duties. Why, sir, a lot of people would like to put this Government
to grinding coffee and toting out slops. That is their idea of govern-
ment. That is their idea of what government is for. What business
has the Government fooling around here in butter?
Now, I grant you that if it is a police regulation, and we were making
something that hurt the people, the Government ought to step forward.
But here the truth is, disguise it as they may, that they do not claim
our article is not just as pure as theirs. The question is, Shall the
Government put its hand on one man's business and lift it up and sink
the other down?
Gentlemen, the Constitution (I will not read the different sections;
I had intended to do it) does not anywhere say in positive terms that
commerce between the States shall be free; but, sir, there are a number
of sections there that go to show that that is the very spirit of the
Constitution. And, gentlemen, if one State can lay an embargo against
the products of another State, why, that other State ought to be turned
loose to retaliate. And what do we have? Instead of a great nation,
cemented together by the band of commerce, interchanging its com-
modities freely one with another, we have a lot of little, jealous, petty
republics, worse than South America.
I say that if Maine and Pennsylvania and Illinois and other States
are going to legislate against a perfectly pure, healthy Texas product,
then, I say, turn Texas loose and let us retaliate. And whenever we do,
I am going to the legislature. I would hate to be caught in that crowd,
but I will go; and, let me tell you, I'll make it hot for every State that has
legislated against our products. I'll make it a penitentiary offense to
sell Maine's fish down there. I will make it a penitentiary offense to
sell Illinois buggies and Ohio buggies and other manufacturing interests
up there. If a man wants to ship a lot of corn down there to us cotton
farmers, and a carload of bacon, why, I will make it a penitentiary offense
to do such a thing, and we will be just like two cats strung on a wire; we
will all be wool pulling.
Now, that is the kind of a government they want. What right has
(117)
700 OLEOMARGARINE.
any State to ostracize and taboo our products if they are healthy, mark
you, all the time, if they are good, if they are pure? They talk about
police regulations. This Grout bill says that in the exercise of police
powers each State shall be permitted to deal with this thing as it pleases.
Each State shall be permitted to lay an embargo on our products when
not a man in the State will stand up and tell you that our products are
not pure, healthy, and good for them. Is that the exercise of a police
power? Gentlemen, it is a flaring falsehood on its face.
Now, this [indicating map] represents all the States in black that
have passed this law; and it is very appropriate. It is a shady, dark
business. I am glad they put it that way. And I see here Alabama,
Georgia, and South Carolina. God knows the idea of a Southern State
in legislating against its chief product at the behest of a dairy trust a
thousand miles away ! They need the prayers of the church. The fool
killer has not got around there yet, evidently.
Now, gentlemen, I will not detain you much longer. I am about
through. These men that are asking this legislation are but trying to
impede the wheels of progress. That is all. The genius of this age is
manifested in the cheapening of all articles worn or eaten or used by
man. More has been accomplished in the last fifty years in that direc-
tion than has been accomplished since the time when Adam was a baby.
It is the law of nature, gentlemen. What is it? The survival of the
fittest development evolution. There is a great law of commerce.
What is it? The survival of the cheapest and the best. And the man
or set of men who gets in the way of that law is crushed, inevitably. He
is bound to be. The whole is greater than any part of it. The welfare
of a whole people what is cheapest and best for them will prevail.
You might as well attempt to roll the sun back as to deny the people
that right. They will have it.
Now, if the people prefer this article, which the dairy interest is fight-
ing simply because their business is exploited by this manufactured
article because it is cheaper and just as good as theirs who shall say
them nay?
Why, gentlemen, why did not the shoemakers, the men that sit cross-
legged and sew, when these people up here in Boston and New York
and all over the country began to make shoes by machinery, come here
and ask you to stop it? Yon ought to have done it? The tailors ought
never to have allowed the making of hand-me-down clothes. They have
just as much argument in their behalf as the dairies.
