Sane, A OTANI SARRRA ROARS AS * ARAN . Waly SRN Gs fsa eceta tere AN AY Keay ANANSI . SY N \ WS Sy = A, bY NNN NY sy - \ . : \: \ is . . WS » ay . \ ke Oye woe ¥ SY \ SY Ae ‘ . Wek AMY} . ee i " ww a We a" LE N Ni \ ey a LIL ELL LOS Ge SN NN ss \ Soe \ » a fe Fz ae AAS AIOE: LLG. + CCE <> Er \ \ SS \ \ NS aN lige XY ~ ‘\ \ ZZ Lag Ae an, a4 IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. Mr. MARTIN. I understand that. The CHAIRMAN. We granted this hearing as a preliminary matter so that we could be ready to act in case the House of Representatives passes such a bill. Mr. MARTIN. ‘The gentleman who preceded me called your attention particularly to the injury done to the dairy interest, that is the great injury that comes to the farmers. I notice by the papers that you had a big meeting in this city the other night, which was addressed by nearly all the prominent men in Washington, sympathizing with the Irish people. We shall have a ¢lass of peasantry in the United States worse off (han the peasantry of Ireland in five years’ time, if we allow our dairy interest to be driven to the wall. Go to the New England States to day, where we can produce the best butter in America, and you will find the land there growing up into bushes and brambles. The old farm of my father in Vermont is nothing but a wilderness to day, and his farm in Jefferson County will be a wilderness in ten years more if he is not protected, but is driven to the wall. That is why we want this tax imposed. If we do not have the tax we cannot bave anything. Mr. J. H. REALL. Allow me to make a suggestion as to why more farmers aie not here to address the committee. I wish to say that the gentleman who has last spoken is one of the largest dealers in the coun- try. He handles the goods for the farmers, from which he gets a profit of from 3 to 5 per eent. He comes here to represent the farmers and butter producers from all sections of the country. The farmers have not the money to spare to pay for the expenses of their coming here. IL want you to regard yourselves as representing the farmers of the whole country ; they are your direct constituents. Mr. LEONARD RHONE, of Pennsylvania, said: Mr. Chairman, as stated by Colonel Piollet yesterday, we are here as a committee of the Pennsylvania State Grange, representing an or- ganization of farmers, with a membership of probably over forty thou- sand. The people connected with this organization are engaged in ag- riculture. Some are dairymen, others are stockbreeders, and others again are engaged in the cultivation of cereals. Perhaps in no State in the Union is agriculture so diversified as in ours. Consequently our interests are varied. It is but seldom that farmers come to the National legislature to ask for legislation, and [ think if you will look over the records of the history of legislation at Washington, you will find fewer committees appearing here from the agricultural class than from any other class in this country. There are several reasons for this. Farmers have always been the pioneers in every country. Be- fore it was possible for towns and cities to be built, before governments existed, and betore manufactures could be established, lands had to be cleared of their forests and brought under cultivation to make it possi- ble for those industries to exist. Thus by long training have they be- come self-reliant, and they would not be here to-day were it not that their industry is imperilled by a fraudulent counterfeit that proposes to take the place of their products. It takes months and years to build up a dairy farm. It cannot be done in a day, and when you have it properly stocked it is an expensive operation. But it is much easier for capital to combine and establish a manufactory to make this coun- terfeit product and throw it upon the market, and they can do it at a very much lower price than it can be done by engaging in agriculture or in the dairy business. With these preliminary remarks, I simply want to lay before you the memorial which we have been instructed to present to you. As Colonel IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. 5, Piollet made an elaborate argument before you yesterday in behalf of our committee, Ido not propose to detain you or burden you with any lengthy argument. [ have stated, we come here duly authorized to address your honorable body, and we respectfully petition you for the adoption of some measure that will suppress the manufacture of imitation butter, or protect our dairy interests by placing the manufacture and sale of all imitations of butter under the control of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue of the United States and taxing it ten cents per pound. The reasons which impel us to ask your honorable committee to approve such legislation may be briefly summarized as follows : ~ur exports of butter have fallen off in the last five years from 40,000,000 pounds to 21,000,000 pounds, while the exports of imitations have exceeded 37,000,000 pounds. This decline, your petitio ers are satistied, is due to the destruction of public confidence in American dairy products, brought about by the exportation of an impure and un- wholesome compound which is frequently sold in the foreign market as genuine dairy butter. The sale of the butter product of the farm is in this manner reduced by one half, occasioning a corresponding deprecia- tion of tarm lands, as well as entailing an ‘incaleul: ible loss upon the farming industries of the United States. Such legislatiou is absolutely necessary to save the dairy industry of the country from ruin and pro- tect the consumers of butter from fraud and imposition. We therefore hope this honorable committee will favorably report a measure product- ive of these beneficial results. Senator BLAIR. Where do you get the statistics which you have just quoted ? Mr. RHONE. From the report of the Commercial Exchange, and also from the reports of tle daily exports from New York, Phila :delphia, and other citics. Senator BLAIR. And they show this distinction between the real and the counterfeit article? Mr. RHONE. Yes, sir. I have been credibly informed that in Phila- delphia the products of lard are sold there pureiy to oleomargarine manufactories, not being rendered, but being treated with nitric acid, and in that way deodorized, and afterwards converted into oleomarga- rine by a chemical process. I have also been credibly informed that in many of the slaughter-houses of the West diseased and dead animals are put up under the pretense of being used in soap factories, but the better part of them are used for oleomargarine purposes. It is also on record by the medical profession that there are cases where jersons have been inoculated with trichina by the use of suine and butterine ; and if this is the case in trichina, is it not possible also to endanger the public health by the inoculation of cholera when oleomargarine, suine, and such products are made out of animals of a diseased character ? There is no chemical process by which we can determine these diseases. It is only after the persons using them become inoculated with it that the physicians can determine that such sperms of disease exist in these products. Hence the public generally are as much interested in this subject as the farmers. But it is only in behalf of our people that we are here, and that we have presented this memorial before your com- mittee. We believe you are disposed to do what is right to the agri- cultural interest and thereby also preserve the public health of this country. Thanking you for your attention, not deeming it necessary under the circumstances to say more, a8 Colonel Piollet made an argument on be- half of our committee yesterday, I conclude my remarks. 36 IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS Mr. J. H. CRANE, of Washington, D. C., addressed the committee, as follows: Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the cominittee, as a disfranchised cit- izen of the District of Columbia, last evening I ventured to put a few thoughts and facts on paper in regard to this ‘subject, which if the com- mittee care to hear I will read. I will only occupy a short time in so doing. While passing through the Center Market in Washington the other day my attention was called to a most singular sign, over what seemed to be a butter stand, though from the quantity of flowers displayed I was led at first to infer that it was a floral exhibition. The sign is in large Jetters, painted on muslin, and reads as follows: ‘ Prejudice is a thief and will rob you of many good things and dollars.” Over this sign is another, painted on wood, reading ‘ National Butterine Association.” I was presented with two tracts. One is headed “Plain facts about butterine.” The other, ** Higher wages and cheaper food ; honest words to honest men; the Knights. of Labor and the consumers ot the United States.” Both tracts are anonymous. It struck me as somewhat re- markable that the author, if he or she has facts to give the people or is really the friend of the poor and desirous of aiding the Knights of Labor, did not make these statements over his or her own signature. Also that the name of the agent of the National Butterine Association does not appear on their sign. People that really have a good thing are generally willing to have the credit of it. Their first cireular commences by giving a tabular statement of the price of best butter on the Ist of January and Ist of July each year from 1857 to 1861, and from 1877 to 1880. They make the average price for the five years ending July, 1861, 20 2-5 cents, and the average for the past four years ending June 24, 1885, 29 1-8 cents, or 45 per cent. higher than before oleomargarine was known. ‘This is not a fair or a truthful statement. In 1857 and for nearly fifteen years afterwards no such article as creamery butter was known, the markets of the world being supplied with dairy butter, which was mostly made in summer and packed away for winter use, rarely varying more than five or six cents per pound. The difference in winter, the past few years, between fancy fresh creamery butter, and fine old dairy butter has averaged from 10 to 15 cents per pound. The highest price to-day, tor faney fresh creamery butter, as shown by this morning’s New York whole- sale pri¢e current is 24 cents per pound, and of best old dairy butter 14 cents per pound, showing the average to be 19 cents per pound, or 1 2-5 of a cent per pound less than in 1857, instead of being 45 per cent. more as they have it.. The only fair way of getting at this ques- tion is to take the average price of all grades of pure butter to day, and contrast it witb the average price of all grades of pure butter be- fore any such articles as oleomargarine or butterine were known. If we do this we will find that butter is cheaper now than then. ‘Their state- ments are not only illogical but untruthiul. In one breath they claim to be the farmer’s ‘friend by causing the price of butter to advance, in the next, they claim to be the poor man’s friend by giving him a ches ap substitute for butter. They claim that by buying pure butter to mix with grease they have caused butter to advance, and by buying grease to mix with pure butter, they have caused grease to advance, thereby play- ing into the farmer’s hauds in two ways, while at the same time they are the benefactors of the poor by furnishing them with a cheap article of food. Let us see how this works. The farmer whose dairy butter once brought from twenty to thirty cents per pound, finds his butter, owing to IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. ok the great sale of oleomargarine, languishing for a market, and finally sold at from ten to fifteen cents per pound, while the poor man pays at retail from twenty to thirty cents per pound for grease—oftentimes deodorized soap grease flavored with butyric acid—that costs the manufacturer from five to seven cents per pound. They started in here by paying the butchers seven cents a pound for their grease. To-day they are paying 24 cents for suet and two cents for mutton tallow, that after being manipulated with chemicals they offer the poor man at retail, at from twenty to thirty cents per pound, an advance above first cost of raw material of 1,000 per cent., and then have the audacity to claim to be his friend. They first took suet from the farmer’s beeves, at 7 cents per pound. They now pay 24 cents per pound, and yet claim to be the farmer’s friend. They quote in their circulars from some twenty different chemists in favor of oleomargarine, all of which proves nothing, as most of the opinions were given years agoon a good article of oleomargarine, a very different thing from the compounds sold to-day as butterine. The pre- fessors speak ‘of an article such as was once sold by the Thurbers aud the Seymours, but which, owing to the disgusting materials now used and the injury to the dairy business, has caused those gentlemen to quit selling any kind of imitation butter and brought them into the front ranks of those who are wa: ving war on this bogus article. This circular winds up with Prof. ©. Gilber: W heeler , who closes @ most extravagant eulogium of imitation butter, by saying * The state- ments that acids are used in its manufacture is absurd, as there can be no possible use for such chemicals.” I have procured from the Patent Office copies of all the patents granted for making imitation butter, or purifying animal fats for this purpose. Nineteen are for making artifi- cial butter, eleven for treating animal fats, two for purifying butter, two for coloring matter, one for artificial cream, avd one for artificial lard. T have made a.few excerpts from some of these patents, which prove that the professor is not very well posted on the bogus butter question, to bolster up which he has loaned his eminent name. First, I quote from Patent No. 263,199, granted to Mr. Nathan I. Nathan, of New York, August 22, 1882. Messrs. N. I. Nathan & Co. are the firm that recently donated several tubs of butterine to sundry whole- sale produce dealers here, accompanied with a circular (the same that yas recentiy published in the Star), in which they say their butterine is made under the said Nathan patent. Atter giving a long and minute description of his process, Mr, Nathan closes by saying, ‘* What [ claim is: The within-described process of manufacturing artificial butter by uviting oleomargarine with leaf lard, the latter having been previously cleansed, fused, strained, and subjected to washing action in a solution of water, borax, and nitric acid, then rewashed, and the united mass heated and subjected to the ordinary churning operation, all substan- tially in the manner deseribed.” Mr. Nathan uses no butter in making his compound, as is evident he could not, for he only asks 10 cents per pound for it, but he uses borax and nitric acid, thereby giving the lie to Professor Wheeler. Here comes another who uses neither butter, cream, milk or butter- milk, Patent No. 236,483 was granted to Otto Boysen, of Buffalo, N. Y., January 11, 1881. Mr. Boysen describes his invention as follows: I first separate the olein and margarine from the stearine by any known. method— for example, by mincing and melting the fat and then pressing it in bags of open texture. I next place the oleomargarine thns obtained with an alkaline solution, 38 IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. preferally in the following proportions: To 80 pounds of oleomargarine 20 pounds of water and 8 ounces of bicarbonate of soda. J next agitate the oleomargarine and the alkaline solution together until the oil globules of the former are thoroughly mixed with the alkaline solution and partly saponified by the action of said alkali. I then add to the oleomargarine thus partly saponified a small quantity of butyrie acid, preferably in the proportion of 1 dram to every 100 pounds. This gives to the article such a tine flavor that even an expert can searcely distinguish it from excellent dairy butter. Of course the butyric acid thus added may be varied to suit the require- ments of each particular article, or the tastes of certain classes of purchasers. This process, as above described, avoids the use of milk, and consequently the use of caseine. It will be observed that Mr. Boysen hides a part of his process from ordinary readers under the high-sounding word ‘‘saponified.” What is the meaning of that word? ‘“Saponitied,” according to Webster, is the conversion of grease into soap. Mr. Boysen’s meaning, when stated in ordinary English, would read about as follows: ‘I then add to the oleo- margarine, thus partly made into soap, a small quantity of butyric acid. This gives to the article partly made into soap such a fine flavor that even an expert can scarcely distinguish it from excellent dairy butter.” What is “butyric acid?” Webster describes it as “an acid found in butter; an oily, limpid fluid, having the smell of rancid butter, and an acrid taste, with a sweetish after-taste like that of ether.” Mr. Boysen, it would seem, joins Mr. Nathan, in giving the lie to Professor Wheeler. It does seem as if the great Patent Office might be in better business than granting patents to men for such an abominable mixture as is described above—the conversion of soap into butter by means of an acid obtained from rancid butter. There is no 35 per cent.” of pure creamery butter here, or even an ounce of butter, cream, milk, or even buttermilk. Nothing but fat, water, bicarbonate of soda, and butyrie acid. Patent No. 265833, granted to Henry Lanfertz, of New York, October 10, 1852, consists of treating ten gallons milk with six ounces prepared - sal-soda and 200 pounds oleomargarine oil, with 8 ou.ces prepared sal- soda, then churning them together with coloriug matter. The cost of this mixture would be about as follows : dOvcallone torlk, at Acents per quath ---55- .