fied in the Scholleuberger case; and when Justice Peckham delivered
his opinion and declared in that opinion
The CHAIRMAN. Where is it reported!
Mr. HEWES. 171 U. S., p. 1. When he declared that that was not
reversal of a decision in the Plumley case, Justice Gray arid Justice
Harlan filed a dissenting opinion, showing it certainly did overturn the
law in that case; and what was the consequence? The consequenc
has been that there have been varying interpretations of the Schollen
berger case now going on over the United States. Only recently two
habeas corpus cases, one in Missouri and the other in Minnesota, were
decided, different cases; and the judge said in those cases that they
were at variance; and the most remarkable thing of all, Judge Lochren,
in the Minnesota case, has always been a friend to butter and has in all
his decisions heretofore decided rather in favor of butter and against
oleo until that time, and he said, " I am confronted by the opinion in the
Schollenberger case," and discharged the petitioner. On the other
hand, Judge Adams, in the Missouri case, stated that the Schollen-
berger case did not overturn the opinion of the Plumley case, and he
would be be bound by the Plumley case.
In our own court of appeals in the State of Maryland, in the Fox
case, tried since the Schollenberger case was decided, the opinion from
Judge Fowler simply stated that it was the opinion of the court that
under existing law since the Schollenberger opinion had been delivered
it was impossible to prevent the introduction into a State of an original
package of pure oleo, but, he said, the State having made its prima facie
case, the burden shifts from the defendant to show that the article was
not deleterious to health. How has that been construed? There are
45 cases hanging up, criminal cases, in the city of Baltimore, and four
or five of them original-package cases, and the city's attorneys do not
attempt to do anything; they will not do anything, because they are
satisfied that when they go to the court of appeals it will be impossible
for the State to make a case, and they do not want to try to make a
That is one of the principal reasons why we want a commerce clause
limit in respect to oleomargarine, so that we may be able to meet this
article upon our borders with our laws, meet them there and say, "You
can not introduce your stuff into this State because we do not want it."
Let it be as good as it may, let the article be just as wholesome as Mr.
Allen suggested, let the stuff be melted in the human stomach, although
I have heard that oleo was not melted under such temperature, let oleo
be all tli at it is claimed to be, and yet I will tell you our experience in
twenty two years in the State of Maryland shows you can not regulate
the selling of oleo so as to prevent the consumer from being deceived,
and that is the reason why I think that this tax ought to be raised to 10
cents and it is a fair proposition.
Mr. ALLEN. Let me ask you, to get your views, do you think that
ought to be done with a view of prohibiting the manufacture of butterine
Mr. HEWES. With a view of prohibiting all manufacture of oleo yellow
unless they want to pay the penalty ; it is to tax that yellow color. There
is not a soul who would see uncolored oleo who would be deceived.
Mr. ALLEN. Do you think that if you require them to make and sell
it in the natural color your natural-colored butterine could find a sale
upon the market?
Mr. HEWES. I am almost sure it could, and to show the fairness of
this proposition it says to them, "If you will make this oleo uncolored
we will reduce the tax to a quarter of a cent a pound." This bill of Mr.
Grout says, "Do right, be fair, make your oleo in just whatever color it
can be without the introduction of yellow color and we will reduce the
tax to one-fourth of a cent." Now you say to us, "Are you in any
position here to come and take this revenue from the Government?"
How did this revenue get to the Government except by our efforts?
We reposed this trust in the United States, may it please the chairman
and gentlemen of this committee, we reposed this trust in the United
States. We said, "If you will put it under your close supervison, such
and such will be the result; we will give you a million and a half dollars
of revenue, and we ask you simply to act as policemen;" and they are
not policing the State as we expected they would, and we have given
them a million and a half and more every year.
The CHAIRMAN. Who is that?
Mr. HEWES. The butter men of the country, who passed this law.
Who passed the law? The butter men of the country. Look at the
records and see who brought it here, and worked for it, and who passed
it. We claim we did it. Of course I only speak for the butter men.