Now, the business of the man who makes tallow candles (and I used
to mold them myself when 1 w is a boy) was exploited by the discovery
of petroleum. Then, petroleum was exploited by the discovery of gas;
and, then, gas went to the wall when electric lights flashed out; and
yet, in each of these stages, the Government ought to have enjoined
the proceeding and stopped it. We can't have that sort of develop-
ment. And when the fellow that swung the cradle saw the McCor-
mick harvester, that went across the field, and mowed down the grain,
and tied it up, and then threshed it, and all that did everything, except
eating the biscuit he ought to have enjoined McOormick.
Gentlemen, these men have gotten in the way of public progress.
They say, " But the people eat it as butter, and, therefore, it is a fraud."
"Well," I say, "the people eat your yellow winter stuff, as yellow as
summer butter, and therefore you are a fraud." But he answers back,
"Ours is butter, and that is just as good and just as rich as the yellow
butter of summer." Well, I say the same. You can't use any argument
that does not apply to us. I say that our stuff is just as good, just as
OLEOMARGARINE. 701
nutritious, just as health giving as yours; consequently we are in the
same boat.
Why, one man who addressed you said that the States ought to be
allowed to prohibit this thing, just like they did whisky. Now, gentle-
men, whisky demoralizes a man; it breaks up and ruins his family,
degrades them, and impoverishes them. Whisky does tbat. But a man
might gourmandize on oleomargarine for forty years, and he would be
a better man and a stronger man every day. The argument does not
hold. I thank you for your attention. [Applause.]
The ACTING CHAIRMAN. Mr. Dadie, of Chicago, will next address
the committee.
STATEMENT OF JOHN DADIE, ESQ., OF CHICAGO, ILL.
MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE : My ideas on
the oleomargarine question I have gotten up in manuscript form, and
with your permission I would like to read them to you, after which I
will be glad to answer questions that you may care to ask, if I am able
to do so.
I have been actively engaged in the manufacture and sale of oleo-
margarine for the past sixteen years, and this is the first time I have
ever appeared before any legislative body in the interest of the business
that I represent, although during this period there has scarcely been
a time that some restrictive or prohibitive legislation has not been
pending of a State or national character*
It is unnecessary to call the attention of the older members of this
committee to the fact that the Grout bill has been introduced here
many times before, and we find it presented again for your consideration,
but dressed in somewhat of a new garb. The Grout bill of to-day differs
from the Grout bill of the past. The present measure in its first sec-
tion embraces everything the original bill contained, but anew section
has been added thereto, which further provides for an additional tax,
the object of which is to throttle and strike out the very life of the
industry, so that the jobbers of butter may have no competition in their
field of commerce.
The history of oleomargarine, since its introduction, has been one of
continual strife for its existence. In its earlier days it was the object
of ridicule in comic papers, wherein was described in print and carica-
ture methods and formulas for its manufacture that originated in the
lively imagination of the writer or the artist. They were all ridiculous
exaggerations, yet the dairy papers of the country would at once pos-
sess themselves of the idea and publish the same in all seriousness,
warning the public against the use of the article which they claimed
could only result in harm to the consumer, even when used in the
smallest quantities. These warnings, predictions, and misrepresenta-
tions of the dairy people failed in their object, and they viewed with
alarm the growing popularity and increasing demand for oleomargarine
as an article of food and commerce. Belief was then sought from the
different State legislatures, and by threatening the future political life
of the legislator who failed to labor in the interest of their iniquitous
measures, several were enacted into laws. A number of them, however,
have since been declared unconstitutional by State and Federal courts.
In 1886 a bill was framed and presented to Congress placing the man-
ufacture and sale of oleomargarine absolutely under the control and
supervision of the Government. This measure placed an internal-rev-
enue tax of 10 cents per pound on goods when made. It further
702 OLEOMARGARINE.
provided for special taxes as follows: Six hundred dollars poi annum
for a manufacturer, $480 per annum for a wholesaler, $48 per annum for
a retailer, and as a protection to prevent fraud in sales, the manufac-
turer is required to keep a book, in which entries must be made in trip-
licate of daily sales, giving name and address in full of each purchaser
and number of packages and pounds sold. The original and duplicate
of this report is presented monthly to the collector of internal revenue in
the district in which the factory is located, with an affidavit certifying
that it is an accurate and complete record of all business done during the
time specified. The same method applies to sales made by wholesalers.