-2--- c-- 2. aoe oe ae ee eee $1 60 200 pounds oleomargarine oil, at 6 cents per pound..-.--...--..---- Li4) 2 SI IAs ounces prepared! sales dlanyseyeseers ciel ae ye ere eee ee eran eer 14 Colonie iva hems: — oe usecase pee eile a5) le [= ewin jas = rae pee “he ee eee 26 AREY Cero) S| Ques RRs ome AOU ee Ae Aa Oe Se OA ISAS atso.c 14 00 As the prepared sal-soda thickens the milk sothat when churned with the oil there can be little, if any, loss in weight, the added ingredients should weigh about 300 pounds, making the cost, exclusive of labor, about 42 cents per pound. Where is the 35 per cent. of pure cream- ery butter” our butterine friends say so mnch about? It don’t appear here. Itsh 1d be stated that Mr. Lontertz was granted a patent for making oleomargarine on the 19th of September, 1882, in which he seemed to think he had reached the climax of perfection in the making of artificial butter, but in twenty-one days new light dawned upon him, the result of which was the birth of the invention I have cited. Patent No. 173591 was granted to Garrett Cosine, of New York, Feb- rnary 15, 1876. Mr. Cosine makes a bid for immortality by presenting to a wondering world the following: ‘(My invention,” he says, “relates to the manufacture of butter for table use from oleine and margarine, as obtained from animal fats, fruits, and vegetable nuts, with lactic acid and loppered cream or milk.” IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. 39 After giving his process for obtaining oleomargarine oil, which he calls No. 1, Mr. Cosine proceeds as follows: To obtain the vegetable oleine and margarine I use any of the following articles of commerce, viz: Oil peanuts, oil sweet almonds, and oil of olives. To produce the lactic acid I take 14 parts cane sugar, 60 parts water, 4 parts caseine, and 5 parts chalk. This mixture is kept at a temperature of 8U to 95 Fahrenheit for eight or ten days, or until it becomes a crystalline paste of lactate lime. This is pressed in a cloth, dissolved in hot water, and filtered. The solution is then concentrated by separation. The acid is obtained from the lactate by treating it with the equiva- lent quantity of sulphuric acid, and filtering froin the insoluble gypsum. The soln- tion of lactic acid [ make as follows: One dram of lactic acid and 16 ounces water. The solution of lactie acid assisis digestion; it prevents the product from becom- ing deteriorated before use, and it assists also in viving the product a butyraceous cousistenc y. By the use of lactic acid all putrefaction and cate uly tic action is arrested, which action would take place if such acid were not added, and by this means there is prepared an article which is fit for use at any time and which w ill preserve its orig- inal state and flavor. To obtain the loppered cream or milk, I take the cream as ob- tained from the surface of milk or milk as obtained from the cow, and place it iu open vessels, and allow it to remain until the putrefaction and catalytic action has taken place. When in this state it will be ready for use. To mannfactare butter tor table use in winter I take ¥ parts oleine, one part fruit or nut oil, 1 part solution lae- tic acid, 1 part loppered cream ormilk. I then cause the same to be rapidly agitated with a revolving skeleton beater, until the whole assumes the consistency of butter, after which add coloring matter, and salt to taste, &e. The proportion of loppered cream or milk in this compound is only 1 in 12, and that small proportion is in a putrid condition. In fact, the whole concern would seem to be in a condition of putrefaction, which, according to the inventor,is only arrested by the use of lactic acid, “which action would take place if such acid were not added.” There is no ** 35 per cent. of pure creamery butter” in this mixture, but itcon- tains not only lactie acid but sulphuric acid. Mr. Cosine takes his place by the side of Mr. Nathan and Mr. Boysen in arraigning Professor Wheeler as certifying falsely when he said no acids were ever used in the manufacture of oleomargarine. I might go on through the whole list of patents before me, but think I have cited enough to show that pure butter, cream, or milk have but very little to do with any of the patents for imitation butter. Only two among all the patents before me make any allusion to butter. Even the great Mege, the father of oleomargarine, used only 10 per cent. of cream or milk, and if the butter is to be preserved, he says. * It will be better to mix the oleomargarine at animal heat with 10 per cent. of its weight of water instead of milk or cream.” Mr. Mege uses in his in- vention, which was sold to the United States Dairy Company under patent No. 8424, dated September 24, 1878, the following ingredients, viz: Oleomargarine oil, 10 per cent. of cream, milk, or water, sulphate of soda, stomach of pig or sheep, biphosphate of lime, cow’s udder, and bicarbonate of soda. It may be that the National Butterine Association, now located in our great Center Market, as they claim, are selling butterine composed of 35 per cent. of pure creamery butter. If so, it is not made from the formula of any patent on file in the United States Patent Ottice. It is no exaggeration to say that not one-teuth of the imitation butter sold in this country to day or exported contains one particle of pure butter. It is made up from all kinds of grease which is generally rendered into oil in soa} factories, Shipped away to the great cities, and purchased in open market by the manufacturers of bogus butter, as many of them state in their applications for patents. The anonymous little books which are being left at every house in the District seem to be a compilation of misrepresentation, bold false- hood, and slanders of the hard-working industrious men and women AO IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. who are engaged in the dairy business of this country. The cool im- pudence and insolence of these men who, after having run the gauntlet of the Jaw by selling their counterfeit goods here as genuine for seven years, and who now that they see Congress acting in the matter, have boldly hoisted up their black flag over the Center Market, is astounding. It seems a little singular that the Washington Market Company should allow these counterfeit goods to be sold in the market in compe- tition with pure goods, and against men who have been paying rent to the company ever since its organization. It is true that if these bogus articles are to be sold it is best that they be sold under their true name, if we can tell what that name is. Who knows of what the-e goods as made to day are composed? We only have the word of the seller as to the ingredients of what be is selling. The certificates of learned pro- fessors amount to nothing. They have not examined the butterine be- ing sold in this city to-day. It may be made from the fat of mad dogs for all they knuw. Neither do the makers of butterine know of what their material is composed if they buy their oil in open market. They may not intentionally use anything wrong, aud yet be using the vilest material. If counterfeit food is to be sold in the Center Market, why not allow counterfeit money to be sold there? The dealer in bogus coin might get a few professors to certify that bis money is composed of 65 per cent. of pure copper and 35 per cent. pure eold, with a little color- ing matter to give it the color of pure gold. Then he might put a sign over his place on which he might paint in big letters ‘ Prejudice is a thief and will rob you of many good things and dollars.” No doubt prejudice against passing counterfeit money, combined with fear, bas deprived many a man of good things and dollars. Some very good peo- ple say that they can see no objection to selling bogus butter so long as it is sold for what itis. There isthe trouble. Noone can tell whatit is. The counterfeiter might say the same ‘What harm in selling counterfeit money so long as | tell people what it is?” Such a man would \ery soon find the strong arm of the Government hold of him. The Govern- ment is very watchiul over its coins and justly so, but when it comes to the question of adulterated or counterfeit food on which the people are being swindled, it is slow to act. It is amazing that Congress should have so long failed to act in this matter. The making of any article of bogus food “and the selling of the ~ same, whether by its true name or not, should be prohibited by law. Congress clearly has the right to pass such a law under that section of the Constitution authorizing it “‘to provide for the general welfare.” Things have come to a pretty pass if the people have no power to pre- vent soap-grease being palmed upon them for butter. It should be made a penal offense for any hotel, boarding-house, or restaurant to set before their guests imitation butter or to use it for cooking purposes, as is being done in this city to-day. More than one (Congressman eats butterine every day. Those hotels who do not use the vile stuff in any way owe it to themselves and their guests to come out with a card to the public and say so. In traveling these days, one is in constant anxiety on this subject. Many willnot tonch butted ee traveling, from fear of being imposed upon by the counterfeit article. In conclusion, I would say that 1 have no personal feeling in this matter towards any one. I know none of the manufacturers “and but few of the dealers in bogus butter, I am sorry to see so many respect- able men engaged in such disreputable business. I will not deal in bo- gus butter, and intend to do all in my power to prevent others from making it or selling it. IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. Al There are two or three other points which, if there is time, I would like to call attention to. In regard to the exports of oleomargarine. IL noticed in taking up a New York paper a day or two ago, what sur- prised me, that in one manifest there were one hundred and ten pack- ages of oleo oil imported into this country. It seems it is exported as butterine and imported here as oleo now. In regard to hotels, boarding houses, and re estaurants in this city, E find oleomargarine is used every where, and I have been utterly surprised in sending men around to the hotels in this city with the report brought back of their finding butterine in the store rooms which was used for cooking purposes. They do not admit that they use it on the table. I will just relate one instance that came under my notice. The other day a lady who keeps a boarding house on since! came to my store. I had sold her some old dairy butter at 25 cents a pound. She came back and wanted another lot of it. My old butter was gone, and I said to her, ‘7 have some fine New York dairy butter (it was just before the fall in the price of butter) that I can sell you for 33 cents.” She would not pay any such price and said she was buying the best butter for 25 cents. I showed her the quotations, but it did not do any good. A gentleman who had a package of this so-called New York butter sent it over tome and I had sent a sample to Professor Taylor to analyze, and he pronounced it a very poor sample of butterine. I called this lady’s attention to that butter, and said, ‘* Perhaps this will suit you.” She tasted the butter and said I might send it to her houseif 1 would sell it for 25 cents. I then told her it was nothing but the poorest kind of butterine, and that I could sell ber that and make fifteen cents a pound on it, while on the other butter I only got my commission of 13 cents a pound. She did not thank me for the information, but went away and did not buy any butter. That is what we have to contend with here. There is another matter that has not been called to the attention ot the committee, I think, and that is where this oleomargarine oil is now made. It is notorious that it is made in soap factories. A few weeks ago a Pittsburgh house sent to a gentleman in my care a sample of soap and a sample of butterine. It staid there in my place; he did not take itaway. Letters came there for him, and finally I notitied the man to send somebody there to take it away. What did he do? He wrote me a sarcastic letter, saying that he knew it was of no use to talk to me, he knew how I stood; but he would make a present of the butterine, and [I would do well to eat it; that it was better food than I was ae- customed to eat, he thought, and I had better use the soap to keep my- self clean. That was the reply I received from him. Now, right here in this city Leas is a Soap factory trying out this grease for which they pay 2 and 243 cents a pound, and shipping itaway. Now, the butchers will tell you “that they deliver them in the summer season snet that is all alive with maggots, and that itis actually put in and tried out there. There is another matter more serious than this, and that is this dead animal business. Formerly they were buried, but now proposals are invited, and they are auctioned off every yearto the lowest bidder. The man who gathers up the dead animals, the dead dogs and mad dogs in with the rest, whenever they have a dog killing they send him notice and he goes and gets the dogs. He told me that himself. He takes them to his boiling establishment and skins the dogs and all the other animals, sells the hides, and sells the bones for fertilizers, and the grease is all tried out and barreled up and shipped away and sold to dealers in grease in other cities. I asked him if he put any special mark on it, and he said he did not; that it looked well and smelt as 4? IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. well as any other grease. Now, what becomes of the grease? Who knows but what it finds its way back here as butterine 2. Where does it goto? There is the difficulty with this question. We do not know what this article is made of. They say in the market thatit is made of such a per cent. of pure butter and so much suet. But you will find if you read these patents I have spoken of that most of them say that they take oleomargarine oil, which is now a commercial article, which can be obtained in any city, and combine it with other things so that we cannot tell what they are really using, and do uot know anything about it. They take that oleomargarine oil to their factory and manip- wate it and flavor it and then ship it to us as butterine. Dr. THOMAS TAYLOR, Microscopist of the Department of Agri- culture, addressed the committee. