abuse to old horses. It is argued that a horse that 
would bring only three or four dollars when skinned 
for its hide, will bring $10 to $20 more when well fat¬ 
tened and sold for food. As the horse cannot be sold 
for food unless it is fat and well, it is claimed that 
farmers will take better care of their teams rather than 
make them travel the rough road that is marked out 
for too many old horses nowadays. Laws to regulate 
the sale of horse flesh not unlike our dressed meat 
inspection laws are enforced in Paris. The animals 
must be inspected and pronounced free from disease 
.and the meat must be sold for what it is—not disguised 
as beef; in fact, dealers in horse flesh are required to 
make a specialty of that product and not sell other 
meats. Opposition to the trade comes from butchers 
and farmers who claim that the sale of horse flesh has 
caused a depreciation in the price of French cattle, and 
propose a heavy tax on every pound sold—like our ‘ ‘oleo” 
tax. It is generally supposed that hippophagy is little 
practiced in this country, yet, it has just been discov¬ 
ered in Chicago that although that city is sending vast 
quantities of dressed, cured and canned beef, pork and 
mutton to nearly all parts of this country, as well as to 
Europe every week, four of its restaurants have for 
some time been serving horse meat for beef to their 
customers. Unless the Windy City caterers mend their 
ways before the opening of the World’s Fair, it isn’t 
unlikely that they will have to furnish an affidavit with 
each plate of beef to fastidious visitors. 
The Outcome of Oleomargarine Laws 
WIIAT IS NOW NEEDED ? 
1. Has the outcome of our present oleomargarine 
law proved satisfactory to you ? 
2. Does the business of the manufacture and sale of 
the stuff still increase in spite of the tax and regula¬ 
tions ? 
2. What grades of butter does it compete with at 
present ? 
4. What do you propose in the way of additional leg¬ 
islation for regulating the business ? 
Oleo Competes with Poor Butter. 
I do not hold the general opinion of antipathy to 
oleomargarine. I think there is no doubt its sale is 
rapidly increasing. Its manufacture has no doubt been 
greatly improved. It compares with low grades of 
farm butter, and with imitation creamery. I should 
prefer to wait a little longer before asking for addi¬ 
tional legislation. 
In my judgment the great increase in the sale of good 
standard butters is due to improvements in the quality 
of the product. Two years ago the majority of agricul¬ 
tural editors and institute workers were less satisfied 
with the oleo traffic than appears to be the case to¬ 
day, and many good men were afraid lest the dairy 
business should be overdone. The best answer to these 
fears may be found in the prices paid during the last 
twenty-four months for high-grade creamery goods 
and good standard butters. 
Much has been done, but a great deal more remains 
for the educators. More cows must be killed, a higher 
quality of butter blood must take their places, feeding 
must be more rational and less costly. Small farm 
dairies must go, the creameries must make butter 
from a greater number of cows and so reduce the 
inequalities of their output due to an undue proportion 
of stale cows at various seasons. Good butter will win 
its own market, and whether it be used in place of 
oleo or not, will depend on the consumer’s purse. 
JAMES CHEESEMAN. 
A National Pure Food Law. 
1. No. The outcome has not been fully satisfactory, 
because the opposition to the oleo business seemed by 
one consent to have slacked up, when the most work 
seemed needed, and the impression has gone out that 
dairymen had secured a tax on the bogus stuff and 
that it was now a recognized legal commodity. Then 
what was every one’s business in the matter was no 
one’s, and the government was left to collect the tax, 
and who was to see that the law was complied with in 
regard to its sale. True, a few States have dairy com¬ 
missions, but beyond New York, Wisconsin, and maybe 
a New England State or two, the observance of the law 
is limited, if all reports are true. Notably is this so 
in Ohio where under Commissioner Derthick the law 
was enforced to the dot, while now under his succes¬ 
sor, Bethel, its lack of enforcement is a matter of his¬ 
tory, and the oleo crowd are having their own way. 
2. ' Yes; the manufacture and sale are on the in¬ 
crease ; not necessarily because the stuff is better or 
cheaper than fair butter, but because it is sold for 
butter, and at the lowest price for butter. When the 
law respecting the retail trade is not enforced, no one 
sees marked oleo wrapping paper, or oleo tubs, the in¬ 
ference being that it is all dairy and creamery butter, 
and so oleo is sold by the ton. 