Special tax stamps of required values are furnished to the manufacturer
by the collector of internal revenue, which are affixed to the outside of
each and every package, and thereon canceled as the law directs. There
is also a caution notice attached to each package, warning the public
against using the package again as a container for oleomargarine. The
law also provides for the manner in which a retailer shall make sales.
That the goods shall be sold by him from the original package, in quan-
tities not to exceed 10 pounds, and when so sold shall be packed by
him in new wooden or paper packages, with his name and address, the
number of pounds in the package, and the word oleomargarine in one-
quarter inch letters, plainly stamped thereon, so that the purchaser
may be advised of the contents of the package. Heavy penalties are
fixed for failure to comply with any of these provisions.
The Government is also authorized to confiscate any oleomargarine
that in its judgment is impure, unwholesome, or in any way deleteri-
ous to health, and it is further provided that the Commissioner of
Internal Revenue is authorized, with the approval of the Secretary of
the Treasury, to make all needful regulations for the carrying into
effect of this act. This bill was given careful consideration ; was finally
amended by striking out the 10 cent per pound tax and substituting in
lieu thereof a tax of 2 cents per pound, after which it became a law,
and the lobby that was instrumental in securing its passage were cor-
respondingly jubilant. The prediction was freely made that oleomar-
garine had received its quietus. But the manufacturers, recognizing
the merit in their product, accepted the new condition of things and
inaugurated a campaign of education. To educate the public as to the
merits and use of an article is not an easy task. This is particularly
true when the producers and agents of a rival product resort to ques-
tionable and vicious means to prevent that end. To educate the public
to the use of oleomargarine has required a vast amount of energy and
the expenditure of large sums of money annually. In Chicago alone,
the center of the manufacturing industry in this line, thousands of dollars
is spent monthly in displaying large artistic sign posters troin 20 to 60
feet long and 10 to 20 feet high, extolling the merits of oleomargarine.
Demonstrations of the product can be seen in the largest concerns in
every market, and tons of it are given p^ay yearly to bring about a
true realization of its merits, and how well it has succeeded is demon-
strated in the increase of sales since 1886. The first fiscal year of
operation under the then new Federal law, the total sales in the 'United
States were about 21,000,000 pounds, while this year the aggregate
output will be in the neighborhood of 100,000,000 pounds. Could any
better object lesson be used to convince you, gentlemen, of the merits
of oleomargarine, when it is borne in mind that every new convert to
the ranks as a dealer in it immediately becomes the target for persecu-
tion at the hands of the butter trust and its agents?
One of the old charges against oleomargarine, in days gone by, was
(*120)
OLEOMARGARINE. 703
that it was unwholesome, and consequently its manufacture and sale
should be prohibited. This argument, false in its inception, is now
considered crude, and is never used by intelligent detainers of the
article. Unfortunately, however, a misguided and overzealous orator
is occasionally found who, in his anxiety to make a damaging state-
ment, will so far forget himself as to reflect upon its purity and whole-
someness. People of this class are generally opposed to advanced ideas
along any line, and continue their harangue against improvements of
all kinds until they are caught and crushed beneath the wheels of
progress, and their funeral is usually small.
It is a well established fact that the methods employed in the manu-
facture of oleomargarine are of a scientific nature; that the buildings
and appurtenances are of modern kind and latest improvement, insur-
ing perfect sanitation and ventilation, as well as absolute cleanliness
in every department. Of the product itself, Jollies and Winckler,
official chemists of the Austrian Government, after a searching investi-
gation, report that the only germs ever present in oleomargarine are
those common to air and water. Although carefully sought for, tuber-
cular bacilli and other obnoxious bacilli were conspicuously absent,
and to-day there is no recognized scientific authority in this country
or any other that does not indorse oleomargarine as a healthful food
product.