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, about ten years ago I accidentally be- came acquainted with the fact that boiled butter on the cooling became crystalized. I observed its general appearance with the mic: oscope at that time, but failed to look into it very closeiy as toits s ructure. But sometime after that, the oleomargarine business came up, and it became necessary for me to make a close examination of the subject of both as to the general character of butter and oleomargarine. I was called upon by the oleomargarine people in Baltimore frequently to give analyses of their product to ascertain its condition. They were very anxious to show that it was a pure article. Thy brought me many samples of it, and I assured them at that time that it was full of the tissues of animals, blood-\essels, and other filthy material. They were very much surprised at this, but acknowledged it was so. They after- wards, by more careful manipulation, by taking and skimming off and leaving in the tanks about 2 inches of the settlings, were able to get pretty well rid of these coarse materials. They then made it so very fine that they supposed they could deceive me, and really it was a very difficult thing to define the difference between oleomargaring and but- ter just for a little while. But two samples were sent up from the Com- mittee on Labor of the House to Commissioner Le Due to see if I could decide what the substance was, whether butter or oleomargarine. [| was not informed at the time where the material came from. I simply received a little paper from Commissioner Le Due on which the words “butter or oleomargarine” were written. Ithen found | was in a criti- eal position, because it was a test of my skill. I had said before this that I could at all times decide between oleomargarine and butter. But here was a case in which of course my very official head, 1 might say, depended upon my correct diagnosis of the thing. I gave it a full con- sideration, and concluded to test it in this way. I attached a prism under the microscope bere [indicating] and another prism over it, and by putting some of the butter in position I found I had an exhibition of all the colors in the rainbow—that is, the prismatic colors. I also knew that poor butter would not show the prismatic colors, as the oils in it have not the power to give these prismatic colors. I reasoned this mat- ter out first before I commenced my experiments, and, after preparing for them, I found I had instantly, as I supposed I would have, two sam- ples of the colors of the rainbow. I had more than that; I had the crys- tals of the respective fats of which it was made. I found it was made of beef fat—at that time they were using beef fat—and that the crystals of beef fat were well defined. I also found that the beef fat crystals looked like beautiful flowers in a group; whereas pure butter which has been boiled will show a St. Andrew cross on every crystal, and after a IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. time we will get a crystal, in the center of which is a body of a roseate character, and this roseate character will float off, and the entire field will be covered with this roseate or similar color. Those are the char- acteristics which belong to pure butter. This is no exaggeration at all. The colors are just as beautiful as they can be. Swine’s fat,of which butterine is made, is composed of a star-like object, is blue at the top and bottom, and red at the side. (Dr. Taylor then exhibited to the committee some enlarged diagrams showing the location of these various colors, and continued :) If upon an examination through the microscope [ find the material contains a crystal of that character [indicating], I say it is a beet crystal, and it, on the other hand the erystal is of this description [indicating], I know it is a butter crystal. These cases are frequently submitted to me, and Iam called upon to give my opinion before courts and juries, and the resnlt in every case has been a conviction on the evidence I have been able to give; and it is remarkable that in every case the parties themselves have acknowledged that the evidence I gave was ccrrect ; that they knew they were selling these counterfeit compounds for butter. The chairman asked a question of one of the speakers, if there was any oleomargarine made in Canada. I have received a letter from the assistant secretary of agriculture on that very subject. There is no oleomargarine manufactured in Canada, but there isa company being formed, with a capital stock of $500,000, at the present time, with the expectation of manufacturing it. There has been a discussion in the Canadian Parliament upon this subject, and I think a tax is proposed of 10 cents a pound by one side, and a lesser tax by the other side, and it would certainly seem as though they were going to im pose a tax upon that product. The CHAIRMAN. I wish you would state whether you have made any experiments or have any knowledge in regard to the healthfulness or unhealthfulness of these various compounds, and the power of the stom- ach to digest and assimilate them. Dr. TAYLor. In regard to that, it is laid down in our medical books, in all the standard works, that solid fats are less digestible than butter. Butter, however, may be called a solid fat, inasmuch as it stands up or does not fall down like oil, but it is a product, an oil, and when placed under the microscope, it is transparent, not translucent. Before a tat of a solid character is absorbed into the system it has to be dissolved in the digestion by the action of the bile, by which the fat is converted into a soap, and in this condition it is absorbed. But it cannot be ab- sorbed until it has passed through that condition. That is evident from the fact that nature supplies oil globules in milk. Persons who have weak digestive powers, such as elderly persons. cannot of course supply that amount of digestive solvent to dissolve the fats that might be necessary. One thing is certain, that in the case of oil, it is absorbed without any chemical agency. It is very evident that pure butter is much more digestible. In fact, you may say, it is not digested at all, but is absorbed as pure oil at once into the tissues of the body. With regard to bacteria, it is laid down by the most scientific authority, that it consists of vegetable spores, and they are no doubt in some form or other in every substance that is undergoing decomposition. There are certain contagious spores found in the fats of swine, and doubtless in the fats of dogs in the case of rabies; but what the effect of those may be upon the human system has not yet been developed. For my own part, from my knowledge of the nature of bacteria, which is one of the constant studies of microscopists, I woald be afraid to take an oleo- 44 IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. margarine made from the fat of animals—say of hogs which have died from hog cholera—for this reason, that it is a matter of importance to those who manufacture oleomargarine and butterine to melt their fats at the lowest possible temperature. They told ine at Baltimore, where they were manufacturing oleomargarine, thatit was important for them and a necessity to melt (not boil) their fats at the lowest temperature, because when the temperature got high it gave it an odor which they could not get rid of, and then they had to sell it to tallow chandlers to make candles of. With regard to butterine they do not boil it, but melt it at a temperature of 104, and combine it with fats which are heated and mixed up in that condition. If they boiled it I could de- tect it at once under the microscope, as it would show the cross of Saint Andrew upon the crystals of butter. So that there is no evidence what- soever that it is ever boiled or brought to a high temperature, even to 212 degrees, which would destroy the bacteria. It is found that bacteria is not destroyed at a temperature of less than 212 degrees, and even then there isno certainty of the destruction of bacteria unless that temperature of 212 degrees is continued for several hours. It is found that the gelatine in which the bacteria are cultivated will become con- taminated by putting into them a fluid which has been boiled, contain- ing bacteria boiled but a short time. So that you have to keep it in even for hours to be sure that there is no contamination. The CHAIRMAN. It would not be possible, then, to destroy them in the manner in which it is prepared, so that it could not be transmitted from animals into the human system? Dr. TAYLOR. No, sir. In typhoid fever, all medical men agree that the spores come from drinking water containing the typhoid germs. There are certain other contagious diseases that may be taken into the system by the breath, and it is necessary in others to obtain them through inoculation. You might swallow many infectious forms of spores along with your food without doing harm. But there are others again, like typhoid fever, which are communicated by drinking water. You may go into a room or hospital where typhoid fever is and. remain there for weeks without injury, and cannot possibly take the disease. But if you should drink water in that room, you would be very apt to contract the disease; while in another contagious disease you might drink water under the same circumstances and it would not affect you, because in that case it requires to come in contact with the injury and to be absorbed in the system in that way. The CHAIRMAN. Your statement, then, would lead to the conclusion that the use of these compounds would be very injurious to children, or to people who are diseased or weak in constitution ? Dr. TAYLor. I have no doubt of it that it is not a proper food for them. It is a subject which has not been discussed in that light. I was invited to the Academy of Sciences in Philadelphia to attend a lecture on the subject of butter and fats, and Dr, Hunt, at the close of the lecture, spoke to me on the same matter and agreed with me that it was not a proper food. Senator GEORGE. Are you a medical expert, a doctor of medicine? Dr. TAYLOR. Lam. Senator GEorGK. Have you ever known of any injury done to any one by the use of oleomargarine? Dr. TAYLOR. No, sir. Senator GEORGE. Itis a pure theory, then, that you go on, in suppos- ing it to be injurious to health? IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. 45 Dr. TAYLOR. I have not supposed it to be injurious; there has been no theory aboutit. I have simply been stating some facts without theo- rizing. [said it was possible or might be possible. Senator GEORGE You do not assert the fact on your opinion as a medical expert that it would be injurious to health? Droeray nor. Noy sir: Senator GEORGE. You know nothing on that subject ? Dr. Taytor. [ am speaking of bacteria. I do not makeit a question of theory, but of fact. Senator GEORGE. I am speaking of oleomargarine. Dr. TAYLOR. I say it is not so digestible as butter, and I say that distinetly, and every medical man wiil agree to it. Senator GEORGE. You say it is less digestible ? Dre'Tay Lor.” Yes: Senator GEORGE. Is that the only ground you have for supposing that it would be injurious :o health ? Dr. TAYLOR. So far as supposition is concerned, I think it might be injurious to health if it contained injurious spores, because it is not brougut to a high temperature enough to kill them. Senator GEORGE. You have no medical statistics on the subjeet, and there are none, so far as you know, to show that the use of eleomar- garine has proved deleterious to the health of the person using it ? Dr. TAYLor. No, sir; I do not think there are any statistics of that kind. Mr. REALL. Will the gentleman allow me to answer that question ? The CHAIRMAN. It is not necessiry to do so at this time. The mat- ter will be brought out tully before we get through with it. Dr. Tay- lor is telling us precisely what there is in that fat, what he has found, without any theory at all, simply the actual facts as to what the micro- scope shows to be contained in these fatty substances. He has not undertaken to offer any theories concerning it. He is telling that certain substances which everybody knows to be injurious are found in it. That is as far as his observation has gone, as | understand it. I will inquire whether there are any deleterious substances found in butter injurious to health—I mean in good butter obtained from a country dairy. Dr.:TAYLOk. No, there are not. The CHAIRMAN. The elements of butter are perfectly healthful, I un- derstand. Dr. TAYLOR. Yes, sir; I speak of normal butter. The CHAIRMAN. I understand that. I was speaking of butter made from the milk of the cow. Senator BLAIR. Let me ask you whether this bacteria from which the germ of disease springs is to be found ever in healthy grease that is taken from the animal while living orimimediately after death, from an animal killed for the purpose by a butcher in the ordinary way ? Dr. TAYLOR. Bacteria is found everywhere, in the blood of every tis- sue of the body. ; Senator BLAIR. But it is never found in good butter. Dr. TAyLor. So far as that is concerned, the fact is there has not been that investigation made with regard to butter, because it is gen- erally supposed that butter is made from healthy cows. But in the case of butterine and oleomargarine we Go know and ean testify and can give you evidence from Department reports that large amounts of money, $30,000 at a time, have been spent within the last month for the pur- chase of dead hogs that died of hog cholera. Senator BLAIR. That information is in possession of the Department ? 46 IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. Dr. TAYLOR. Yes, sir; and we have the information direct from the statistician, Mr. Dodge, that $30,000 has been paid for that purpose. He got that information ine identallv from a correspondent. The Chair- man of the Committee on Agriculture showed me a letter last week which stated that a large number of sheep had been drowned and the carcasses were bought and the parties were watched to see where they were taken to, and it was found they went directly to an oleomargarine factory. You can also cet information from the Treasury Department to the effect that in the distilleries where they keep thousands of hogs to eat up the swill, they make up the soap grease trom dead hogs which have died of disease, and that is sold, they say, for making axle-grease. But they do not know where it goes to. I have that from the officers in charge, and persous who know about it. The fact is that it is sold in open market. The committee then adjourned. WASHINGTON, D..C., Tuesday, June 15, 1886 The committee was called to order at 10.15 a. m. The CHAIRMAN. We have a quorum of the committee present. The committee has met this morning by appointment to hear the opponents of the bill of the House of Representativ es, No. 8328, defining butter, also imposipg a tax upon and regulating the manufacture, sale, impor- tation, and exportation of oleomargarine. A number of geritlemen from the West desire to be heard against this measure, and also some gen- tlemen trom New York City. Senator GEORGE. These gentlemen appear here against this measure, do they? The CHAIRMAN. Yes; they are opposed to the measure. Senator GEORGE. I would like to hear testimony rather than argu- ments. The CHAIRMAN. I suppose we had better let them make their state- ments first. Senator BLAIR. Thi is the bill which came trom the House? The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Senator GEORGE. As there are a great many gentlemen here and we cannot listen to everybody, I would suggest for the consideration of the committee and the gentlemen present, that they select one or two of the most intelligent members who have been posted about this mat- and let us examine them. I think the country wants facts now rather than arguments; that is my view of it; at least [ want them. The CHAIRMAN, It is facts that we want, but I suppose the gentlemen desire to make their statements in their own way. Senator SAWYER. I think they should be allowed todo so. I do not think we should interfere in that matter. The CHAIRMAN. When they have made their statements, if any gen- tleman desires to ask questions he can doso. IL understand the gentle- men have agreed among themselves who shall speak for them. We are ready to hear them, and if the gentleman who desires to present this case will take bis place at the end ot the table, we will proceed. Mr. F. R. COUDERT, of New York, said: In behalf of some of the parties living in the East, in New York, we ask permission to put Prof. Henry Morton on the witness stand, if it is IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. 