I, however, was here; I spoke before both committees, and I did all I
possibly could for it. Now, I say the dairy interest is imposing no
hardship; it simply says, "Now, go on and try this other scheme; you
are not crying for revenue; the Government is not so poor it has to
bemoan the fact that this tax upon oleo can be reduced or can not be
reduced. The quarter may yield you more than a million dollars before
you get through." Suppose it turns out that oleo uncolored is salable
the same as uucolored butter is? You know well enough that at the
best hotels in New York you find uncolored butter there. Why should
it not be with uncolored oleo, and I say it is not a supposition to say
that uncolored oleo will sell.
A BYSTANDER. But it will not sell as butter.
The CHAIRMAN. How much more whitish is uncolored oleo than
Mr. HEWES. None. Uncolored oleo is no whiter than the white,
crumby butter Mr. Allen was speaking about this morning. Uncolored
oleo has a texture that commends itself, no doubt, to people. It has
that cloudy white color that will not impose upon anybody, but there is
plenty of butter with no deeper color than uncolored oleo. The Gov-
ernment now has prohibited oleo from using the emblem, etc., of butter.
It says you must not do that. That is the regulation of the Internal
Eevenue Department to protect the people and prohibit the use of names
of creameries, etc., and all that, so the people may be protected ; and
when a person sees that upoii a table naturally he will say, "If that is
butter, it is all right." It may be oleo, and then he may not eat it.
Justice Harlan, in the opinion on the Plumley case (155 U. S., p. 461),
says that the contention that the coloring of oleo yellow, as a fair con-
tention, will fall to the ground; and there is only one reason why they
should want to color it yellow, and that is that they may enhance its
value and to deceive people into thinking they are getting what they
do not want; and he says that the reason why it should be uncolored is
so as to compel the selling of the stuff for what it is and to prevent it
selling for what it is not; and the language of Justice Harlan on that
case is worth reading, and it is a fair exposition of the proposition.
Gentlemen, I am very much obliged to you.
The CHAIRMAN. What do you say as to the proposed addition to that
clause of a tax on all colored butter '?
Mr. HEWES. On butter that is artificially colored I think we would
hail that with great pleasure, but I think it would be very hard to tell
where nature left off and art began. The coloring matter is only a trace,
and in all analyses that are furnished of butter and oleo. wherever there
is a color used, it is simply a trace. It is an imponderable quantity and
you can not tell what it is, and I would defy the greatest chemists in
the world to tell you whether that butter was colored or not by an
Mr. NEVILLE. If colored butter was intended to deceive people and
palm it off on the people for something else then it would be a different
Mr. HEWES. Yes, and
Mr. NEVILLE. Have you any statistics as to how many butter makers
there are in the country?
Mr. HEWES. I think those can be furnished.
A BYSTANDER. There are 10,000 creamery butter makers.
Mr. NEVILLE. In what proportion does it relate to the manufacture
of oleo 1
Mr. HEWES. About 50,000 to 1.
Mr. NEVILLE. Have you ever stopped to think a little voting would
Mr. HEWES. Where?
Mr. NEVILLE. In the right direction.
Mr. HEWES. We are voting here; we hope to vote here.
Mr. NEVILLE. Have you not discovered that a man with a million
dollars has more power than a million men with one dollar each?
Mr. HEWES. Unfortunately, yes.
At this point, the members of the committee having to go upon the
floor of the House to attend its session, the committee adjourned.
MARCH 28, 1900.
The subcommittee on the Bureau of Animal Industry of the Com-
mittee on Agriculture met at 10.30 o'clock a. m., Hon. William Lorimer
in the chair.
STATEMENT OF MR, S. H. COWAN, OF FOET WORTH, TEX,, GENERAL
ATTORNEY OF THE CATTLE RAISERS' ASSOCIATION OF TEXAS.
The CHAIRMAN. Will you just state to the committee, in a general
way, what you wish to say?
Mr. COWAN. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, the object
of my appearance here is to present to your committee the desires of a
large number of persons engaged in the cattle-raising business in Texas,
Kansas, Colorado, Indian Territory, Oklahoma, and New Mexico, and a
considerable number of the members of this association also reside and
have their places of business in Montana, Wyoming, and the Dakotas,
and elsewhere in the range country.