We have heretofore refrained from attacking butter and the methods
of its manufacture, but Mr. Edward Chadwick, manager of a large cream-
ery at Osgood, Iowa, in a letter to his patrons, which was published in
the columns of the Chicago Dairy Produce, the official organ of the
dairy people, says :
A good deal of milk is brought in dirty, because not strained at home, and no
effort made to keep straws or tilth out of it. Some of the cans are seldom or never
properly washed, and a thick coating of sticky filth may be scraped off them, both
inside and out. I can strain the milk, run it through the separator, and remove a
large part of the dirt, but no butter maker on earth can remove the tainted and filthy
smell that milk gets from staying in unclean cans in bad-smelling barns. Some of
our patrons would be horrified if they saw the dirt and filth I remove from my
strainer and separator. Does anybody think that a bar of soap, a chunk of stable
manure, potatoes, parsnips, dish rags, or hairpins soaking in your cans overnight
or longer will improve the flavor of the milk? I have found all of the above and
more in the strainer of the weigh can. How can good butter be made from such
milk? When you send your jar to the creamery for butter for your own use, what
would you say if I should put some of the dirt I find in your milk on top of the
butter in your jar? You would return that butter to the creamery, and be mad
besides. If the butter maker would return your dirty milk to your home he would
be doing his duty, although it would make you mad.
In addition to the above, recent experiments in Chicago have dem-
onstrated the fact that a large percentage of the dairy herds of the
Northwest are infected with tuberculosis. The deadly character of
these germs is only too well known, and the introduction of them into
the human system through the use of contaminated milk or butter is
conceded by every recognized authority.
This, gentlemen, is a fair comparison of the advantages and disad-
vantages under which the two products are manufactured. Now the
contention is advanced by the parties interested in the passage of this
bill that they do not want oleomargarine colored in imitation of natural
butter, and I want to say most emphatically to the members of this
committee that oleomargarine is not colored to represent natural but-
ter, and further, that, practically speaking, no such thing as natural
butter is offered for sale in any market. It is all artificially colored,
and further, that if not artificially colored six months out of the year
it could not be sold other than at a sacrifice. Why are these people
704 OLEOMARGARINE.
not honest in their statements, and why is it that they attempt to con
ceal the fact that butter is artificially colored and is not natural, as they
falsely represent it to be 1 ? Why should the producers of butter, who
are the framers of this bill, attempt to secure to themselves the exclu-
sive use of color when the manufacturer of oleomargarine is responsible
for its introduction as an article of commerce? Their answer is : To pre-
vent oleomargarine being sold as butter. Well, then, I say : Let the pro-
ducers of butter discontinue the use of artificial color and sell their butter
in its natural state and no one will be deceived in purchasing oleomar-
garine. Is it not as fair a proposition to say that butter should be sold
free from color as to deny its use in a rival product ? Is this question
not pertinent when it is remembered that the article of color is the
property of the oleomargarine manufacturer by right of priority and
constant use?
With the introduction of oleomargarine, the very nature of the article
made it necessary to introduce a substance that would make it pleas-
ing to the eye, and the result was the use of a color. The producers of
butter were quick to see the advantages derived from the use of this
color, and it is now used in common by oleomargarine and butter
makers alike. From this it would appear that if any rights are to be
protected by legislative enactment, in so far as color is concerned, the
makers of oleomargarine are entitled to such protection, and we
emphatically protest against the passage of any law that gives to the
dairy interest exclusive rights on color and denies that right to our-
selves.
It has been stated to your committee, by speakers on the other side
of this question, that they represented the great dairy interests of the
country as well as the consumers of butter, but, gentlemen, no evidence
has been submitted here in support of this remarkable statement, and
I doubt if the speaker had as many proxies as he desired to lead you
to believe he had.