47 agreeable to you. May I ask, for information, whether the Senators will not themselves take the examination in their own hands? The CHAIRMAN. Professor Morton can make such statement as he de- sires, and, as he proceeds, if any Senators desire to ask him questions, of course they will do so. He may make his statemet in his own way first, if he desires to do so. STATEMENT OF PROF. HENRY MORTON. Prof. HENRY Morvron, of the Stevens Institute of Technology, Ho- boken, N. J., said: I appear at the request of Mr. Coudert to state facts within my own knowledge chiefly in regard to this matter, and it may uot be improper for me to state, in the first place, how it comes that L should kuow about it. Senator GEORGE. That is not material, if you will just tell the facts. Professor MoRTON. The subject is one which has been of great inter- est to all scientific men from the time of the original discovery by Mége, which was made, as you are aware, during the siege of Paris Many persons have been interested in it and have followed it up. I have been frequently called upon to examine processes and superintend op- erations where modifications in the manufacture have been suggested, and so on, and specimens have been brought to me as a chemist, to ex- amine from time to time microscopically and chemically. When the substance was first introduced, the question was raised as to whether it could be distinguished from butter by any test, and I was led in. that way toinvestigate the subject, and to examine as to all the properties which it exhibited, as well as to compare different samples of it, and I have in my experiments in this line exainined great numbers of speci- mens of oleomargarine prepared as butter, and of oleomargarine oil for the preparation ot butter, from all parts of the country, and also have visited factories very frequently and spent long periods there. I have re- mained as long as a week in one of these factories continuously, some- times spending the night as well as the day there in order to watch the process completely and see the operation from beginning to end—to see what was put in and what was not, and to observe what was done and what was not done. In the course of these examinations I have reached the conelusion, founded on these observations, that the material is of necessity a pure one, and cannot possibly be unwholesome, and is, in fact, in that sense, thoroughly desirable and safe article of food. I will express as briefly as I can my reasons for this opinion, and state. the facts on which they are founded. In the first place, I have found, as a matter of observation, that fat which is to be used in the manufacture of oleomargarine, if it is in the slightest degree tainted before the manufacture begius, if it is not strictly fresh, if it is not taken almost directly trom the slaughtered animal, if it is allowed to stand in a barrel for a few hours in ordinary weather or in cold weather, if put in a barrel with any animal heat in it for a few hours, then an incipient change begins which, in the suc- ceeding process, is exaggerated so that an utterly offensive material is produced which could not be used for any such purpose. Senator GEORGE. Offensive to the smell and taste ? Professor MorTON. Offensive both to the smell and taste, so much so that no one could eat it or endure it; it is very disagreeable. The only 48 IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. way to avoid that is to use extreme care in the collection and prepara- tion of the material, and in the subsequent processes, after it has been cleaned and washed, by melting it carefully and then allowing it to set- tle and straining it 80 that all the animal fiber of every sort is removed. It is pext submitted to a treatment by which the stearine is removed, and what is left is almost identically the same in composition as butter made from milk and cream. Now if in that process, after the melting has been gone through with, the shghtest portion, even a microscopic portion, of the animal tissue, of the fibrous tissue, or anything else but the pure fat is left in the material in the oil, then in this process of crystallizing by which the stearine is removed (which has to be done at a temperature of about 80 degrees), the result will be that the material will become putrid and utterly offensive. [have seen that done over and over again where there has been a little carelessness in the filtering or cleaning, or want of proper treatinent where the fat has not been heated hot enough during the rendering, so that there may be a little fiber left in. Under these circumstances, during this process of crystallizing, a fermentation takes place which is very offensive, almost unendurable, and they have to throw the entire mass into the tanks used tor the refuse to make tallow of, as it would not be food fit for use at all. Senator GEORGE. Is there no way of counteracting this offensive con- dition ? Professor Morton. No way whatever, except to take the fat and purify it in a manner that wouid make it a very expensive process. Senator GEORGE. Can it not be clarified ? Protessor. MORTON, No, sir; there is no way of doing that. The CHAIRMAN. Would putrefaction take place if the material was kept at a temperature of 45 degrees, the usual temperature for keeping butter ? Protessor Morton. It will not take place after the butter is manu- factured. That putrefaction of necessity takes place during the manu- facture. One of these processes involves the keeping of the material for ten or twelve hours at a temperature favorable for fermentation or putrefaction if there is anything in if to putrefy. If it has gone so far as that without injury, it is because there is nothing in it capable of es- tablishing putrefaction. The CHAIRMAN. Have you never found any of these tissues in oleo- margarine after it was manufactured, under the microscope ? Protessor MORTON. Never. This statement I make is important as to the effect of the process; that is, the putrefying effect which would result from a neglect to thoroughly separate the tatty matter from the fiber. This is important because it bears upon the question which has been raised as to whether the germs of disease could in any way be carried from the aniinal into the product. These germs, in the first place, have never been found. There is no scientific testimony any- where that they have ever been found in the fat of animals. ‘They are always found in the muscles and tissues, but never in the fat. Senator GEORGE. Then, the germs of disease from diseased vattle are never found in fatty substances ? Protessor MORTON. No, sir. Senator BLAIR. You spoke of stearine; what is that? Protessor MORTON. Stearineis one of the three constituents of all fats, including butter. All fats, butter, aud all other animal fats, consist mainly of three chemical compounds, one of them stearine, another palmatin, and the other olein. ‘The stearinue by itself is solid at ordinary temperatures and is used in the manufacture of candles. It is a hard fat and is very abundant in mutton fat, which shows a great deal of IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. 49 stearine. Palmatin is a soft fat by itself, very much of the consistency of butter, but a little harder than-butter. The third compound, olein, is a liquid fat at ordinary temperatures. Olive oil is nearly pure olein, although it contains traces of the other matters. Mutton fat is partieu- larly rich in stearine, but contains relatively less of palmatin and olein. ' Beef fat has not so much stearine, but more olein and palmatin. The process first consists in getting rid of the animal tissue or little fibers or sacks distributed through the fat by which the little globules of oil which constitute the fat of the living animal are held. In the living animal the fat is fluid and each of the globules is inclosed in a sack like a bunch of grapes, and that is surrounded by the thicker fibers that enclose the mass of fat which constitutes the fat of the living animal When the animal dies and the body becomes cold, these little globules become solid. The first process is to break and cut up these masses, then to melt out the fat so that the fat again becomes liquid as it was in the living animal, and the fibrous sheathes are removed by straining. Senator GEORGE. The little sacks that hold the oil? Professor Morton. Yes, the little sacks which hold the oil, those are all gotten out. It would be those which if left (being putrescible in nature), which would become offensive and decompose and injure the fat which remains in contact with them, if exposed to the temperature to which it would be exposed ordinarily, keeping it at a common tempera- ture. The process then consists, first, of melting the fat and getting this oil again in that fluid state as when the animal was alive, and then bringing it to the consistency of butter fat by taking out a portion of the stearine which is in it. In butter there is stearine, palmatin, and olein, just as in mutton fat, but thereis much less stearine in proportion to the other two substances. Therefore to get this fat to the same consistency as butter, we have to take away some of its stearine. That is done by allowing this fatty mass to partially crystallize, keeping the temperature at such a point that a large part of the stearine will crystallize in little tufts or bunches of crystals all through it, and then we have an oil which looks just like olive oil, with little crystalline particles floating all through it which resemble white sugar. Senator BLatr. Is stearine an unhealthy substance, that you wish to get rid of it? Professor MoRTON. It is not unhealthy except in this sense Senator BLATR. I mean in the proportion in which it is found is it unhealthy. Professor MoRTON. It would be less digestible undoubtedly. It would be the difference between the digestibility of butter or a fat like butter and mutton fat. As it exists in the mutton fat, there being an excess of stearine, the fat is harder when it enters the stomach, and is not broken up so readily aud absorbed by the digestive organs. In that sense it is less digestible, just as one kind of bread would be less whole- some than another because not so digestible. Very light bread would be more digestible than bread not so light. There would be that dif- ference. A person with a delicate stomach might be able to eat beef and beef fat and yet not be able to eat mutton and mutton fat. There would be a difference of that sort. By allowing this melted fat to crys- tallize out this excess of the stearine, there is produced an emulsion, a matter of about the consistency of half-nelted snow, and that is put in canvas bags, which are pressed, and by that means the fluid parts are all driven out and the stearine is left in solid cakes, which are taken away and sold to candle manufacturers or others. The liquid or fluid part - then has almost identically the composition of butter; that is to say, it 17007 OL——4 50 IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. has in it now just the same proportion of stearine, palmatin, and olein which exists 1n regular dairy butter. There is, however, in butter, in addition to these, about 5 per cent. of a peculiar fat which is found only in butter, and which is known as butyrine. There are, besides butyrine, in butter very small quantities, less than 1 per cent. altogether, of caprin, caproin, and caprylin, and two or three other similar bodies, which are also found in minute quantities in mutton fat, goat’s fat, and so on. They are extremely minute in quantity and contribute only a little towards the flavor of butter. The flavor of butter is due to the presence, first, of butyrine, which has a slight flavor of its own. Senator GEORGE. And which is found only in butter ? Professor Morton. Yes; that is a fat peculiar to butter. Butyric acid is found in vegetables sometimes, but butyrine is found only in milk and consequently in butter. Capry lin has a slight flavor also There is in butter some caseine or cheesy matter or albuminous matter related to the white of eggs, though of course different in other respects, and that also gives a flavor to butter, although being very gasily decom- posed when butter is to be kept for a long time, “it is the effort of the manufacturer to get rid of it as much as possible. You have probably come across what is known as cheesy butter. That may be the case with fresh butter kept only a few days if it has not been well worked. The working of the butter gets rid of this caseine which otherwise remains in the milk from which the white cheese comes—* smear case” it is called in the markets about Philadelphia. Ordinary cheese contains a large proportion of caseine, but it is worked out of the butter after the butter is churned, working with a ladle, washing it with water, and soon. The presence of the caseine in these fatty substances is undoubtedly in part the cause of the peculiar characteristic taste, just as the presence of some of these particular things gives a flavor to mutton fat and when in ex- cess (as in goat fat and goat meat) one which is not admired; in fact an extra mutton flavor. In this way, then, the oleomargarene comes to be, as I have said already, almost identical with butter. There is a differ- ence in these flavoring matters to a small extent, the maximum being perhaps a little over 5 per cent. found in butter which are not found in the oleo oil. The oleomargarine oil, as I have so far described it, is not yet ina condition exactly resembling butter as regards its structure; that is, it is a fluid which, when allowed to cool, becomes a solid which is homo- geneous throughout; it is a compact mass of fat. Senator GEORGE. Is that altogether from the beef fat ? Professor Morton. Yes, from the beef fat. Oleomargarine is made from beef fat. There is a difference in this respect from butter ; ; butter is made from minute fat globules existing in cream which, by the action of churning, have been hammered together until the minute globules adhere to each other and make larger ‘lobules, and they are packed to- gether and solidified, making an emulsion. You are familiar with that in salad dressing. You take. oil and vinegar and mix them together and make a pasty mass. In the same way cream is an emulsion of minute globules of fat with little films around them of the watery portion of the milk which contains a little sugar of milk, caseine, albumen, and so on. When the churning is done to the cream it puts these little particles to- gether and the same process may be accompiished by grinding instead of churning. You may make butter by putting the particles through a mill and rubbing them together until they adhere and form larger ones, and then by squeezing out the fiuid portion you get ordinary butter. But but- ter, however, isan emulsion. It consists of particles of fatty material with little interstices between them. To get cleomargarine into the same con- IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. ont dition so that it could be used as an article of food with equal comfort, the structure must be broken up in asimilar way. To do that this ole. omargarine oi] is put intoa churn with a quantity of sour milk or cream, such as we use in the manufacture of butter. The milk for this purpose, as in making butter, must be sour. You could not make good butter ' with fresh milk, neither carn you oleomargarine. The whole of the milk is taken except that instead of skimming the cream off the milk and bringing that together with a certain amount of sour milk left with it, the whole of the sour milk, cream and all, is placed in the churn with an appropriate amount of this oleomar garine oil and a little harmless color- ing matter, exactly the same coloring matter that is used sometimes in making butter. Senator GEORGE. What is the coloring matter which is generally used ? Professor MORTON. It is sometimes saffron and sometimes annatto. They are both vegetable coloring matters which are entirely harmless, the same as cochineal which is used for coloring confectionary. They are perfectly harmless coloring matters and have been used for ages. Senator GEORGE. It is put in for the purpose of affecting the appear- ance of the butter ? Professor MORTON. It is put in to give a color resembling that of certain varieties of butter, just as they put it in butter at certain sea- sons of the