GIFT OF
H. E. Van Norman
UNIVERSITY FARM
THE OLEOMARGARINE BILL.
HEARINGS
THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY,
UNITED STATES SENATE,
THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE,
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
REPORTS, BRIEFS, ETC.,
ON
THE BILL (H. R. 3717) TO MAKE OLEOMARGARINE AND OTHER IMITATION DAIRY
PRODUCTS SUBJECT TO THE LAWS OF THE STATE OR TERRITORY INTO
WHICH THEY ARE TRANSPORTED, AND TO CHANGE
THE TAX ON OLEOMARGARINE.
LIBRARY
WASHINGTON:
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE.
1901.
NOTE.
Where reference is made to House hearings by page numbers, see
bottom of pages of the House hearings for the page numbers so
mentioned.
56TH CONGRESS, ) SENATE. ( REPORT
U Session. j I No. 2043.
OLEOMARGARINE AND OTHER IMITATION DAIRY
PRODUCTS, ETC.
JANUARY 26, 1901. Ordered to be printed.
Mr. PROCTOR, from the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry
submitted the following
REPORT, WITH THE VIEWS OF THE MINORITY.
[To accompany H. R. 3717.]
The Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, to whom was referred
House bill 3717, known as the Grout bill, and entitled "An act to make
oleomargarine and other imitation dairy products subject to the laws
of the State or Territory into which they are transported, and to
change the tax on oleomargarine," begs leave to submit the following
report and recommend the passage of the bill:
This bill proposes to increase the tax on oleomargarine colored in
semblance of butter and reduce that not colored in imitation of butter
to the mere nominal sum of a quarter of a cent a pound, the purpose
being to encourage the sale of the genuine article, and to discourage
the sale of the imitation article and to protect the honest producer,
dealer, and consumer of both butter and oleomargarine.
So far as the identification of the commodity to the wholesaler is con-
cerned, the law of 1886 has been successful. So far as the identifica-
tion of the commodity to the consumer is concerned, the law of 1886
is of little value, the evidence being that a very large proportion of the
oleomargarine manufactured goes to the consumer finally as butter,
either as a purchaser of the retailer or as a guest at a hotel, restaurant,
or boarding house.
Your committee, realizing the importance of the questions involved
in the bill, has inquired very carefully and exhaustively into the exist-
ing conditions, as shown by the report of the testimony before the
committee, which occupies 580 pages, the taking of which was begun
December 19 last and occupied the attention of your committee much
of the time from that date to and including 1 - Januarv 16. Your commit-
II OLEOMARGARINE AND OTHER IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS.
tee can conceive of no interest which would be affected that was not
represented at the hearings and does not see how an} T thing new could
have been presented had the hearings been -continued indefinitely.
It apears from the testimony that through the legislatures of 32
States, with four-fifths of the population of the United States, the peo-
ple have expressed their disapproval of oleomargarine colored in sem-
blance of butter; that those who have been charged with the duty of
enforcing the State laws regarding this product are positive in the
opinion that so long as it is colored in imitation of butter fraud upon
the consumer, if not upon the dealer, can not be prevented. Your
committee is of the opinion that such fraud is actually sanctioned and
defended by some of the largest manufacturers, who guarantee their
retailers protection in case of prosecution for the sale of oleomargarine
in contravention of State laws.
It also appeared, and it was not denied by the manufacturers them-
selves, that they do not feel in any way bound to respect the laws of
the States against selling oleomargarine colored in imitation of butter,
claiming that the} T are unconstitutional; and the testimony- revealed
methods by which such laws are evaded or their enforcement defeated,
despite the fact that such laws have been sustained by the courts of
last resort in the States and also by the Supreme Court of the United
States.
So far as the committee has been able to ascertain, this measure has
the approval of all State officials and food commissioners whose duties
are the enforcement of the laws regulating the manufacture and sale of
oleomargarine.
It appears to be unanimously desired by the farmers of the country
who are engaged in dairying, and has the earnest approval of the Sec-
retary of Agriculture, who appeared before the committee at its
request and who has made an exhaustive study of the question from
a broad, economic point of view.
Your committee has listened with interest to the representations of
the live-stock interests and the cotton-seed oil manufacturers, and is
unable to see in this measure anything that can greatly injure either.