At an annual' meeting of the Cattle Kaisers' Association, composed
of about 1,200 members from the different sections of the country which
I have named, which annual meeting was held at Fort Worth on the
13th and 14th of March, 1900, the following resolution was passed,
and it was adopted unanimously without a dissenting voice; and it
was requested that the secretary of the Cattle Kaisers' Association
have it printed and have copies placed in the hands of the members
of Congress and presented to the committees. It so happened that I
was coming to Washington in connection with a case known as the
Terminal Charge Case that we have, as between the Cattle Kaisers'
Association and the railroads at Chicago, and I was directed by the
committee to see if I could get a chance to have a hearing before the
committees of Congress and present these resolutions, among some
others that I have from the committees, and call the attention of the
committees to the desires of these people, who I believe to be very
estimable people, who are engaged in the business of raising cattle,
along the lines mentioned in this resolution; that is to say, in opposi-
tion to the proposed law to increase the tax on oleomargarine, which
is a product which is made from the cattle which our people grow, as
well as other ingredients that go into it as component parts. If I may
read this resolution, I will do so.
The CHAIRMAN. Certainly.
Mr. COWAN (reading aloud):
To the honorable the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States:
Your orator, the Texas Cattle Raisers' Association, respectfully represents unto
your honorable body that it is an association composed of 1,200 cattlemen, engaged
in breeding, raising, feeding, shipping, buying, and selling cattle, and that its
members are owners of cattle aggregating over $100,000,000 in value.
Your orator desires to file its emphatic protest against the enactment of the sev-
eral bills now pending before the different Congressional committees seeking to
impose a heavy tax and other restrictive measures upon oleomargarine and to deprive
it of all rights and privileges as an article of interstate commerce.
I will explain that the Cattle Kaisers' Association in this meeting
was not definitely informed as to just what the provisions of these vari-
ous bills were, but they were informed that there were a number of dif-
ferent bills, some of them having the object of depriving oleomargarine
of the benefits of the interstate-commerce law. I do not know, but we
were so informed, and hence this paragraph of the resolution :
These measures are a species of class legislation of the most dangerous kind, calcu-
lated to build up and restore one industry at the expense of another equally as impor-
tant. They seek to impose an unjust, uncalled for, and unwarranted burden upon
one of the principal commercial industries of the country for the purpose of pro-
hibiting its manufacture, thereby destroying competition, as manufacturers can not
assume the additional burdens sought to be imposed by these measures and sell
their product in competition with butter.
The enactment of such laws would completely destroy a business which has been
recognized by law, which now furnishes a large annual revenue to the Government
($1,956,618 in A. D. 1899), which provides employment for thousands of men, and in
which citizens of the United States have invested fortunes. It would seriously
affect the cattle industry, as the manufacturers of oleomargarine have created a
demand for oleo oil, made from the choice fats from the beef, at a price at least $3
per animal greater than it would be worth if it had to be used, ns before the advent
of oleomargarine, for tallow, thereby entailing a loss on the producers of millions of
dollars annually. f*71 ^
No law can make more stringent requirements to protect consumers than those now
in force, and the fact that the output is yearly increasing shows that there is a demand
for oleomargarine as such, in spite of all hostile agitation and legislation.
It is a well-known fact that the principal consumers of oleomargarine are the intel-
ligent, prudent, and thrifty people of the middle class, who buy oleomargarine berause
they prefer it to that which is sold as butter in their markets, and these bills pro-
pose to deprive these citizens of the privilege of purchasing that which they wish to
have, although it is known to be an absolutely clean, wholesome, and nutritious
article of diet.
The rights and privileges of the producers of beef cattle should be as well respected
as those of others ; and as they are the beneficiaries in the manufacture of this whole-
some article of food they should not be burdened with unnecessary special taxes or
needless restrictions in the manufacture of this product.