year. Senator GEORGE. Dairymen use the same coloring matters ? Professor MorToN. Yes; just the same. Sometimes the dairymen pursue a little different plan by applying the color through the cow. They do it by feeding the cow on carrots or some other colored material, and they can get the color in that way. But however it is done makes no difference. It produces a color which pleases the consumer, and it has no effect one way or the other, makes it no better or worse. The material having to be brought into this condition, a mechanical process, the churn, is set going and does exactly the opposite to what it does with the cream. In the case of churning the cream the object of the churning is to mash the little particles ‘together and make the small ones larger, so that they would be sufficiently large to pack to- gether and squeeze out the mass of aqueous liquid and make a solid emulsion. In the case of oleomargarine oil the object is to break up the homogeneous mass of oil into minute particles, to emulsionate it the Same as you would do in making a salad dressing. You put certain things in a salad dressing to make an emulsion which, if of sufficiently hard substances, would become solid like butter. But this in the salad dressing never becomes hard. The oleomargarine is well beaten up, and when beaten to the right extent, so that it is thoroughly emulsified, it is then poured out on ice, so as to cool it quickly and not give time for the particles to run together or crystallize, as they might do from their melted condition, which would give it a granula character. Under these circumstances we get an article which contains, from the sour milk and cream used in it, a portion of this very butyrine, and this and caproin, and so on, and casein found in butter. But there is not as large a proportion as there would be in natural butter, of course. Instead of there being 5 per cent. there is not probably more than 1 per cent. as a rule. Senator GEORGE. The object of that churning is to get the butyrine and casein ? Professor Morton. Yes; and to reduce the homogeneous fat to a fatty emulsion; that is to say, the minute particles separated by little 52 IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCT'S. layers of an aqueons fluid, to reproduce the natural condition of butter. In other words, if it were not for that it would be like melted butter. If you melt butter and allow it to cool again (which is often done to preserve it because melted butter will deposit the casein, which will all settle in a layer), you can thus get the pure butter fat, which will keep longer in a warm climate. But when you come to eat that butter so prepared you will find it is uot so pleasant to the taste; it has not the softness of ordinary butter. It has a sort of hardness and a lack of this plastic condition which makes it agreeable. Therefore, to make the oleomargarine like unmelted butter, it is necessary to churn it to break it up into these minute particles; or, to describe it in a word, to produce a solidified emulsion. The CHAIRMAN. At what stage of the process—I do not think you have told us that—is the milk, cream, sour milk, or butter mixed with the oleomargarine ? Professor MorTON. In the act of churning. The CHAIRMAN. What is it put in for? Professor Morton. It is put in for the purpose of enabling us to convert a homogeneous mass of fat into an emulsion of minute particles of fat with little layers between them of aqueous liquid, which it gets from the milk. The CHAIRMAN. Is thatthe only object of using pure milk and cream in connection with it? Professor MoRTON. And to give it also the flavor of butter. That is where the flavor comes in. Senator GEorGE. You get the butyrine then ? Professor MoRTON. You get some butyrine and all the other flavoring matters, and some casein. Yon get enough casein, and butyrine, and so on, to give it a fair butter flavor, not a rich flavor. Oleomargarine never compares with rich fine butter, but is superior to strong or disa- greeable butter, because it has no bad flavor. The CHAIRMAN. What is the object of giving it a butter flavor ? Professor MorToON. The object is to make it palatable. The CHAIRMAN. Taken as pure oleomargarine, then, it would not be palatable or salable ? Professor MorTon. Oh, I think it would be. But it is more palat- able, and of course more salable when it is more palatable. The CHAIRMAN. That is when it is made more like butter. Professor MorToN. Yes; like butter or something that we are used to. In other words, our tastes depend very much on habit, and if we had been brought up to eat marrow instead of butter, or if marrow were the common food, then it would be undoubtedly desirable, in preparing a fresh article for consumption, to make it something like what the peo- ple were using and tasting, for the appetite seeks what it is accustomed to in these things rather than a new thing for which a taste is to be acquired. The CHATRMAN. Then you think an appetite could be created for pure oleomargarine ? Professor MORTON. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. You have been telling us about the fat of beef cattle used in making oleomargarine. Did you make any investigation of those establishments where large percentages of lard are used in the manufacture of butterine ? Professor Morton. I have; I have also seen those. The difference is simply this, that at the time when the materials are put in the churn IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. Da there is mixed with the oleomargarine, strictly speaking, a certain amount of lard Senator GEORGE. Thus far you have been talking about the manu- facture of oleomargarine from beef fat exclusively ? Professor Morton. Yes; that is the first. I am giving it chronolog- ically. Senator GEORGE. Is the complete product ever made without the in- troduction of lard ? Professor MorTOoN. Yes; it is made without the introduction of lard. The CHAIRMAN. That was the intention of the Mége patent? Professor MORTON. Yes; that was the original idea; but when it came to be used extensively it was found that consumers objected to it, es- pecially at some seasons of the year, in that there was a lack of the pe- culiar stickiness, if you might call it so, of butter; that it was a little more granular. It would break; in cutting, it would fracture ; and in eating it there was not exactly the same smoothness that is found in butter. It was found that by adding a certain proportion of lard, that this greater smoothness was given to it, and accordingly it became common in many places—I do not know that it is universal at the present day—-especially in the winter, to add acertain proportion of lard which had been prepared in substantially the same way, with proper care as to its purity, and for the same reason that the slightest carelessness utterly ruins the product. If the fat from the pig is allowed to stand any length of time and get in the slightest degree sour, or is not treated with extreme care and cleanliness, and the whole process conducted with scrupulous care, with nothing offensive left about, it is utterly ruined. It has been found that all fat has a wonderful property of absorbing odors of various kinds. Many of you are doubtless familiar with that fact. You cannot leave food with it in a small place in close proximity, without its acquiring the smell. If apatof butter is pu tin a refrigerator alongside of a herring, and you take it out an hour afterwards, and eat it, you will think you are eating herring. It is the same way with fruits. If you put butter in a refrigerator with a basket of strawberries, in a short time it will have a strong strawberry flavor. Many of our delicate perfumes are extracted in that way. ‘The pure fat is spread in layers and then the leaves of flowers are spread over it and allowed to remain for some time, then they are taken away and other leaves are spread in the same manner and the fatty substance will absorb the odor of the flowers. When the fat so charged with the smell of these delicate flowers, like heliotrope, gera- nium, &e., which cannot be extracted in any other way, is treated with alcobol which washed out from the fat all these delicate essences, and this alcohol is used to make the fine perfumes, such as jockey club, &e., which we buy in bottles, are produced in that way, the flavoring having been absgrbed by the fat and then again taken out by the alcohol. That indicates how delicate a substance fat is when exposed to anything un- clean or offensive. The CHAIRMAN. Will you explain to the committee the difference, Scientifically, between the fat of the hog and the fat of the beef? Professor MORTON. Scientifically there is just the same difference as there is between beef and mutton fat. The fat of mutton contains a great deal of stearine compared with the other compounds. Beef fat contains an intermediate proportion, and hog’s fat a greater proportion of palmatin and olein. Otherwise they are identical, except that in each case there is a very minute quantity of different flavoring sub- stances, a matter which has never been thoroughly studied or examined 54 IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. into. Ido not know exactly what it is, it is in such minute quantities, but it enables us in raw fats, by the smell, to tell which one it is. But it is almost like the perfume of the flower—evanescent. Otherwise all fats are the same, or differ only in the proportion of those three ingre- dients. The CHAIRMAN. In the manufacture of oleomargarine, the stearine, you say, is nearly all extracted. Professor MorToN. A considerable amount of it is extracted. The CHAIRMAN. If so, and the result is that it is firmer and harder than that which is produced when a large amount of lard is used, why is if necessary to use lard in order, as you say, to soften the material ? Why is not the result of the stearine when oleomargarine is made as full and complete as from lard ? Professor MoRTON. For two reasons: First, it appears by this pro- cess, in the practical way of working it (we might if we could work at it with a great deal of time and care, but not in practical work), we can- not get the stearine out as perfectly as would be necessary to bring it down to the consistency of butter. There is too much stearine left in. Thad no intention of saving it was all removed; that would be incor- reet. The proportion of stearine left is quite a large one. But the in- tention is to remove it so as to get it down to the consisteney of butter; but that intention cannot be practically carried out, and the oleomar- garine oil as prepared contains a little stearine above that of butter, and the addition of lard corrects this. It also appears that there may be slight difference in the ultimate structure of the fat globules, in their physical structure, by reason of which one of them is more tacky than the other—has a little more stickiness. One is more plastic and the other more friable, just as in the mineral limestone we find some in a more friable condition than another. But there is no difference beyond this that science can reach. The CHAIRMAN. You state that all this fat in the animal is main- tained in its position by minute fibers surrounding globules of fat, and that all that fibrous matter is removed from the oil by straining it. Is that straining through cloths, sieves, or how is it done? Professor Morton. I did not intend to say that it was all removed by straining. It is removed by the process of rendering in this way: The fat is hashed up very fine indeed, then it is heated, and this heat does two things—it melts the fat and it dries these little fibers. The result is that the fibers which ineclose the fat shrink in drying. ‘There is also a quantity of salt thrown in during the melting, and this tends to ab- stract the water and to dry these fibers and to load them with salt—to salt them, and salt to a very slight extent only is soluble in fat, but is freely soluble in water and in the aqueous liquids which pervade this film. The result of that is that there is a shrinking, and if is made dense and heavy and sinks down to the bottom of the tank, and this tank being allowed to stand, it settles into two layers, one into salt water, holding in it all this fibrous animal matter, and on top of that is a layer of oil, w hich, after it has stood a little while, is just as clear as olive coil. That is carefully drawn off into a clean tank and allowed to stand for several hours more, so that it may be perfectly certain that every atom and particle of fibre settles, and in the drawing off the drawing is managed by a strainer with minute holes in it, and that is placed at the top of the ou) and gradually lowered down as the level sinks, so that they never get at all close to the water layer. They stop drawing it off while there is still an inch or more of oil over the watery layer, and that much is thrown aside because it might contain a little serap or fiber. This lower tpart ofhe oil is thrown into the tanks in which they make tallow. In IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. 55 the second place a second settling occurs, and then the material is crys- tallized, and there it undergoes a subsequent filtration through canvas bags. Everything that is used has to be squeezed out through this thick canvas cloth in which the mass of stearine crystals is retained. The oleomargarine consists of a liquid oil which is strained, and it is only the liquid which is used. Anything solid settles with the stearine and is used for tallow. The CHAIRMAN. How long does this rendering or melting process continue ? Professor MorTON. The actual melting occupies four hours usually, although that differs according to the size of the tank. It may take six hours, but usually I believe only four hours. The CHAIRMAN. At what temperature is it conducted ? Professor Morton. The temperature in the center of the tank is about 130 to 140 degrees, but the temperature at the edges of the tank is very nearly that of boiling water; the water in the jacket of the tank is almost at a boil. Sometimes it is much hotter. Sometimes they use steam. But generally the water is kept almost up to the boiling point, and this fat as it gets melted is constantly, by a stirring apparatus, brushed around, and the entire mass is heated a great deal more thor- oughly than meat is ordinarily in cooking, for the material in that case is not as hot in the interior as it is where the material is swept around against this hot iron surface. The CHAIRMAN. Is this scrap again heated during the process you have described ? Professor MORTON. No, sir; that serap is at once thrown off with the oil belonging to it, and it is carried into a different part of the establish- ment, where they make a crude grease which is used for lubricating purposes, the manufacture of candles, or anything of that sort, and there it is melted and pressed, the scrap itself is heated and pressed in hydraulic presses along with the fat it contains, and the fiber is used for manure or something of that sort, but that has nothing to do with the oleomargarine part of the manufacture. The CHAIRMAN. Is the oleomargarine ever heated at a higher temper- ature during any other process, or is that the end of it? Professor MortTON. That is the end of the high heating. Itis kept at about the same temperature. It does not do it any harm after that to heat it—there would be no objection to heating it, because when the scrap is once removed the heat is not liable to give any bad odor; but if heated very hot with the scrap in it, then it gets the flavor of roast meat, which is pleasant enough in roast meat, but not in butter. The CHAIRMAN. You have stated that none of this scrap was left in the oleomargarine, but that it was all absolutely extracted, as I under- stood you. Protessor MORTON. That has been my experience in all the cases [ have examined. The CHAIRMAN. What woulde you say then to a sample of oleomarga- rine which was still sweet, but which under the microscope did show fibrous material? Professor Morton. I should like to knowa good deal about its ori- gin; what the history of it was. Of course, if it was some one’s object to make such a thing, there would be no trouble in making such a sam- ple. In other words, all you have to do is to make good oleomargar ine and then take a little fat with scrap in it and stir it up together. The CHAIRMAN. Would it be possible to make in any oleomargarine factory, if they were not extremely careful but anxious to make a large profit by selling it and working carelessly, an unfit article for food ? 