The Secretary of Agriculture expressed the opinion before the com-
mittee that the dairy cow was a necessity to the restoration of the
exhausted cotton lands of the South.
We have heard some objections to this measure from organized
labor; and while it is true that some laboring men may, as represented,
prefer, as a matter of pride, to consume oleomargarine that is yellow
instead of white, yet your committee believes that while the pride of
some may suffer under this measure, which will raise the tax on the
colored and reduce it on the uncolored, a far greater number are now
being deceived througn the sale of oleomargarine as butter and at butter
prices.
Your committee is of the opinion that if oleomargarine is the whole-
some and nutritious product that those interested in its manufacture
and sale claim it to be, it will meet with a ready demand in its natural
color, and especially as the tax on the uncolored product is by this bill
reduced from 2 cents to one-quarter of a cent per pound.
We submit herewith the report on this measure by the committee
of the House and the views of a minority of that body.
OLEOMARGARINE AND OTHER IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. Ill
[House Report No. 1854, Fifty-sixth Congress, first session.]
The Committee on Agriculture, to whom was referred H. R. 3717, known as the
Grout bill, " To make oleomargarine and other imitation dairy products subject to
the laws of the State or Territory into which they are transported and to change the
tax on oleomargarine," beg leave to submit the following report and recommend the
passage of the bill:
We are of the opinion that the people have ample cause for alarm at the tremen-
dous illegal growth of the oleomargarine traffic in this country during the past few
years, which now appears to have reached proportions beyond the power of the
States to successfully regulate or control, and the present Federal laws are apparently
altogether inadequate for the emergency.
After carefully weighing the evidence and suggestions offered for remedies for the
regulation of this traffic we are constrained to hold that the provisions of H. R.. 3717
offer the best practical solution of the difficulty.
We believe that the States should be protected in their rights to regulate their
internal affairs to the fullest extent in relation to articles of food which have been
adjudged adulterated or of a deceitful character, and we do not think that the inter-
state-commerce law of the Government should protect a deceitful imitation from the
jurisdiction of the State's laws, even if the article in question is in the original pack-
age and is shipped from an outsider into the State in such package.
We find that the very foundation and cause of the enormous amount of fraud and
illegal selling of oleomargarine is in the great profits which are derived from the sale
of the imitation because of its absolute counterfeit of butter, which enables unscru-
pulous dealers to impose upon unsuspecting customers. These profits are sufficiently
large to cause the retailer to run the chances of detection and prosecution; and they
are further emboldened and encouraged through the guaranties of the manufacturers
of protection against prosecutions under the State laws.
Thirty-two States, having four-fifths of the entire population of the United States,
absolutely forbid the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine colored to resemble
butter. These laws have been upheld in the higher courts without a single excep-
tion, and the question has twice been passed upon favorably by the Supreme Court
of the United States. Therefore, the policy of a very large majority of bur people
is plainly against the existence of the article in such counterfeit form.
The tax of 10 cents per pound upon oleomargarine colored to resemble butter will
not deprive the manufacturers and dealers or consumers of any great amount of legal
right they now possess. Four-fifths of the colored article made is sold illegally now,
as indicated by the reports of the Treasury Department, and the only effect of this
tax, even were it prohibitive upon this class of oleomargarine, would be to prevent
the manufacture of an article the sale of which is contrary to the laws of 32 States
of the Union. This tax will bring the cost of the colored article up to a figure that
will take from it the possibility for the large profits which have been the incentive
to violate the laws of the State and Government and defraud innocent purchasers,
while the reduction of the tax on oleomargarine in its natural color from 2 cents to
one-fourth cent per pound will make it possible for the man who really desires to
consume oleomargarine to procure it at a much lower cost than heretofore, the only
difference being that it will not contain coloring matter, which not even the oppo-
nents of this measure claim contributes anything to its palatableness or nutritive
value.