3. Oleo does not in a general way compete with any 
grade of butter, because the consumer is rarely given 
a choice. The seller of oleo buys from the wholesale 
maker or dealer and knows that it is oleo and he buys 
at oleo prices, but it is retailed, as a rule, for fine dairy 
butter. If you ask for oleo, the dealers often show 
you some pasty stuff and tell you that it is oleo, and 
then show you some nice oleo, and tell you it is choice 
dairy butter. Then when they are asked for choice 
dairy butter you are shown some stale, rancid grease, 
and then a contrast is made with some choice creamery 
and you get a dose of oleo again. Of course thousands 
of dealers have only genuine butter on sale, and then, 
honestly or dishonestly, oleo gets no chance to com¬ 
pete with it. The competition, if there is any, is 
with the inferior grades of butter, in reality a butter 
that until advanced several degrees in merit, can 
never have any competition. 
4. In the way of additional legislation we have only 
one recourse, a National law, and its enforcement by 
the Federal authorities, so that the administration of 
the law should be uniform in every State. The enforce¬ 
ment of an oleo law in Ohio while none is in operation 
in Indiana and Kentucy is not a fair deal so far as pro¬ 
tection to the great dairy industry is concerned. Let 
Commissioner Brown of New York be as vigilant as he 
may, while the Ohio Commissioner is as remiss as he is, 
too many loopholes will be furnished for the escape of 
the common enemy of the dairy. That butter is high 
in price is no excuse for non-enforcement of the law 
governing the sale of oleo. The general government 
needs to pass a pure food act, one that excuses neither 
the maker nor vender, and make its enforcement a 
matter of United States authority as much as the col¬ 
lection of the tobacco tax. The States cannot give us 
a uniform law, because of the different existing con¬ 
ditions, but all States and all buyers of food would 
welcome a thorough-going, far-reaching pure food act, 
and its rigid enforcement, provided it took in bogus 
butter and cotton-seed oil lard, and made it reasonably 
sure that when one bought butter, or lard, he would 
obtain the thing he sought. john goui.d. 
A New Law Suggested. 
The results of the oleomargarine law in New York 
State have, on the whole, been satisfactory, and it is 
practically a success. In other States, notably in Penn¬ 
sylvania, Ohio and Michigan, the State and National 
laws are ineffective and millions of pounds are sold for 
butter. Unless some law is soon passed by Congress 
subjecting oleo to State law, the “Original Package De¬ 
cision ” will give trouble in this State. For additional 
legislation, I would suggest that Congress should enact 
a law making it a misdemeanor punishable by fine or 
imprisonment for the first offence, and imprisonment 
for the second offence, for any person to sell or offer 
for sale any article of food marked or branded pure 
that is impure or adulterated. Such a law would not 
only practically limit the sale of oleomargarine, but 
would go far towards preventing the sale of all kinds 
of adulterated foods. Consumers would soon learn to 
buy nothing that was not marked pure , and few deal¬ 
ers would run the risk of a second conviction. 
WM. H. GILBERT. 
We Must Draw “ The Color Line.” 
The United States oleomargarine law has not accom¬ 
plished all that was hoped and anticipated from it, and 
it seems to me that nothing short of a stringent, spe¬ 
cific “ color law” can do justice to the dairymen and 
consuming public of the country. Oleo is now used 
principally in hotels and boarding houses where the 
proprietors are enabled to buy it for what it is, and 
palm it off on their boarders for what it is not. If the 
United States law prescribed a pink color, as is the 
case in the New Hampshire and Vermont laws, or even 
white, as is the case in the Massachusetts law, then 
the consumer would be protected and no one would be 
defrauded. Although we have a stringent law in Ver¬ 
mont there is no special officer whose duty it is to see 
that it is enforced, and consequently it is violated to a 
greater or less extent whenever the price of genuine 
good butter reaches 25 cents per pound. 
There were manufactured in this country alone dur¬ 
ing the last fiscal year, 43,574,000 pounds of oleomar¬ 
garine; an increase over that of last year of 12,614,000 
pounds. While the government is receiving a revenue 
of over $1,000,000 per annum from the taxation of it, 
it is evident that the law is not accomplishing the pur¬ 
pose intended. The main purpose of all oleomargarine 
law (that is not absolutely prohibitory) is to protect 
the public health, and prevent the fraud of selling it 
for genuine butter, which it is not. Nothing can ac¬ 
complish this purpose so effectually as to require it to 
“ sail under its own colors.” E. L. bass. 
The Hiscock Bill Is Wanted. 