I also join issue with the statement that large quantities of oleomar-
garine are sold as butter. The records .of the Internal Revenue Office
show that out of the 80,000,000 pounds marketed in the United States
last year only 1 per cent of it was sold in violation of law.
A significant fact that speaks volumes for the makers of oleomar-
garine, and the honest and conscientious manner in which it is sold, is
evidenced by the fact that no consumer has ever prosecuted a dealer
for violating a State or Federal law, or for selling him oleomargarine
when butter was called for, notwithstanding the fact that last year the
agents of the butter trust in Chicago offered through the daily press a
tempting standing reward for any information against dealers who sold
oleomargarine for butter. They also tendered the services of their
chemists to anyone for the purpose of analyzing samples of any butter
bought by them that was suspected of being oleomargarine, and in the
event of the discovery that fraud or deception was practiced by the
dealer in making the sale they would assume the prosecution of the
case and defray all expenses incident thereto. Even this method failed
to produce the evidence they were so anxious to secure, and not a single
violation was reported to them. As a matter of fact the comparative
price at which oleomargarine and butter are sold by the retailer precludes
the possibility of deceiving the customer as to the identity of oleomar-
garine, the retail price of which varies during the year from 12 cents to
20 cents per pound.
In reply to the contention of Mr. Charles Y. Knight, who submits in
his brief for your consideration a copy in part of some of the corre-
(*122)
OLEOMAEGAEIWE. 705
spondence of the William J. Moxley Corporation, that was sent to its
customers at various times, touching on the color question and the
liability of prosecutions that would naturally follow if the letters of the
Illinois Dairy Union were to be taken seriously.
Now, as to color; it is a well known fact that large dealers in butter
or oleomargarine will display and sell goods of different colors, and
they iind it necessary to do so in order to suit the requirements of their
different customers. Then, too, some particular district will use an
article that could not be sold in another market by reason of its being
too high or too light in color to properly appeal to the consumer's taste.
For example, the markets of the South, notably in St. Louis and New
Orleans, order what is known to the trade as an orange or brick color,
and it is popular with certain people in those districts, while in other
sections of the country it could not be sold at all, as a different shade
of color is demanded and the concern who issued the color card referred
to, recognizing the importance of every detail of its business, did so
for the purpose of avoiding confusion, by supplying its customers with
goods that would suit in color the requirements of their trade. There
is no deception practiced or intended, nor could there be, as the internal-
revenue law and regulations apply to all our product, regardless of the
amount of color used.
In July, 1899, an attorney in Chicago, Hugh Y. Murray, claiming to
represent the Illinois Dairy Union, an organization that had no legal
existence, as it had never applied for or been granted a charter to oper-
ate under, but was composed of a few jobbers in butter in South Water
street, issued a letter over this assumed title, in which he said that the
Illinois Dairy Union had retained him to prosecute dealers who vio-
lated the State laws in selling oleomargarine, when he well knew that
the State law had been declared unconstitutional in every court in
which a case had been brought in Illinois. It was in reply to this let-
ter, and a similar one issued by Mr. Knight, who claimed to be the sec-
retary of the same organization, that we agreed through our circular
letter to defend our customers against prosecutions brought by these
people under the name of this assumed organization, and in doing so
it was not our purpose to defend violations of a law or to encourage any
dealer to commit violations thereof, but we simply endeavored to pro-
tect our business against a law that had already been declared uncon-
stitutional, and none but legitimate methods were employed in defense
of our customers; and I desire to be fully understood when I repeat
that it is our purpose to continue the defense of cases brought against
our customers by irresponsible organizations and agents oi renovated
butter manufacturers until the Supreme Court passes upon the consti-
tutionality of the laws in question, and we will then abide by their
decision.
A vast amount of importance seems to attach itself to the correspond-
ence received by members of Congress from country districts urging the
passage of this bill as a protection to the dairy interests. It may be of
interest to you gentlemen to know through what channels this corre-
spondence passes before reaching members in Washington. These
appeals for protection are compiled and printed by one man in South