This product of the "beef steer" should receive at the hands of Congress no
greater exactions than are imposed on competing food products. It has by experience
proven to be just what a large majority of the people of this country want, and we do
hereby record our solemn protest against the enactment of legislation calculated to
ruia a great industry and to deprive not only the working classes but many others
of a cheap, wholesome, nutritious, and acceptable article of food.
THE CATTLE RAISERS' ASSOCIATION OF TEXAS.
I certify that the above is a correct copy of a resolution adopted by the Cattle
Raisers' Association of Texas, in annual session at Fort Worth, Tex., March 13 and
J. C. LOVING, Secretary.
Mr. STEVENS. I will call your attention also to a similar statement
from the Cattle Kaisers' Association of Missouri, whose meeting was
held at St. Joe.
Mr. COWAN. This resolution reads as follows :
A memorial to Congress adopted by the South St. Joseph Live Stock Exchange in
opposition to the Tawney oleomargarine bill, which, if passed, will effect the value
of the beef cattle of this country. It is desired, therefore, that all feeders and deal-
ers will use their influence through their representative in Congress against the
passage of this bill.
To the Honorable the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States:
Your petitioner, the South St. Joseph Live Stock Exchange, respectfully repre-
sents to your honorable body that it is an association composed of all the commission
men, firms, and corporations engaged in the live-stock business at South St. Joseph,
Mo., transacting business to the enormous amount of $50,000,000 annually, with a
membership roll of more than 100 members actively engaged in breeding, raising,
feeding, shipping, buying, selling, and slaughtering all kinds of live stock, and was
organized, among other things, for the purpose of promoting the best interests of the
live-stock industry as a whole, jealously guarding the interests of the producer and
consumer alike, and is the recognized and official mouthpiece of the live-stock
industry on all questions of an interstate or international character, especially when
the interests of the producer or consumer are in any way affected.
Your petitioner, in behalf of its constituency, desires to enter its emphatic pro-
test against the enactment of H. R. bill No 6, introduced in the House of Represent-
atives December 4, 1899, by Mr. Tawney, providing for an amendment of "An act
dfining butter; also imposing a tax upon and regulating the manufacture, sale,
importation, and exportation of oleomargarine," and in support of its protest desires
to record a few of the many reasons in support of its contention.
This measure is a species of class legislation of the most dangerous kind, calcu-
lated to build up and restore one industry at the expense of the other, equally as
important. It seeks to impose an unjust, uncalled for, and unwarranted burden
upon one of the most important commercial industries of the country for the pur-
pose of prohibiting its manufacture, thereby destroying competition, as the manu-
facturers can not assume the additional burdens sought to be imposed by this measure
and sell their product in competition with butter. The enactment of this measure
would throttle competition, render useless the immense establishments erected at
great expense for the manufacture of oleomargarine, deprive thousands of employees
of the opportunity to gain a livelihood, and deny the people, and especially the
workingmen and their dependencies, of a wholesome article of diet.
In oleomargarine a very large proportion of the consumers of this country, espe-
cially the working classes, have a wholesome, nutritious, and satisfactory article of
diet, which before its advent they were obliged, owing to the high price of butter
and their limited means, to go without.
The " butter fat" of an average beef animal for the purpose of making oleomar-
garine is worth from $3 to $4 per head more than it was before the advent of oleo-
margwne, when the same had to be used for tallow, which increased value of the
beef steer has been added to the market value of the animal, and consequently to
the profit of the producer.
To legislate this article of commerce out of existence, as the passage of this law
would surely do, would compel slaughterers to use this fat for tallow, depreciate the
value of the beef steer of this country $3 to $4 per head, which would entail a loss
on the producers of this country of millions of dollars.
The use of this fat for the purpose set forth is an encouragement to the producer
to improve his herd and raise a class of grade or thoroughbred cattle capable of
making and carrying this fat, rather than the common or scrub animal, which is so
hard and unprofitable to fatten, and the cattle raiser or producer has come to know
the value of this product, and the amount of the increase in the market value of his
matured animal depends somewhat on the value of the "butter fat" carried by the
The rights and privileges of the producers of beef cattle should be as well respected
as those of others, and as they are the beneficiaries in the manufacture of this whole-
some article of food, they should not be burdened with unnecessary special taxes,
other than is absolutely necessary for the support of the Government and the proper
governmental regulations surrounding the handling of same.