56 IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. Professor MoRTON. It would never be done but once. They would make one such large product and send it out, but it would all be sent back to them. They would lose their money, and they would not do it again. The CHAIRMAN. If it was sold to consumers it would not be sent back to the oleomargarine factory, but wouid be pronounced bad butter. Professor MorToON. It would be recognized at once, because the stuff would be detected immediately. The CHAIRMAN. Have you any knowledge as to the percentage of lard now used in the manufacture of oleomargarine in comparison with the amount of oleo used? Professor Morton. I do not now recall it. I have heard, but | have forgotten. I think it is something like 20 per cent... Some such pro- portion as that is frequently added, although that differs with the sea- son of the year; in winter they need more ‘than they do in summer. The CHAIRMAN. Have you examined any of the oleomargarine facto- ries lately where they use lard at all? Professor MORTON. Yes; within a few weeks I have visited two of them in New York. The CHAIRMAN. Then they were using lard mixed with fat? Professor MORTON. Yes; they were using pure lard. Senator GEORGE. What about the use of cotton-seed oil ? Professor MORTON. Cotton-seed oil has been used for the same pur- pose—that is to say, where the oleomargarine oil, as I have described it, has not had as much of its stearine removed from it as is required to bring it to the consistency of butter, then the same result can be obtained by adding more olein, more oil. Cotton-seed oil is like olive oil, almost pure olein. There would be another way of doing this thing. You might take the pure rendered fat, and instead of getting rid of the stearine, if you had some other material which would add the palmatin and olein by themselves, you might thus bring it to the same consist- eney or proportion by adding this instead of removing the stearine. The process, as I have said, is vot entirely under control as to the amount of stearine to be removed. But when not enough is removed you can get the required consistency by adding olein or cotton seed oil. The CHarRMAN. In the factories you have examined, do they use much cotton-seed oil? Professor MORTON. They were not using it at either of the factories T examined. At one of them they were using all the winter what is known as benne oil or oil of sesame. Sesame is a grain very well known in the East. Yor may remember in the Arabian Nights i in the story of the forty thieves, where the robbers opened the cave by saying ‘¢ Open sesame.” It is the name of a grain, a grain which is made,into bread and eaten in that way, and by pressure there can be extracted from it an oil which is largely used in that region for cooking, and also as a salad oil. It is nearly pure olein, something like olive oil and cotton- seed oil. ’ The CHAIRMAN. You have stated that the pure fats of animals do not contain, or that it never had been discovered that they contain, germs of disease. Would it not be possible that the tissues surrounding the fats of these animals could contain germs of disease? Professor MorTon. They at is a scientific fact. There is not an instance recorded or a reliable state- ment made of their having been found in the fats, although there is abun- dant evidence of their being found in the muscles or muscular tissues. The CHAIRMAN. I speak simply of the tissues that surround the fat; as to the oils I understood your statement. On =~] IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. Professor MORTON. No, sir; they have not been discovered. The CHAIRMAN. Are you prepared to make the statement that they could not be found there? Protessor MortToN. They never have been in the history of science. With all these microscopical examinations, nobody has been found to make the statement. No one having the slightest show of authority has ever recorded the fact. Such things may have been stated in the newspapers. The CHAIRMAN. There are bjood vessels running around that portion of the animal, so that when it is cut up and washed the water becomes bloody from it ? Professor MorToNn. Certainly. The CHAIRMAN. There must be blood vessels, and whatever there is in the blood must be there. Professor MorToN. Very possibly, before the fat is washed; but it is thoroughly washed before it is hashed, and then all this animal matter is extracted from it. If there was anything in the blood, it would not leave it to go to the fat; it would be embraced in the membranes if it was ever there. But there is no record of its being found in the fatty tissues ; it is in the muscles. The fatty tissues used for this purpose are caul fat and not the fat distributed in the muscles of the animal. It is the fat located around the digestive and vital organs. The CHAIRMAN. Do you know of any factories now in which pure oleomargarine is manufactured, made entirely from the fat of beef cat- tle mixed with milk or cream or anything else? Professor MoRtTON. Where there is no lard used ? The CHAIRMAN. Yes; where there is no lard used—no oil. Professor Morton. No, sir; I do not know. I have not examined the Chicago factories, and therefore I do not know what they are doing there. As to the two I have seen lately in New York, in the one case they use lard only and in the other the oil of sesame as well. But those that were in New York some years ago which I examined there, used nothing but beef fat. Senator GEORGE. Messrs. Armour & Co., of Chicago, write that they use lard. Professor MorToN. I so understand. Senator JONES. Would the product be in any sense more objection- able with lard than without it ? Professor MorToN. | cannot see that it would if it was pure. Senator JONES. This process that you speak of, for separating the animal tissues and the stearine, is it accomplished in one or two proe- esses ? Professor MORTON. Substantially in one; although if there be any little fragments of animal tissue left after the fat is melted, then they would be strained out in the press. Senator JONES. The material is heated for each process ? Professor Morton. Yes; it is beated but less in the first process for removing the animal tissues. Senator JONES. Is that the process you spoke of when you said the temperature was 130 degrees ? Professor Moron. Yes; the highest heat is in the center of the tank. The highest heat that the fat is submitted to is that nearly of boiling water where the fat is brushed against the sides of the tank. Senator JONES. At what temperature is the product kept when the stearine is separated ? Professor MORTON. Between 80 and 90 degrees. 58 IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. Senator JONES. And that is continued for how long? Professor MoRTON. It is continued from 12 to 24 hours. Senator JONES. And that is the process in which you say putrefaction would be developed very quickly ? Professor Morton. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. In the use of lard do they go through with the proe- ess of removing the stearine from the lard ? Professor MORTON. No, sir. The CHAIRMAN. There is not enough there to require that. So that that part of the process is not adopted when they are using lard instead of beef fat? Professor MoRTON. No, sir. Senator JONES. When cotton-seed oil is used, what process is that submitted to to clear it from impurities; is the ordinary market prod- uct put in just as it is? Professor Morton. The ordinary clear market product is put in; there is nothing done to it—at least I never have heard of anything of the kind. Senator GEORGE. You mean the refined oil? Professor MORTON. Yes, sir. - Senator JONES. At what stage of the process is that added ? Professor MORTON. Just before the churning—in other words, it is mixed up with the other oils. Senator JONES. Is the oleomargarine cooled betore the churning ? Professor MORTON. No, sir; on the contrary it is heated to make it fluid. Senator JONES. After the process of taking the stearine from it is completed it is churned immediately ? Professor MORTON. Not immediately. After the stearine is taken from it it is usually run into a tank, and then if the churning is done in the same building, that tank is kept heated by a steam pipe, and it is kept as a fluid in that tank. If it gets cool it is solid. Otherwise it is allowed to run into barrels and become hard, and when they are ready to churn it it has to be melted. Senator JONES. At what temperature is it churned ? Protessor MorTon. | do not recollect the exact temperature, but it is the same temperature at which butter is churned, about 60 degrees. The CHAIRMAN. The mixture of cotton-seed or sesame oil is a mere mechanical mixing ? Professor Morton. It is mixed with other oils and it makes an in- dissoluble mixture—if, you get them once mixed you cannot separate them again. The CHAIRMAN. Do you desire to make any further statement ? Mr. CouDERT. Will you kindly ask the Professor what the effect of cotton seed, benne and sesame oil is on the wholesomeness of the product, and what the functions of butyrin and butyric acid arein the butter ? The CHaIRMAN. You can answer that question, professor. Professor Moron. In the first place, those materials are, in them- selves, perfectly wholesome. They are exactly analogous to olive oil. They are used constantly and largely in the place of olive oil in many countries. Sesame oil is used abroad in the same way that we use olive oil. It is an article of food. The people who use it know exactly what it is, and it is largely used. Senator GEORGE. Are you speaking now of cotton-seed oil ? IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. Ou Professor MorvTon. Not exclusively. J say that the oil of sesame is used in Turkey and Asia, where it is largely raised, and it is also raised in the South to some extent. Cotton-seed oil is also used in that way. In fact, the larger part of the olive oil that we use on our tables is made of cotton-seed oil. Senator GEORGE. Cotton seed oil is a healthful product, then ? Professor Morton. Yes, it is a perfectly healthy product. In the next place, with regard to butyrine. Butyrine itself in butter, of course, while it remains as butyrine is a source of no inconvenience, and it gives a flavor to the butter. It is quite as digestible, perhaps a trifle more digestible, than the other fats. Butitis present in such small quantities thatit makes no practical difference. It would be the difference between the digestibility of mutton, veal, beef, and other kinds of meat. To some persons one might be more digestible than the other. Itis, however, lia- ble to decompose, and in fact is one of the most readily decomposed bodies present inthe fat. When butter becomes rancid and disagreeable, when it has that sharp, biting taste, it is simply because the butyrine is sepa- rated into glycerine and butyric acid. Butyrie acid in perfection, one might say, is an intensely strong acid. It is an acid which, if pure, would be a deadly poison. If you should swallow half an ounce of pure butyric acid it would have a fatal effect, just as a half an ounce of acetic acid would. It comes from butyrine, and is intensely strong, and will displace some of the strongest mineral acids in chemistry. You all know the peculiar flavor of Roquefort cheese, how sharp itis. That sharpness consists in a mnere trace of butyric acid. Therefore you can imagine that butyric acid, pure and simple, is quite a powerful acid, and really a corrosive agent. But of course it is present in that form in a very minute quantity only. When butter becomes rancid even that small quantity is highly irritating to the stomach. It is not only disagree- able, but very unwholesome. In this way the presence of butyrine is ob- jectionable, becanse it makes the butter liable to undergo that change, which it is not lable to undergo without it. Therefore oleomargarine will keep much longer than ordinary butter, as it contains less butyrin. Senator JONES. In how many factories have you ever seen this sub- stance prepared? Professor MORTON. In about six factories. Senator JONES. Is the plant and machinery of this process expen sive? Professor MorTON. It is rather expensive. Senator JONES. Can it be manufactured in a small way and by small establishments profitably ? Professor Morton. Not with profit. It must be done, I should say, on a fairly large scale to be profitable. Senator JONES. Have you any idea how many establishments of this kind there are in New York and Philadelphia, for instance ? Professor Moron. [ have only heard of one in Philadelphia, and in New York, at present, I only know of four. Senator JONES. In those which you have examined are there any tricks of the trade resorted to—if | may use a vulgar expression—by which a cheaper product is made which is more deleterious or objection- able than a product honestly made? Professor Morton. None whatever. There is very little temptation to do such a thing. In other words, anything that will cheapen the product spoilsit. You can only make a good product. Any attempt to use fat that is really old and stale is unprofitable. An ounce of stale fat put into a ton of good fresh fat will spoil the whole thing before the 60 IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. process is completed. So that so far from their being any temptation to use anything impure, the object is to use the very best material, in order to make a good salable product. The CHAIRMAN. Do you think the lard is used because it is cheaper than beef fat? Professor Morton. No, sir; I think the motive is to improve the structure. The CHAIRMAN. What would you say of oleomargarine which con- tained 90 per cent. of lard and 10 per cent. of oleomargarine? Professor MORTON. J should say it was a very poor article. Of course, it may happen that some man may make a foolish experiment, thinking he is going to make it cheaper, but he will find out that he has cheated himself. He could not make a good article that he could sell twice to the same customer, unless he is honest and cleanly in the manufacture. Senator JoNES. We have been told about the vile compounds that are used in making the oleo—the fat of cats and dogs and animals which died of disease. Professor Morron. To any one who knows about it these stories are simply absurd. It is utterly impossible to do any such thing. As I have said, if the animal has been dead a short time the fat cannot be used. For instance, you could not use fat from the meat which is hung up and exposed for sale in market for the purpose of making oleomar- garine. Although such meat is not hurt for ordinary use, and can be cooked and eaten, the fat of it would be utterly ruined for the purpose of making oleomargarine. The exposure of the meat in the market would give the product a strong tallowy odor, different from a putrid one, but the moment you tasted it you would say that it was not butter. No one would eat it. It would not have a butter taste. The very same taste in beef to which we are accustomed would be considered offensive if observed in butter. The very same flavor that I have defined as tallowy does not offend us at all in connection with cooked meat, be- cause we are used to it in that connection. But if you try this experi- ment—if you take from a piece of beef you are eating a piece of the fat and chop it up fine and mix it with butter which you have on your table, and taste it, you would say it was very bad butter. It tastes good enough as beef fat, because you are eaccustomed to it in that way, but you object to that flav or in butter. It is just the same way Ww ith cheese. If you know you are eating a piece of Swiss cheese with its peculiar odor, vour sense is not offended. But if a piece of that cheese gets on the side of the table or on your coat, and you smell it, you think there is something very nasty about it. Senator JonES. Then you think that animals which have died a nat- ural death could not be used in this way, because a putrefaction would be produced in the manufacture ? Professor MorRTON. Yes, a change would be produced which would render the product tallow and not oleomargarine. Senator JONES. That you say would be unavoidable ? Professor MORTON. It would be unavoidable. It could not be helped. Senator JONES. You do not think you could make good oleomarga- rine out of a dead cat or dog ? Professor Morton. I will stake my reputation on that—tbat it could not be done, because I have tried an analogous experiment to that very thing. I have taken fat which was put in a barrel and left over night, and in melting it down I found that the product was perfectly offensive and could not be used for one moment. IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. 