We believe the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine will continue under this
measure, and that those who desire a cheap substitute for butter will purchase the
uncolored article. The only difference is that the counterfeit article, colored in imi-
tation of butter, will no longer be accessible to hotel keepers, restaurant keepers, and
boarding-house proprietors at such prices as will be an inducement for them to deceive
their guests, as is now, we believe, absolutely universal w r here it is served, and thus
another class of consumers, who have been subject to imposition for more than twenty
years, will be able to know whether they are eating butter fat or hog fat when they
spread their bread. If colored oleomargarine is served it will be because it is better
and not because it is cheaper than butter.
_ Serious conditions require drastic measures, and it certainly appears from the tes-
timony of those representing the producers of butter, as well as from the admissions
of the witnesses for the other side, that those who are engaged in this oleomargarine
traffic have absolutely no regard for State laws, and regard the public as their legiti-
mate victim, in whose behalf they resent the interference of the General Govern-
ment. The continued existence of such a condition we can not but believe furnishes
a demoralizing example to our people in trade, who are being tutored by this oleo-
margarine interest in the art of evasion and defiance of the legally constituted
authorities.
IV
OLEOMARGARINE AND OTHER IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS.
APPENDIX.
The population of the States which have passed laws forbidding the sale of oleo-
argarine colored in semblance of butter, as shown by the census of 1890, is as
margarine
follows:
Population.
New York 5,997,853
Pennsylvania 5,228,014
Illinois 3,826,351
Ohio 3,672,316
Missouri 2, 679, 184
Massachusetts 2, 238, 943
Michigan 2, 093, 889
Iowa 1, 911, 896
Kentucky 1, 858, 635
Georgia.' 1, 837, 353
Tennessee 1, 766, 518
Wisconsin 1, 686, 880
Virginia 1,655,980
Alabama 1, 513, 017
New Jersey 1, 444, 933
Minnesota 1, 301, 826
California 1,208,130
Population.
South Carolina 1, 151, 149
Nebraska 1, 058, 910
Maryland 1, 042, 390
West Virginia.
Connecticut
Maine
Colorado
New Hampshire.
AVashington
Oregon
Vermont
South Dakota . . .
Utah
North Dakota . . .
Delaware . .
762, 794
746, 253
661, 086
412, 198
376, 530
349, 390
313, 767
332, 442
328, 808
207, 905
182, 711
168, 493
Total 50,117,440
The States and Territories which have not passed laws forbidding the sale of oleo-
margarine colored in semblance of butter are:
Population.
Texas 2,235,523
Indiana 2, 192, 404
North Carolina 1, 617, 947
Kansas 1, 427, 096
Mississippi 1, 289, 700
Arkansas 1, 128, 179
Louisiana 1, 118, 587
Florida 321, 422
Rhode Island 345, 506
District of Columbia 230, 392
New Mexico
Montana
Idaho
Oklahoma ..
Wyoming...
Arizona ....
Nevada . .
Population.
153, 593
132, 156
84, 385
61, 834
60, 705
59, 620
45, 761
Total 12,604,790
VIEW* OF THE MINORITY.
The minority of the Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives
beg leave to submit the accompanying bill, which we offer as a substitute for H. R.
3717, known as the Grout bill.
We first wish to bring to the attention of the House proof positive that oleomar-
garine is a wholesome and nutritious article of food, and is therefore entitled to a
legitimate place in the commerce of our country. In substantiation of this statement
we beg to submit the following testimony taken before the committee:
OPINIONS OF LEADING SCIENTISTS.
Prof. C. F. Chandler, professor of chemistry at Columbia College, New York, says:
"I have studied the question of its use as food, in comparison with the ordinary but-
ter made from cream, and have satisfied myself that it is quite as valuable as the but-
ter from the cow. The product is palatable and wholesome, and I regard it as a most
valuable article of food."
Prof. George F. Barker, of the University of Pennsylvania, says: "Butterine is, in
my opinion, quite as valuable as a nutritive agent as butter itself. It is perfectly
wholesome, and is desirable as an article of food. I can see no reason why but-
terine should not be an entirely satisfactory equivalent for ordinary butter, whether
considered from the physiological or commercial standpoint."
Prof. Henry Morton, of the Stevens Institute of Technology, New Jersey, says: "I
am able to say with confidence that it contains nothing whatever which is injurious
as an article of diet, but, on the contrary, is essentially identical with the best fresh
butter, and is superior to much of the butter made from cream alone which is found
in the market. The conditions of its manufacture involve a degree of cleanliness and
consequent purity in the product such as are by no means necessarily or generally
attained in the ordinary making of butter from cream."
