bartering and huckstering in the market?
Mr. LA VERY. That is the idea; yes, sir.
Eepresentative COONEY. That is a very different thing. I want to
know who gets this $2 which Mr. Lavery is talking about. He says it
is the stockman who gets it. It could not be a matter of huckstering
and bartering, then, it' the farmer gets it.
Representative HAUGEN. I would like to continue the questions
which have been asked you. You claim that the manufacture of this
product makes $2 of difference per head of cattle?
Mr. LAVERY. Yes, sir.
Eepresentative HAUGEN. On what ground do you base your claims!
What is the number of cattle slaughtered, according to the Govern-
ment reports or estimates which you have?
Mr. LAVERY. In the United States?
Eepresentative HAUGEN. Yes, sir.
Mr. LA VERY. I have not those figures at hand.
Eepresentative HAUGEN. 1 think it is about 5,000,000 head, is it
not? According to the Agricultural Department report, it is 4,654,000.
Mr. LAVERY. I only have the figures for the Kansas City markets.
Eepresentative HAUGEN. According to the reports, there were
24,491,709 pounds of this oleo oil consumed.
Mr. LAVERY. Yes, sir ; here in this country. .
Eepresentative HAUGEN. In manufacture!
Mr. LAVERY. Yes, sir.
Eepresentative HAUGEN. That would amount to less than 5 pounds
to each head of cattle, would it not?
Mr. LAVERY. Well, you understand that, as I stated a while ago
Representative HAUGEN. I am referring now to whatever this bill
refers to. It has nothing to do with the oleomargarine shipped abroad.
This bill does not affect the exports; it refers to what is consumed here
at home, or what is colored. Now, this would amount to less than 5
pounds to a head, would it not?
Mr. LAVERY. I have not figured that out.
Eepresentative HAUGEN. Well, it is necessary, in view of the state-
ments and assertions that you have made, to figure it out in dollars
and cents, and in pounds.
Mr. LAVERY. Yes, sir.
Eepresentative HAUGEN. Now, then, if there are 24,000,000 pounds
used or consumed, and 5,000,000 head of cattle slaughtered, that is less
than 5 pounds to each head of cattle killed?
Mr. LAVERY. Y^es, sir.
Eepresentative HAUGEN. You stated a while ago that there was a
difference of 4 cents a pound between the prices paid for this fat for
the purposes of tallow and oleo oil. Now, then, 5 pounds of fat at
4 cents per pound is 20 cents, or less than 20 cents lor each head of
cattle killed, according to your own statement, is it not?
Mr. LAVERY. Well, taking only the amount of oleo oil consumed in
this country, it would probably be that much less than $2. I consider
that this bill would affect more than our own country.
Representative HAIJGEN. We will come to that later, but I wish to
make this point clear.
Mr. LAVERY. It would be much less than $2 on that basis.
Representative HAUGKN. Are my statements correct, then?
Mr. LA VERY, it is simply a question of figures. 1 have not figured
Representative HAUGKN. It is necessary to use figures to arrive at
Mr. LAVKRY. That is simply a question of figures.
Representative STOKKS. Is it possible, Mr. Lavery, for you to have
one set of prices for home consumption, and another set of export
prices? Is that possible under any conditions in our commercial
Mr. LAVKRY. Do you refer to oleo oil?
Representative STOKES. I refer to any commodity that is exported.
Mr. LAVKRY. No, sir; the prices are usually the same.
Representative STOKES. The same?
Mr. LAVERY. Yes; sir.
K'epresentativc STOKKS. Undoubtedly.
Mr. LAVKRY. We base our market price of oleo oil, for both foreigD
and domestic use, on exactly the same conditions.
Representative HAUOKN. Now, you state that this bill will affect
the price of the oil which you export. Let me ask you this question :
Did it affect the x>rice of oleomargarine when the present law, provid-
ing for the 2 cent tax, was enacted? I believe you stated a moment
ago that the trade had increased.