61 Senator BLAIR. I want to ask you a question in another direction. As I understand you, the object of this complicated process you have described is to produce something as much like good butter as possible ? Professor Morron. It is to produce something that shall be an effi- cient substitute for butter, that people can use as they do butter. Senator BLatr. To make it as much like it as possible and get a healthy food ? Professor MorRTON. Yes; that is the idea. Senator BLAIR. You have spoken of various coloring matters put into butter as well as into oleomargarine—and right here I will ask you if you use the soft g in the word “ oleomargarine”? ? Professor MorTOoN. Yes, sir; I do. Senator BLArR. Lunderstand you that none of these coloring matters are either expensive or hurtful ? Professor MoRTON. That is true. Senator BLAtR. They are used in candies, butter, and various other articles ? Professor Morton. Yes, sir; used in confectionery. Senator BLAIR. What different colors are there used for the purpose of distinguishing articles one from the other? You have red in candy and yellow in butter. What other colors are used in that way ? Professor Moron. In candies they use very nearly every color, such as blue, red, green, and so on. Senator BLAIR. This is the point I desire to make: Is not the one great difficulty about this thing that the man who eats itdoes not know whether it is butter or oleomargarine—I mean the consumer, the man who puts it om his piece of bread and eats it. I am not talking about the purchaser, the hotel-keeper, or the landlord. But the consumer does not know what he is doing; he understands that be is eating but- ter. Now, suppose the law should require all oleomargarine to be cov- ered with some red substance and that all oleomargarine not of that particular color should be forfeited. It never could be mistaken for butter then, could it? Professor MORTON. No, sir. Senator BLAIR. Do you see any reasou—I observe nothing of the kind in this House bi/l—but do you see any reason why oleomargarine, if it is to be manufactured and sold, should not by law be required to be of some definite color which nobody could mistake for the color of butter, so that it could never be mistaken for butter unless butter was colored like oleomargarine. Can you see any reason why that should not be done? Professor MorToNn. I see many reasons why it would not be proper. Senator BLAIR. That could be left to those who make the laws on the subject; they could deal with that. But is there anything in that sug- gestion by which any harm would be done to any article of food, not oleomargarine alone? Professor Morron. It would not affect its wholesomeness, but it would affect it greatly as an article of food in the manufacture and sale of it, because the value of an article of food depends agreat deal upon the idea of the person who purchases it, and such a requirement would tend to disgust the purehaser with the article. Senator BLAIR. But if I want to eat butter and have all these preju- dices in favor of butter, do you think it is right that anybody should come aloug with a substitute which I think is butter and compel me to pay for it and eat it as butter. Is that right? 62 IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. Professor MorTON. It is not right that no guards should be thrown around butter, so that you do not know what you are eating. Senator BLAIR. For instance, you are going to sell me oleomargarine and Iam going to eat it. Youcan paint that oleomargarine red, or the color of the violet, or any color but the color which has been appropri- ated to butter ever since it was made the buttercup color. You can make it any color you please and appropriate that color to oleomarga- rine by law and it will be just as wholesome as before. Professor MORTON. it would be just as wholesome, of course, but it would be destroyed, almost, as an article of food. Senator BLAIR. But if 1 am the man to consume this product and pay for it, whether it be butter or oleomargarine, is it not fair that I should know what I am eating? Professor MorTON. I think so—if you wish to. Senator BLAIR. Is it fair for an oleomargarine man to put into it the color of butter when he can use anything else, and so sell me the prod- uct as butter? Professor MORTON. As regards that single point that is correct. Seuator BLAIR. That is not one that means simple dollars and cents. Professor MoRION. I cannot quite agree with you about that. Senator BLAIR. In what way will it interfere with the cost of the manufacture and the consumption of oleomargarine to paint it red and not allow it to be made of any other color ? Professor MORTON. By creating a prejudice and disgust in the minds of many men against it. Senator BLATR. Why should not oleomargarine tell the truth? Why should it be allowed to lie itself into my stomach? Should I pay for it under those circumstances ? Professor MORTON. No, sir. Senator BLAIR. That is all I want to ask you. Professor MorRTON. Itshould certainly be sold for what it is, and every guard should be put around it so that everybody may know what it is. Senator JONES. But the man who chooses to eat it ought to be allowed to have it of the color of butter, if he finds out what that is. Senator BLAIR. Yes, if he chooses to eat it himself; but if I want to eat Lutter, has he any right to ake this article like butter so that I cannot tell the difference, and say it is butter so that I pay for it as butter? Professor Morton. That assumes that the artificial color does make it so that it cannot be distinguished from butter. Senator BLAIR. What is the object of putting the color in ? Professor MORTON. To give it the same general appearance. Senator BLATR. You tell me in the first place that the object of the coloring process and everything else is to produce a healthy article of food just like butter to, take the place of butter in the market. Professor MORTON. Yes, and if you color it differently it will not take the place of it.. Senator BLAIR. But it will be just as good and wholesome as an ar- ticle of food ? Professor MorToN. Yes, aside from the influence upon the imagina- tion. Senator BLAIR. That prejudice will pass away very soon. Professor MorToN. Not in the present state of affairs. Senator BLAIR. Suppose butter had always been red, would we not have the same prejudice in favor of red butter as we now have in favor of yellow butter ? Protessor MORTON. I suppose so. IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. 63 Senator BLAIR. Suppose you do sell the oleomargarine for just what it is, the public do not know that they are eating oleomargarine; they think they are eating butter, and one reason is because it is yellow like butter. Suppose you made it red or violet, or appropriated some par- ticular color to oleomargarine, or let it go without any color whatever, then it would not be mistaken for butter. Professor Moron. All that might be possible if started judiciously ; but after all the statements that have been made about it and the pub- lic prejudice which has been worked up for years and years, it will take ten years to overcome it perhaps, and by that time the mischief is al- ready done. Senator BLAIR. But after all should not every product sell under its own color? Professor MorToN. I do not think so. We have ice cream which is of the same color as butter, and candies also. Senator BLATR. But we never understand that we are eating butter when we are eating ice cream. Senator GEORGE. I have been requested to ask several questions by some gentlemen present. You have probably gone all over this subject and therefore you can answer these questions without making much ex- planation. fam requested to ask you first to state your age, “residence, and ReoupaioN: Professor Morton. I am 49 vears of age; I reside in Hoboken, New Jersey, and am president of the Stevens Institute of Technology in Ho- boken, an institute of mechanical engineering. Senator GEORGE. What attention have you given to the study of chemistry, and for how long a time? Professor Morton. For over twenty-five years it has been my partic- ular life study. Senator GEORGE. What knowledge have you regarding the manu- facture of oleomargarine and relative substitutes for butter, as carried on in a commercial scale in this country ? Professor MoRTON. From the time the process was first invented and the product first came to this country I was informed about it, and have been called upon to examine various patents and processes continu- ously from year to year. Hardly a year has passed where something has not come to me to be examined and reported upon in connection with that subject. Senator GEORGE. What is your opinion in regard to this material as a wholesome article of food? Professor Mor'ron. I consider it perfectly wholesome. I eat it my- self without hesitation and have it often in ny house. Senator GEORGE. Is it true that this product can be or is made of improper substances or injurious substances, and that chemicals are used in its manufacture? Perhaps you have already answered thav. Professor MoRTON. Itis not true. It is utterly impossible to make it of tainted materials, and no chemicals are used in its manufacture—that is, nothing in the usual meaning of that term, such as violent corrosives or other injurious materials. Salt, which is in one sense a chemical sub- stance, is used. Senator GEORGE. Has any injurious substance been found in any specimen of oleomargarine by yourself or chemists of standing and re- pute, to your knowledge? Professor MORTON. None whatever; there is no evidence of any such thing. Senator GEORGE. Is it in your opinion probable or even possible 64 IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. under the normal conditions of manufacture, that any germs of disease could be introduced into oleomargarine ? Professor MoRToN. I do not believe it is at all possible or probable. Senator GEORGE. Whatare the comparative risks of the introduction of disease germs into oleomargarine and pure butter? Professor MORTON. They are considerably greater in pure butter. It is easier toget germsinto milk, and milk is never heated inthe making of butter, so that nothing is done to protect it. The risk of introducing the germs of consumption from cows suffering with that disease would be far greater in the manufacture of butter than in the manufacture of oleomargarine. Senator Gipson. What is the point of temperature to which oleemar- garine is raised in the process of manufacture ? Professor MoRTON. The individual particles of it come very nearly to the boiling point of water; just to a good cooking temperature. Senator Gipson. Would that destroy the germs necessarily ? Professor MorTON. It would destroy them under almost all cireum- stances There are cases, but very rare ones, indeed, in which germs will resist very high temperature, and in such cases they would not be destroyed by ordinary cooking. Senator GEORGE. What is your opinion of the relative digestibility of oleomargarine and butter ? Protessor Moron. I think they are substantially identical. If there is any difference it is only the difference, as I said before, between one variety of meat and another. Senator Gipson. How did this product or compound get the name of oleomargarine ? Protessor MORTON. Because at one time the intermediate fat between Stearine and olein, now called palmatin, was called margarine from margaris, a pearl. But it was afterwards found that it was really a mixture, and when the various substances were separated a new name was given to it and it was called palmatin, because it is similar to palm oil. But at the time it was first made public the old name was used. Senator GIBSON. Does the name in any degree indicate the elements of which the substance is composed ? Professor MORTON. Only the proximate elements—that it mainly con- sists of olein and margarine, which is another name for palmatin. Senator GIBSON. What is the popular name by which it is known to the trade? Professor MorvTon. It is known to the trade as oleo. Senator Gipson. How is it designated in commerce, for instance in a bill of sale, when it is sold for consumption and distribution ? Professor Mor'ron. I have heard it called oleomargarine and butter- ine. Those are the only names I have known. Senator GEORGE. What is the difference between oleomargarine and butterine ? Professor MorToN. There is no real difference. The name “ butter- ine” was introduced in England and the name “oleomargarine” was in- troduced in France. I do not know that there is any recognized differ- ence between them in the trade. Senator GEORGE. I have heard that the difference is that after oleo- margarine was wade it was mixed with butter, and that was all. Professor MORTON. Perhaps, among dealers. Ido not think there is any difference. Senator GIBSON. Those are the names by which it is known to the trade—oleomargarine and butterine ? IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. 65 Professor MORTON. Yes, sir. Senator Gipson. Do you know whether it is manufactured in foreign countries at all? Professor Morton. It is, very largely, and is regulated there by the Government. It is sold in great quantitiesin England. In Massachu- Setts it is sold under State regulations under its own name. Senator Grpson. And itis sold on the Continent, in France, Germany, and Italy ? Professor Morton. Yes: I do not know about Italy, but I know it is in England and that a great deal of it is made in Holland. Senator Gipson. Do you know what quantity is manufactured in the United States ? Professor Morton. I do not know the total quantity; I have seen it printed, but I have forgotten. Senator GrBson. Do you know the value of the product ? Professor MORTON. I do not remember ; it is very large. Senator GrBson. Could you furnish to the committee a statement of the quantity manufactured and its market value? Professor Morton. I cannot at this moment, but I will see that it is furnished. The CHAIRMAN. You state that the milk or cream and butter was mixed with it slightly to make it appear and taste like butter. Do you know whether any other materials are used to flavor oleomargarine ex- cept the milk and cream and butter ? Professor MorTON. [ have heard that on occasions other things have been added with a view of producing flavors. The CHAIRMAN. With a view to producing a butter flavor? Professor MorRvt0N. Yes; to produce a butter flavor. But they have been added, I think, by ignorant people, because they would not do it. The CHAIRMAN. What other things have been used for that purpose? Professor Moron. I have heard of butyric acid being put in, but the quantity was so minute as not to be appreciable. It was a foolish thing to do, and probably was never done except as an experiment. They may have been advised that it was a good thing to do, but upon trying it they would discover it was not. Senator Gipson. Is oleomargarine manufactured of different quali- ties ? Professor MorToN. Yes; there are different qualities of oleomarga- rine as there are of butter, but not within so wide a range. Senator Grpson. How many degrees of difference do exist in the actual market ? Protessor MoRTON. [imagine there areseveral, inthe sense that judges of these things will say, ‘“* Here is an oleomargarine with a particularly fine flavor.” For instance, if they use an extra amount of cream and milk in making it they will get a richer flavor, and it will be sold as a high grade of oleomargarine. Senator GIBSON. Do you know what scale of prices exist on the market—what is the product worth a pound generally? Professor Morton. I do not know. Ihave not followed that; but I think somewhere about 20 cents a pound. Senator Gipson. There is a ditference in the price, then ? Professor MoRTON. I presume so, but I could not say. I do not deal - in the article at all. Senator GIBSON. I am asking youas a professor whose attention has been drawn to the article. 