Prof. S. W. Johnson, director of the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station,
OLEOMARGARINE AND OTHER IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. V
and professor of agricultural chemistry in Yale College, New Haven, says: "It is a
product that is entirely attractive and wholesome as food, and one that is for all ordi-
nary and culinary purposes the full equivalent of good butter made from cream. I
regard the manufacture of oleomargarine as a legitimate and beneficent industry."
Prof. S. C. Caldwell, of Cornell University, Ithaca, N. Y., says: "While not equal
to fine butter in respect to flavor, it nevertheless contains all the essential ingredients
of butter, and since it_ contains a smaller proportion of volatile fats than is found in
genuine butter, it is, in my opinion, less liable to become rancid. It can not enter
into competition with fine butter, but so far as it may serve to drive poor butter out
of the market, its manufacture will be a public benefit."
Prof. C. A. Goessmann, of Amherst Agricultural College, says: "Oleomargarine
butter compares in general appearance and in taste very favorably with the average
quality of the better kinds of dairy butter in our markets. In its composition it
resembles that of ordinary dairy butter, and in its keeping quality, under corresponding
circumstances, I believe it will surpass the former, for it contains a smaller percent-
age of those constituents which, in the main, cause the well-known rancid taste and
odor of a stored butter."
Prof. Charles P. Williams, professor in the Missouri State University, says: "It is
a pure and wholesome article of food, and in this respect, as well as in respect to its
chemical composition, fully the equivalent of the best quality of dairy butter."
Prof. J. W. 8. Arnold, professor of physiology in the University of New York, says:
"I consider that each and every article employed in the manufacture of oleomargarine
butter is perfectly pure and wholesome; that oleomargarine butter differs in no essen-
tial manner from butter made from cream. In fact oleomargarine butter possesses
the advantage over natural butter of not decomposing so readily, as it contains fewer
volatile fats. In my opinion oleomargarine is to be considered a great discovery, a
blessing for the poor, and in every way a perfectly pure, wholesome, and palatable
article of food."
Prof. W. 0. Atwater, director of the United States Government Agricultural Exper-
iment Station at Washington, says: " It contains essentially the same ingredients as
natural butter from cow's milk. It is perfectly wholesome and healthy and has a
high nutritious value."
Prof. Henry E. Alvord, formerly of the Massachusetts Agricultural College, and
president of the Maryland College of Agriculture, and now chief of the Dairy Division
of the United States Department of Agriculture, and one of the best butter makers
in the country, says: "The great bulk of butterine and its kindred products is as
wholesome, cleaner, and in many respects better, than the low grades of butter of
which so much reaches the market."
Prof. Paul Schweitzer, Ph. D., LL. D., professor of chemistry, Missouri State Uni-
versity, says: "As a result of my examination, made both with the microscope and
the delicate chemical tests applicable to such cases, I pronounce butterine to be
wholly and unequivocally free from any deleterious or in the least objectionable sub-
stances. Carefully made physiological experiments reveal no difference whatever in
the palatability and digestibility between butterine and butter."
Professor Wiley, chief of the Division of Chemistry of the United States Depart-
ment of Agriculture, also appeared before the committee and testified to the nutritive
and wholesome qualities of oleomargarine.
The Committee on Manufactures of the United States Senate, in a report dated
February 28, 1900, finds, from the evidence before it, "that the product known com-
mercially as oleomargarine is healthful and nutritious."
Judge Hughes, of the Federal court of Virginia, in a decision, says:
"It is a fact of common knowledge that oleomargarine has been subjected to the
severest scientific scrutiny, and has been adopted by every leading government in
Europe as well as America for use by their armies and navies. Though not origi-
nally invented by us, it is a gift of American enterprise and progressive invention to
the world. It has become one of the conspicuous articles of interstate commerce
and furnishes a large income to the General Government annually."
Believing that this testimony establishes beyond controversy that oleomargarine
is a nutritious and wholesome article of food, the main question to be considered is
the complaint that fraud is practiced in its sale.