Mr. LAVKRY. Why, no, sir. While I think the 2-cents per pound
tax is unjust, it is within reason; and we can pay that tax and still do
Representative HAUGKN. You claim that the 10-cent tax would
practically kill your industry?
Mr. LAVKRY. I certainly do; yes, sir.
Representative liAUGEN. What is oleomargarine worth to-day,
uncolored? What is the average, price for the year?
Mr. LAVKRY. The average price to day is, say, 11 to 14 cents, whole-
Representative HAUGEN. The uncolored oleomargarine?
Mr. LAVERY. The uncolored oleomargarine; yes, sir. There is 110
difference between the cost of the colored and the uncolored product.
Representative HAUGEN. What is the average price of butter the
Mr. LAVERY. The Elgin market this week is, I think, 18 or 19 cents
Representative HAUGEN. You sell the uncolored oleomargarine now
for how much, you say?
Mr. LAVERY. We make no difference in the price of colored and
Representative HAUGEN. It is about 11 cents, you say?
Mr. LAVERY. That is the wholesale, price; yes, sir. The price ranges
from 11 to 14 cents. You understand that we, make two or three differ-
ent grades of oleomargarine.
Representative HAIH;KN. At this time of the year butter is much
lower than at other seasons, is it not?
Mr. LAVERY. Yes, sir.
Representative HAUGEN. The price of butter, on an average, is 22 to
24 cents, is it not?
Representative WILLIAMS. Do you mean retail or wholesale ?
Representative HAUGEN. I mean wholesale.
Mr. LA VERY. I think that is a fair average. It averaged higher than
that last year, however.
Representative HAUGEN. Say that a fair average price for butter, at
wholesale, is 24 cents a pound, and that of your product is 11 cents.
You claim that your product is worth just as much and will sell for
just as much as butter, do you ?
Mr. LAVERY. You must understand that there are seasons when the
Elgin market has been much lower than that. If this bill were passed,
half of the time the cost of oleomargarine would be higher than the
Elgin market price of butter. Based on the present figures oleomar-
garine would cost more to produce than Elgin butter.
Representative HAUGEN. At the present market price you could not
pay the 10 cents per pound?
Mr. LAVERY. No, sir.
Representative HAUGEN. But on an average, if the average price of
butter is 22 cents, then you could pay the 10 cents, as I understand
oleomargarine can be manufactured for about 8 cents per pound? I
believe that is the testimony before this committee.
Mr. LAVERY. No, sir; it can not; that is too low.
Representative HAUGEN. But it sells at 10 or 11 cents. Is it not a
fact that it is sold for less than 10 cents?
Mr. LAVERY. No, sir ; it is not.
Representative WRIGHT. I would like to ask one question in con-
nection with Mr. Haugen's questions. From your answers to his ques-
tion, Mr. Lavery, I infer that the wholesale price of oleomargarine
is about 11 cents, and the wholesale price of butter about 22 cents.
Mr. LAVERY. The Elgin market to-day is about 18 or 19 cents. I
would not say positively on that point, one way or the other.
Representative WRIGHT. I wanted to ask, then, if it is true that
people want oleomargarine, whether you could not still add the 10
cents to it and sell it on the same basis as butter?
Mr. LAVERY. No, sir; they would not buy it on the same basis as
butter. They buy oleomargarine because it is a wholesome product,
and can be bought slightly cheaper than butter.
The ACTING CHAIRMAN. When you speak of the cost being 11 or 14
cents, does that include the 2-cent tax, or not?
Mr. LAVERY. That includes the tax; yes, sir. It includes the 2-cent
The ACTING CHAIRMAN. Are there any further questions?
Representative NEVILLE. I would like to ask the gentleman one
farther question. If, as a matter of fact, this tax is established at 10
cents per pound, and the people actually want to consume oleomar-
garine, want to eat it, could they not afford then to buy it direct them-
selves and color it, and still get it much cheaper than they get butter,
and would they not do it?