The working of the oleomargarine law has been of 
untold value to the dairy interests of New York. The 
manufacture of the product has been entirely sup¬ 
pressed, while its sale has been so closely watched by 
the Dairy Commissioner and his deputies that it has 
not been sold except in very limited quantities and 
clandestinely. While at one time the competition from 
it was more largely with the cheaper grades of butter, 
it is known to be mixed with the finest creamery but¬ 
ter, making it difficult of detection, and in this way it 
has become a competitor with the best grades of butter. 
While the law of our State prohibits the manufacture 
and sale of oleomargarine as being detrimental to pub¬ 
lic health, under the original package decision of the 
United States Supreme Court, warehouses may be 
opened and the article sold in the unbroken packages 
by agents from another State ; but by the vigilance of 
the Dairy Commissioner the consumer of dairy products 
has been protected as well as the producer, by pre¬ 
venting the retail dealer from selling oleomargarine if 
he bought it. 
It is now proposed by the New York State Dairy As¬ 
sociation to petition Congress to enact a law similar to 
the Hiscock Bill, so that oleomargarine shall be subject 
to the law of this State, and its introduction in the 
original package to be worked off, if possible, upon 
the people, be prevented. On the enactment of such a 
national law, the dairymen of New York might safely 
stock their farms with all the cows they could carry, 
and have an assured market for all the good butter 
they could produce at fairly remunerative prices. 
The New York State Dairy Association is, by its dairy 
schools and conferences, doing valuable educational 
work for the farmers of the State, by practical instruc¬ 
tion, in making a finer grade of butter and more of it. 
The fruits of these labors were seen during the past 
summer, in the improvement that has been made in the 
dairy products of our State, and in the confidence that 
is being built up in them in the minds of European 
buyers, who instructed their agents in July last to buy 
all the butter they could get from New York State. It 
is known by European buyers that no oleomargarine 
can be manufactured or sold in this State, hence the 
increased demand that has sprung up for our dairy 
products. 
The following is the petition that is being exten¬ 
sively signed at the present time. geo. t. POWELL. 
Treasurer New York State Dairy Association. 
The petition referred to is as follows: 
The petitioners, whose names are hereto subscribed, respectfully 
represent: 
1. That we are citizens of the State of New York. 
2. That we are producers of, dealers in, or consumers of pure butter 
and other dairy products, and as such, and in the interest of the public 
health and welfare, earnestly oppose and condemn all adulterations or 
imitations thereof, and we protest against any legislation to protect 
the manufacture of or traffic in such fraudulent products. 
3. That for the purpose of restricting, regulating or prohibiting the 
manufacture of and traffic in such adulterations or Imitations of pure 
dairy products the Legislature of this State has enacted laws punishing 
those who manufacture and traffic in such fraudulent adulterations 
and imitations. 
4. That such legislation is imperiled and practically nullified by the 
assumption of those engaged in this pernicious traffic that the so-called 
“Original Package Decision” of the Supreme Court of the United 
States prevents the enforcement of any State laws against dealers in 
original packages of oleomargarine imported by them from other 
States. 
5. Therefore we, the undersigned petitioners, respectfully pray that 
the Congress of the United States immediately enact a law, similar to 
the Hiscock Bill (Senate Bill, No. 3,911) introduced in the last Congress, 
for the purpose of subjecting oleomargarine to the provisions of the 
laws of the several States, so that these laws may be enforced against 
the dealers in such original packages imported from other States. And 
your petitioners will ever pray, etc. 
The poultry Yard. 
My Chickens. 
No “hen with one chicken” was ever prouder of her 
brood than I. There have been plenty of disappoint¬ 
ments all through the summer, which reminded me of 
The Rural’s cartoon early in the season. Nearly half 
of the eggs set failed to produce chickens. The Leg¬ 
horn eggs were bought from a friend, and a large pro¬ 
portion of them were thin-shelled, and broke in the 
nests. Then a sad accident in the way of a neighhor’s 
mowing machine swept off a considerable number of 
little chicks which were too tame to think anything 
would - hurt them. But the results are not so bad as 
they might have been, though I have not raised more 
than two-thirds of the birds hatched. A brood of 
beautiful Leghorns, hatched on May 14, began to lay 
before Nov. 14. Our chicks of the larger breeds have 
not begun to pay their board yet. 
I began last spring with 50 hens, 11 of which have 
been killed during the summer and fall. I began keep¬ 
ing an account of the eggs on April 20, and from that 
time until to-night—Nov. 19—I have gathered 3,211 