The only just complaint (indeed the only complaint) against the existing oleomar-
garine law consists in the facility with which the retail dealer, in selling from the
original or wholesale package and substituting a new and unmarked wrapper, may
violate the law. There is nothing in H. E. 3717 (known as the Grout bill) which
would decrease the temptation or increase the difficulty of such violations. On the
contrary, the increased taxation would either be fraudulently evaded or else would
force the honest manufacturer out of business. H. R. 3717 merely increases taxation
without providing any new or additional penalties or any new methods to prevent
the sale of oleomargarine as butter, either in its colored of uncolored state. In fact,
VI OLEOMARGARINE AND OTHER IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS.
the radical advocates of the Grout bill do not seek this end, as they have declared
in their testimony before the committee and in declarations elsewhere that their sole
intention is to absolutely crush out the manufacture of oleomargarine and eliminate
it as a food product.
In substantiation of this assertion we quote the following:
Mr. Adams, pure food commissioner of the State of Wisconsin, in his testimony
before the committee on March 7, 1900, said:
' ' There is no use beating about the bush in this matter. We want to pass this
law and drive the oleomargarine manufacturers out of the business."
Charles Y. Knight, secretary of the National Dairy Union, in a letter to the Vir-
ginia dairymen, dated May 18, 1900, writes:
" Now is the time for you to clip the fangs of the mighty octopus of the oleomar-
garine manufacturers, who are ruining the dairy interests of this country by manu-
facturing and selling in defiance of law a spurious article in imitation 01 pure butter.
We have a remedy almost in grasp which will eliminate the manufacture of this
article from the food-product list. The Grout bill, now pending in the Agricultural
Committee of the House of Representatives in Congress, meets the demand."
W. D. Hoard, ex-governor of AVisconsin and president of the National Dairy Union,
stated in his testimony before the committee on March 7, 1900, as follows:
"To give added force to the first section of the bill, it is provided in the second sec-
tion that a tax of 10 cents a pound shall be imposed on all oleomargarine in the color
or semblance of butter. In plain words, this is repressive taxation."
In view of this testimony the minority believe they are justified in claiming that
the Grout bill, if enacted into law, would destroy the business of the legitimate oleo-
margarine manufacturers. In other words, Congress is being asked to ruin one indus-
try to benefit another; and this, in the opinion of the minority, is a thing Congress
ought not to do. The minority believe it to be class legislation of the most pro-
nounced kind and would establish a precedent which, if allowed, would create
monopolies, destroy competition, and militate against the public good.
The substitute bill offered by the minority would, in our opinion, eliminate all
possibility of fraud, and would compel the manufacturers of and dealers in oleo-
margarine to sell it for what it really is and not for butter. The substitute offered
is practically an amendment to section 3 and 6 of the existing oleomargarine law.
The licenses for manufacture and sale of this article are not changed, and are as
follows: Manufacturers, $600 per annum; Avholesale dealers, $480 per annum; retail-
ers, $48 per annum, while the penalties imposed for violations of the law are
materially increased. We quote in full section 2 of the substitute bill, and ask for it
the careful and thoughtful consideration of the House, believing that it is just and
fair to all the interests involved:
"SEC. 2. That all oleomargarine shall be put up by the manufacturer for sale in
packages of one and two pounds, respectively, and in no other or larger or smaller
package; and upon every print, brick, roll, or lump of oleomargarine, before being
so put up for sale or removal from the factory, there shall be impressed by the man-
ufacturer the word 'oleomargarine' in sunken letters, the size of which shall be
prescribed by regulations made by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and
approved by the Secretary of the Treasury; that every such print, brick, roll, or
lump of oleomargarine shall first be wrapped with paper wrapper with the word
' oleomargarine ' printed thereon in distinct letters, and said wrapper shall also bear
the name of the manufacturer, and then shall be put by the manufacturer thereof in
such wooden or paper packages or in such wrappers, with the word ' oleomargarine r
printed thereon in distinct letters, and marked, stamped, and branded in such man-
ner as the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, with the approval of the Secretary of
the Treasury, shall prescribe, and the internal-revenue stamp shall be affixed so as to
surround the outer wrapper of each one and two pound package: Proiided, That any
number of such original stamped packages may be put up by the manufacturer in