Mr. LAVERY. No, sir; because they have not the facilities for color
ing it, for handling the coloring in the way it should be handled; and
they would not go to that trouble.
Representative NEVILLE. Now, then, by coloring it, you add at least
from 8 to 10 cents per pound in value to it, do you?
Mr. LAVERY. Well, I do not figure that way; no, sir.
Representative NEVILLE. How much do you figure that you add to
its value by coloring it!
Mr. LAVERY. You might say the whole value of the product is taken
away from it if you take the color out.
.Representative NEVILLE. And then, by putting the coloring matter
Mr. LA VERY. Our experience is that uncolored oleomargarine will
Representative NEVILLE. Then, the putting of the color into it is
what gives it its value?
Mr. LA VERY. Yes, sir. If people had been educated to use uncolored
oleomargarine, they would not expect it any other way, but they have
not; they have always bought it colored.
Eepresentative NEVILLE. Now, what does it cost to make it without
the coloring in it?
Mr. LAVERY. The manufacture costs about a cent under the whole-
Eepresentative NEVILLE. It would then cqst about 10 cents?
Mr. LAVERY. Yes, sir.
Eepresentative NEVILLE. That is the wholesale price?
Mr. LAVERY. Yes, sir.
Eepresentative NEVILLE. Now, the retail price, you say, is about 18
Mr. LAVERY. No, sir; I said 11 to 14.
ADDITIONAL STATEMENT OF DE. H. W. WILEY, CHIEF CHEMIST,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.
Dr. WILEY. I simply wish to say that I have prepared here a little
statement to place in my evidence of yesterday, in connection with my
statement in regard to stearin in oleomargarine. It appears in the
report of the Commissioner of Internal Eevenue that there is only 0.007
of one per cent in oleomargarine. On looking the matter up I find that
he means that that much stearin has been added in the process of
manufacture. He does not refer to the stearin which is present in the
neutral lard, the oleo oil, and the cotton-seed oil. They all contain
stearin. My statement which I made to the committee is strictly cor-
rect that the total amount is from 15 to 20 per cent. I would like to
submit this and have it incorporated in my evidence, as I proposed
That is all I have to say.
Eepresentative STOKES. Dr. Wiley, I would like to ask you a ques-
tion. Will you please state to the committee what degree of heat will
destroy the tuberculosis germ, in the opinion of chemists?
Dr. WILEY. It takes a temperature of from 150 to 160 F. to surely
destroy the pathogenic germ of consumption.
Eepresentative STOKES. Have you any information as to what degree
of temperature is reached in the production of oleomargarine, or the
preparation of its elements?
Dr. WILEY. I can state in regard to neutral lard, because I have
often seen that made. I think the temperature there is probably high
enough to kill the germ. I do not know what temperature is used in
preparing oleo oil. I am not acquainted with that.
Eepresentative STOKES. One other question. Is it not a fact, pretty
well demonstrated through the Bureau of Animal Industry, that the
dairy herds of the country are largely impregnated with tuberculosis
Dr. WILEY. I think that is well recognized every where that tuber-
culosls is very prevalent among our dairy cows.
Representative STOKES. Another question. Is it equally so among
the beef herds ?
Dr. WILEY. I could not say in regard to that. I do not think it is.
Representative STOKES. Is it not true that the beef herds, however,
before slaughtering:, are subjected to an inspection by the Government
through the Bureau of Animal Industry?
Dr. WILEY. Not being connected with that Bureau, I could not say
Representative STOKES. That is a fact which has been developed
Dr. WILEY. Yes, sir; I think they are all inspected.
Representative STOKES. Another question : Do you know whether or
not they are inspected after slaughtering?
Dr. WILEY. I know that pork is inspected for trichina. I think beef
cattle are inspected also after slaughtering.
Representative STOKES. They are inspected also?
Dr. WILEY. Yes; that is my impression.