The product of the " beef steer" should receive at the hands of Congress no greater
exactions than imposed upon competing food products. It is already surrounded by
numerous safeguards, which Congress, in its wisdom, has seen fit to provide, stipu-
lating severe punishment for selling same under misrepresentation as to its composi-
tion. It has by experience proven to be just what a large majority of the people of
this country want, and in behalf of the producers and consumers of this great country
we do solemnly protest against the enactment of legislation calculated to ruin a great
industry, and to deprive not only the working classes, but many others, of a cheap,
wholesome, nutritious, and acceptable article of food.
Very respectfully submitted.
THE SOUTH ST. JOSEPH LIVE STOCK EXCHANGE,
By HORACE WOOD, President,
JOHN P. EMMERT, Secretary.
Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, there is very little
I can add to what is contained in this resolution. I can simply say that
I know, by having been present at these meetings, that the cattle
raisers are opposed to this oleomargarine bill. Of course, it is to their
interest, you can say, to be opposed to it, and yet it seems to me that
the Congress of the United States should be very slow to pass a meas-
ure which is so clearly class legislation when there is no great benefit
to be derived from it to the people generally, if any benefit at all, except
such taxes as might be collected; and it ought not to be taxed just
simply for the purpose of benefiting any other industry. I do not
know how it is elsewhere, but it is a fact that I believe the committee
ought to consider that in most parts of the Southwestern States, and
I personally know that it is a fact, that they do not produce enough
butter to supply the people who want to buy butter. It is a fact in
Texas, and it is a fact in most parts of Kansas, and to a very large
extent in the State of Colorado, and if you go up there to that country
as a summer resort you will find it to be so. Butter sells, as a result,
at a high price. We pay in Texas and Kansas for creamery 25 cents a
pound for some and 30 cents for others at certain seasons of the year.
What it sells for at wholesale I do not know. There is a large class
of people who might desire to buy oleomargarine, and that is a class of
people that ought not to be legislated against. They have the same
rights as anybody else, and it will affect the value of our I can not give
you the figures exactly on that but it will affect the value of our cattle
from $2 to $3 a head, as I am informed. That can be ascertained
definitely from the different packing houses and stock markets of this
country. It can be ascertained just what it will do, and there is no
occasion for quibbling upon thatj but I do not pretend that I know.
But I do know that there is a similar protest on this point, and I do
not think there should be any legislation passed for -the purpose of
benefiting the butter men simply. I do not know that this is the pur-
pose of the bill, but our people think that way down in that part of the
country. Perhaps they are wrong. Perhaps it may be for the purpose
of regulating an article that is pernicious, but I think investigation will
show that it is not pernicious. It is an article that is wholesome, and
if the people want to buy it, let them buy it. And if the people like it-
better when it is colored, I see no reason why they should not be per-
mitted to color it just as people will color a silk waist so that it will
make your wife want to buy that.
With these suggestions, I want to submit this resolution to your
Mr. NEVILLE. Will the other members of the committee other than
those who are members of the subcommittee be permitted to ask ques-
The CHAIRMAN. I think it is so understood that they are to have the
Mr. COWAN. When you go to ask me questions in regard to the manu-
facture of oleomargarine, I do not know anything about that. I was
simply asked to present these resolutions and the protest of our peo-
ple against the passage of this law, and I do not believe you will find
in a large part of the western part of the United States, or possibly
in the southern section of the country, any number of people who desire
any such law to be passed, and, in my judgment, it would be certainly
Mr. NEVILLE. You do not claim any knowledge of the details of the
manufacture of oleomargarine?
Mr. COWAN. No, sir; I am a lawyer; and you know we know very
little about such things.
Mr. NEVILLE. Lawyers are supposed to know everything.
Mr. COWAN. Well, that is a very violent supposition.