Representative STOKES. Then in the event that an animal here and
there should escape these tests, and should still contain tuberculosis
germs, is it not probable that that danger would be eliminated in the
process of manufacturing oleomargarine, which is subjected to the high
temperature you have mentioned?
Dr. WILEY. The temperature required in rendering the fat and pre-
paring the oil would be high enough to kill most of those germs, I
Representative STOKES. One other question: Is it possible, in the
manufacture of butter from the cow, in the creameries, to eliminate
those germs if the germs exist in the herd?
Dr. WILEY. Not by the application of heat, because that would ruin
the physical properties of butter.
Representative STOKES. Is there any other process within your
Dr. WILEY. Nothing except the addition of preservatives, which is
Representative COONEY. I want to ask you this question, Dr. Wiley:
If the answers given by you to Mr. Stokes's questions are correct, would
it not follow'that it is much safer and healthier for a person to confine
himself strictly to eating oleomargarine and let creamery butter entirely
alone; does that not necessarily follow from the questions and answers?
Dr. WILEY. If you are to avoid danger from infection of tubercu-
losis, I think that would be true.
Representative NEVILLE. Professor, would not that apply to every
other food product in just the same way?
Dr. WILEY. Yes, sir. There is no food product which does not at
some time carry dangerous germs. If we applied that rule we would
exclude all food.
Representative COONEY. As a matter of fact, then, it would be much
better to direct the attention of this bill to creamery butter than to
Dr. WILEY. As far as tuberculosis is concerned, undoubtedly.
Representative BAILEY. Dr. Wiley, let me ask you this question : Do
you consider oleomargarine a wholesome article of food.
Dr. WILEY. I do.
The ACTING CHAIRMAN. I would like to ask Mr. Lavery to what
temperature he heats the milk and cream used in the manufacture of
his butterine? 1 believe you stated, Mr. Lavery, that you used milk
Mr. LAVERY. Yes, sir.
The ACTING CHAIRMAN. You sterilize it?
Mr. LAVERY. We do not sterilize it; no, sir. We handle our milk
and cream exactly as a creamery would for making butter. In fact, we
have a graduate of the Madison (Wis.) Dairy School looking after our
milk rooms; and of course we set that milk at night to ripen for the
next day's use. It all depends on the condition of the weather as to
how warm that milk is when it is set from (>5 to 75 I would say.
The ACTING CHAIRMAN. But you can not heat it up to 140 or 150,
as Dr. Wiley says cream or milk must be heated in order to destroy
Mr. LAVERY. No, sir; we can not. If we should do that we would
cook it, and spoil it.
Mr. MILLER. I will say, just here, to settle this question of the tem-
perature, that our oleo oil is heated up to 150 or 100 F. In making
oleo oil, we heat it to 150.
I would like to ask Dr. Wiley a question just there. Dr. Wiley has
made the statement here that butterine contains 15 to 20 per cent
stearin. I would like to have him state to the committee that that
stearin in itself is perfectly wholesome and healthy, because all oils
contain stearin. Stearin is simply the heavy body in all oils. I think,
perhaps, the commission have a wrong impression of the article of
stearin; and if Dr. Wiley will kindly explain to them just what
stearin is in oil, I think it will leave a better impression.
Dr. WILEY. It is fully explained in this document, which I will put
in my evidence.
Mr. MILLER. It is?
Dr. WILEY. Yes.
Mr. MILLER. Then that is all right.
Mr. Lavery submitted the following petition:
MR. CHAIRMAN AND GENTLEMEN OP THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE : We, the
undersigned merchants of Kansas City, herewith wish to affirm that we are pro-
vided with a Federal retail license for the sale of oleomargarine. We understand
fully all the laws regulating the sale of this product, and do comply with them in
At no time have we sold oleomargarine for butter or allowed packages of same to
leave our respective places of business without being stamped in accordance with
the internal-revenue regulations.
In our opinion, the passage of House of Representatives bill No. 3717, known as
the Grout bill, would be an injustice to us, as it would take away our right to buy
and sell a legitimate article of commerce, and one which the demands of our trade
justify us in handling.
It would work a hardship on hundreds of Kansas City laboring men and their
families who are regular purchasers of oleomargarine.
We therefore respectfully request that you consider our protests when passing
upon the proposed measure.
Reinhardt Bros., M. Quinn, M. Ross, A. Denebeim, A. L. Shanklin,C. S. Brig-
ham, A. R. Moss, J. H. Duncan, E. Klein, Wm. Burnett, Elstein Bros.,
Rice & Gibson, R., E. E. Shafer, H. F. Schaible, H. Roberts' Sons, C. E.
Robinson, M. Myers, M. Klein, Jones Dry Goods Co., Silverman Bros.,
A. M. Churchtler, R. H. Williams, H. Stelling, Jos. Smart, David Smart,
D. A. White, J. D. Quinn, W. Barrett, C. P. Jehn, Matthews Coopera-
tive Grocery Co., by M. W. Matthews, Manager., A. H. Kampmuir, Walt
H. Mailand, E. H. Rodekopf, L. T. Bush & Co., Blum's Parlor Market,
Aaron P. Duncan, Theo. Tegren, Samuel Stewart, L. H. Henry, C. A.
Pettit, N. Hoogland, Otto Anderson, J. L. Jones, B. M. White, L. G. Eike,
Geo. J. Clausen, James Maguire, Hartford Bros. Grocery Co., N. R.
Poley, F. F. Brandt & Co., L. T. Franks, McHale & Co., A. Ofner, A. H.
Schuyler,W. J. Doust,W. A. Griswold, Jones & Irvin, M. H. Brotherson,
L. Benson, Tucker & Company, Headley & Moore, W. A. Yearnshaw,
C.W. Green, S. D. Hustead, M. J. Marley, .J. C.Tennier, Lilies & Clark,
Frank Forsberg, L. H. Tennier, F. J. Koch, J. C. Fisher, Peter Goos
(The committee thereupon, at 12.15 o'clock p. m., adjourned.)
SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE INTRODUCED IN SUPPORT OP
H. R. 3717 (THE GROUT BILL) BEFORE THE
SENATE COMMITTEE ON AGRICUL-
TURE AND FORESTRY.
CHARLES Y. KTSTIGKBT,
Secretary National Dairy Union,
AT THE REQUEST OF THE COMMITTEE.
SUMMARY AND REVIEW OF EVIDENCE.
Appearing in behalf of the Grout bill were:
Hon. James Wilson, Secretary of Agriculture.
Hon. S. C. Bassett, president Nebraska State Board of Agriculture.
Hon. John Hamilton, secretary department of agriculture of Pennsylvania.
Hon. G. L. Flanders, assistant commissioner of agriculture, New York.
Hon. F. J. H. Kracke, assistant commissioner of agriculture of New York.
Hon. H. C. Adams, food commissioner of Wisconsin.
Hon. J. C. Blackburn, food commissioner of Ohio.
Hon. W. W. Grout, of Vermont.
Hon. W. D. Hoard, president National Dairy Union.
Hon. James A. Tawney, of Minnesota.
Chas. Y. Knight, secretary National Dairy Union.
Luther S. Kaufman, attorney for Pennsylvania Pure Butter Protective Association.
John H. Habacker, butter merchant, Philadelphia.
Isaac W. Cleaver, retail merchant, Philadelphia.
Joseph C. Sharpless, farmer, Westchester, Pa.
E. D. Edson, butter merchant, Philadelphia.
W. F. Drennen, butter merchant, Philadelphia.
Thomas Sharpless, farmer, Chester County, Pa.
Isaac W. Davis, president Produce Exchange, Philadelphia, Pa.
Samuel Jamison, wholesale butter dealer, Philadelphia, Pa.
C. H. Royce, from Norton's farm, New York.
J. J. Dillon, editor Rural New Yorker.
E. B. Norris, master of New York State Grange, and representing National Grange.
W. A. Eogers, from Watertowji, N. Y., Produce Exchange.
Summerfield B. Medairy, president Baltimore Pure Butter Protective Association.
James Hewes, president Baltimore Produce Exchange.
Food commissioners not present, but filing letters of approval of the Grout bill were
Hon. Elliott O. Grosvenor, food commissioner of Michigan.
Hon. B. P. Norton, food commissioner of Iowa.
Hon. J. B. Noble, food commissioner of Connecticut.
LAWS OF THE STATES.
The strongest evidence we offer Congress of our claim of protection
against a counterfeit article is the fact that thirty -two States, with
over 60,000,000 of the 74,000,000 population, have condemned the
article we seek to tax 10 cents per pound through its absolute exclu-
sion from commerce in their borders, so far as State laws can do so.
The map upon the opposite page appears on page 557 of the com-
mittee testimony, showing the States which have passed these laws
absolutely forbidding the sale under any condition of oleomargarine
colored in semblance of butter, and Montana has levied a tax of 10
rents per pound upon such article.
A synopsis of these laws, prepared by the Agricultural Department
of the Government, will be found in the testimony before the House
Committee on Agriculture, beginning at page 593.
S. Rep. 2043 52 817
The constitutionality of such laws, forbidding the manufacture and
sale of oleomargarine made in semblance of butter, has been upheld in
every supreme court the matter has ever been brought before, includ-
ing Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Ma^land, Ohio, Missouri,
and the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Plumley v.
Commonwealth, handed down December 10, 1894, and reported in
United States, 155. The State cases are: New York, People v. Aren-
burg, 105 N. Y., 123, 129, 130; supreme court of Maryland, McAllis-
ter v. State, 72 Maryland, 390; supreme court of Mainland, Pierce v.
State, 63 Maryland, 596; supreme court of New Jersey, Waterbury
v. Newton, 21 Vroom (50 N. J. Law), 534-537; supreme court of Mis-
souri, decision handed down in 1897, and Ohio case in April, 1900.
Yet despite the strong support these laws receive in the upper courts,
during the fiscal year ended July 1, 1899, the Treasury Department fig-
ures show that 62,825,000 of the 83,000,000 pounds of colored oleomar-
garine made were sold in violation of the laws of these States (House
evidence, p. 20), and that of the 9,068 retail dealers doing business in
the United States for the year ending July 1 last, 7,073 were violating
the various anticolor laws of the United States and only 1,995 were
doing business as permitted by the laws. Of the 107,000,000 pounds of
oleomargarine produced in the United States for the year ending July
1, 1900, 66,820,196 pounds were produced in States which prohibit
the manufacture and sale of colored oleomargarine, and 40,240,859
pounds were produced in those States which permit such production.
(Senate evidence, p. 463.)
FRAUD AND LAWLESSNESS.
The most important testimony in connection with the measure now
before the committee, however, we believe to be that which goes to
show that the same condition exists to-day that existed when the dairy-
men came before Congress in 1886 and asked for national legislation
to stop the sale of oleomargarine as butter, securing what at the time
was thought to be permanent relief.
The original basis of a demand for national legislation was that oleo-
margarine was being sold to the public as butter, to the prejudice of
the public and the financial loss of those who produce and deal in the
pure article of butter. We believe that the evidence which we have
presented before this committee, although only an infinitesimal part of
what could easily have been adduced, has proven that the same condi-
tions exist to-day.
In reviewing this evidence, we shall begin with the city of Chicago,
because it is at this point, as shown in the statement of the writer, on
page 463, 2,691 of the 9,068 retail dealers in oleomargarine of this
country were doing business at the end of the last fiscal year, June 30,
1900, and the Government reports show that in that State was sold
almost 25 per cent of all oleomargarine produced in the United States
the year previous. It is in the city of Chicago that 46,500,000 of the