17007 OL——5 66 IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. Professor MORTON. But my opportunities of learning about these things are very small. Senator Gipson. Are there as great differences in the qualities and prices of oleomargarine in the markets as there are in the prices of but- ter ? Professor Morton. No, sir; oleomargarine has a very narrow range. If itis not a good article you cannot sell it at all. If there is anything wrong about it, it becomes offensive. Whereas you might have very bad and rancid butter, and sell it at a very low price, you cannot have rancid oleomargarine and sell it any price at all. If itis not quite good, it has to be sold for tallow. Between that and the best of it there is not a very great range, although there is some. Senator PLUMB. Do you know of any difference in the method of manufacturing butterine and that employed in the manufacture of oleo- margarine? Professor MORTON. Only in this sense, that sometimes they speak of the extracting of this oleomargarine oi] as the making of oleomargarine, but they never use the term “making butterine” in that sense. But- terine always means the article finished so that it can go on the table for butter. The word ‘‘oleomargarine” may be used to designate the manufactaring of the oil or of the finished product. The word “ but- terine” refers to the finished product only. Senator PLUMB. You think what fixes the grade of each kind of but- terine is the use more or less of milk or cream? Professor MORTON. I think so. Senator PLUMB. Or the use of butter? Professor MORTON. Yes; [have heard of butter being mixed with it to increase its flavor. Senator PLUMB. I am told that in Kansas City one concern there buys the entire butter product of a large creamery. Professor Morton. They might well do so because of the additional flavor that would give it. Senator PLUMB. All the milk is brought down from three or four counties there and used. Senator BLAIR. Do those manufacturers make the article from its ele- ments to its complete preparation for the table ? Professor Moron. In some cases they do, and in some cases the manufacture is divided. Some manufacture the oleomargarine oil and then put it in tierces and send it to the other manufacturers who do the churning, the mixing of the material, and so on. It is a different kind of process. One process can be carried on very close to a slaughter house, where they want to get the fat as fresh as possible and try it out immediately. The churning part is better done of course at a distance. Senator BLAIR. That churning process could be done just as well in a farmer’s family as anywhere else, in small quantities? Professor MORTON. Oh, yes, it could be, and has been, and is being so done to some extent. ; Senator BLATR. You say this process is carried on by the farmers themselves to some extent. Professor MoRvToN. Yes, I have been told so. Senator BLAIR. What is there to prevent this coming to be a univer- sal thing, then, with the entire dairy interest, so that the oleomargarine interest will become amalgamated and absorbed the one in the other ? Professor MoRTON. I think there is this reason, that the best oleo- margarine you could possibly make, with any economy in making it, would never be so fine, in the sense of commanding so high a price, as IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. 67 thoroughly good butter. It is the peculiar fats of butter that give it a fine flavor, and you never could make an oleomargarine as good as the finest butter. Senator BLATR. Do you know anything of the prime cost of the man- ufacture of oleomargarine as compared with that of butter ? Professor MORTON. It varies. It depends on the price of beef and so on—what they have to pay for the fats. I have really no personal knowledge about that. Senator BLAIR. You have some idea perhaps or judgment about it? Professor MorRTON. Only from what I have seen in the papers. The CHAIRMAN. The professor appears as an expert and does not intend to speak on that part of the subject. Professor MorToN. No, sir; I have no knowledge in regard to it. I have no personal relations to these gentlemen. They simply asked me to come from my professional chair and make this statement to you. STATEMENT OF CHARLES F. CHANDLER. Prot. CHARLES F. CHANDLER, of Columbia College, New York, then addressed the committee: I would not, of course, wish to take up the time of the committee by repeating anything that Dr. Morton has said, but I will say at the outset that I agree with Dr. Morton in every statement that he has made. Senator GEORGE. You were present and heard his statement to the committee ? Professor CHANDLER. Yes, sir; I heard his statement which he has just concluded. I have been called upon officially on three different occasions to investigate this subject. I was first called upon as _ presi- dent of the board of health of New York City, by the State senate of New York, to carefully investigate it, and I prepared a report which was approved by my colleagues of the health department and _ for- warded to Albany. Afterwards, in 1880, I was called upon by the Com- mittee on Manufactures of the House of Representatives, and at that time I prepared a report with the approval of my colleagues of the health department, and I will leave a copy of that report with the com- mittee. Senator GEORGE. You indorse the statements therein made ? Professor CHANDLER. Yes, sir; I indorse them at the present time. I have not a copy of the first report sent to the New York State sen- ate, but it is essentially the same. I was afterwards called upon by the New York board of aldermen and made a report which was ap- proved by the board of health and which was printed in the City Record, of which this is a copy. Senator GEORGE. You reaffirm that statement now ? Protessor CHANDLER. I do; yes, sir. In all of these reports I have taken the ground that this is a new process for making an old article, and that article is butter. Thisis a new process for making butter. It is made of materials which are in every respect wholesome and proper articles of food, whether it be made solely from the oleomargarine ex- tracted from beef fat, or whether it has added to it more or less leaf lard properly prepared, or more or less sesame oil or cotton-seed oil, and whether it be or not colored with annatto or the other coloring matters used. I take the ground that there is nothing in any one of these ma- terials in any sense unwholesome, and nothing in any one of them which makes it inferior as an article of food to dairy butter. I regard the dis- 68 IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. covery of Mége-Mouries, of a process by which beef fat and hog fat can be extracted from adipose tissue and converted into a wholesome arti- cle of food free from any disagreeable taste or odor, as one of the most important discoveries made in this century, a discovery by which it is possible to make a perfectly pure and satisfactory, as well as a whole- some, article of food at a reasonable price. L have visited various fac- tories where this article is manufactured, from the time the industry be- gan down to date. Iam perfectly familiar with the materials employed and the different processes, and know there is nothing whatever used either in material or process which is unwholesome or in any way dele- terious to the public health. Senator GEORGE. Or which would be disgusting if known ? Professor CHANDLER. Precisely. On the contrary, the processes by which this kind of butter is manufactured are much more cleanly than the processes by which dairy butter is manufactured. The beef fat or leaf lard is taken out of the animals there, put into cold water, and thoroughly washed and cleansed. Senator PLUMB. Is if necessary that that should be done ? Professor CHANDLER. It is necessary. It is impossible to make an article that would sell unless this isdone. In order to remove and cool the fat at once, it is necessary that it should be washed, and the fat-is converted into butter in both stages without being handled in any way. Then it is worked up and melted in vessels in jacketed kettles, and theretore it is much more cleanly because never handled by human be- ings—all the work is accomplished by machinery. Whereas dairy but- ter is manufactured in small quantities without—well, it will hardly be worth while to say anything which will tend to disgust persons with dairy butter, and I will refrain from stating what everybody must know, that in some dairies at least cleanliness is not strictly observed. In the majority of the dairies the butter is constantly handled and worked hy human hands, which, to my mind, is a process of manufacture far less appetizing than the process by which the oleomargarine butter is formed. I, of course, have not followed all these proceedings before Congress, but I have read what has been printed, and am quite aware of the scope of this investigation. We had a senate investigation in New York City for the purpose of discussing fully the subject of artificial butter. The person who managed that investigation came and consulted me about it, but very carefully refrained from calling me as a witness, and the evi- dence taken before that commission is too ridiculous ever to have been printed by so august a body as the senate of the State of New York. The statements that were made there were utterly ridiculous. Stories with regard to offensive processes and offensive materials used in pre- paring food were rehearsed, and the story of the use of nitric acid was repeated, as well as the old story that the workmen employed in these factories lost their toe-nails in consequence of the acid which was used in working the fat, and many things of that kind. I never could under- stand how the State senators of New York could permit such testimony to go on record and be printed. But it was done, and that kind of evi- dence has been manufactured all over the country with the view of dis- gusting the public with this kind of butter. Artificial butter has never had a fair opportunity to be presented to the citizens of this country, and this legislation with regard to it recalls tomy mind legislation which is found in the records of the past. Some of you remember, I presume, that before the discovery of the passage around the Cape of Good Hope to India the only dye-stuff cul- tivated to any extent in England was woad, an inferior dye which our ® IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. 69 ancestors employed for dyeing their products. When the trade with Bengal sprang up, indigo was broughc to England, and immediately there was a great hue and cry made against indigo. It was said it was going to ruin the woad farmer of England, and they called it devil’s dirt—Teufelsdré6ckh was the name in German—and it was made a capi- tal crime in England, France, and Germany for anybody to be caught with indigo on his premises. It was not suggested that it should “be colored blue, because that was its natural color and it was not neces- sary. Soon after logwood was discovered in Honduras, and when it was attempted to introduce it into England as a dye laws were passed against it. We have had that kind of legislation always. It is not many years since a petition was presented to Parliament in England protesting against the use of bops in beer, on the ground that it would destroy the digestion of the English people. There was a sunilar attempt at legislation in regard to the burning of soft coal. They had used only wood and charcoal in England, and when it was proposed to take coal out of the ground and bring it to London they said it would ruin the industry of the people who cut wood in the forests to make charcoal; that it was unheaithy and would make a smoke that would get into the lungs of the knights who came from the country to Parliament to sit and legislate for the “people. With regard to the statements concerning the unwholesome eharae- ter of these materials, I have paid particular attei.tion to the subject, and feel competent to speak upon it. Senator GEORGE. Are you a doctor of medicine? Professor CHANDLER. [aman M.D., but [am nota practitioner of medi- cine. I have been a professor ina medical college for twenty years, and have made a special study of this subject of ger ms—nobr ecently, but I be- gan adozen years ago. I havea laboratory where I conduct my experi- ments by the use of the microscope, and [ am familiar with all the litera- ture on the subject of any value, and I do not hesitate to say that there is notbing whatever in the assertion that there is any danger of germs in this artificial butter. There is no foundation of fact at all for those statements. It is a bugbear which is conjured up in order to disgust people on the subject of beef fat. I have paid some attention to trichi- ne. President Arthur appointed me a member of the commission ap- pointed to investigate the character of swine products of the United States. This committee is aware that in Germany they started a theory that American hog products were unwholesome. Having called them all the bad names they could think of, they then legislated against them and excluded them from that country. In the course of that in- vestigation I found, in the first place, that American pork is remark- ably free from trichinz and other diseases of that character, and in the second place, that if the pork contained trichinwe, those little worms would not be in the fat which is used in the making of leaf lard. That is not the place for them. They go to the muscies and not to the fat, and if they did go there, it would not do any harm, because this fat fat is put through a hashing machine, the very object of which is to cut up the cells which contain the fat. That hashing process would be fatal to the trichinee or worms. Then after that the material is heated in the rendering and melting, so that if any life remained it would be destroyed in that process of heating. But if any should he so vigorous as to withstand these two processes, when the butter was salted it would be too much for them. It was held by the commission that as to trichinous pork, if salted down and left in brine a month or two, the result would be the killing of the trichinz worms. 70 IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. Senator Gipson. Has that report been printed ? Professor CHANDLER. Yes; it was printed by the United States Government. Senator Greson. Will you not make that a part of your statement, as it deals with this subject? Professor CHANDLER. Yes; I will make the papers I have spoken of a part of my statement. The papers referred to are as follows: Report on the Swine Products of the United States, Executive Doe- ument No. 106, House of Representatives, Forty-eighth Congress, first session. Also the following, which were ordered to be printed as a part of this record : HEALTH DEPARTMENT, No. 301 Mort STREET, New York, May 3, 1881. To the honorable the Board of Aldermen: At a meeting of the board of health, held this day, a report of the president on oleomargarine was presented and approved, and a copy was ordered to be forwarded to your honorable body as a response to resolution adopted on the 28th ult., and re- ceived on that date from your honorable body. A copy of the report is inclosed. Very respectfully, EMMONS CLARK, Secretary. New Yorn, May 2, 1881. To the Board of Health of the Health Department : Having been directed by this board to investigate the subject of oleomargarine, in response to the resolutions of the Board of Aldermen, I would beg leave to submit the following report : The resolutions directing the inquiry are as follows: ‘‘Whereas there is existing at the present time in the minds of the public great alarm and distrust in relation to the adulteration of food products ; and ‘Whereas the committee on public health of the assembly of this State has been for some time investigating the adulteration of food products, and especially oleo- margarine ; and ‘‘Whereas this committee have conducted such investigation by calling as wit- nesses principally dealers in hutter, and have not examined as witnesses medical or chemical experts to determine the value of oleomargarine as food: Therefore, ‘“* Resolved, That the board of health of this city be, and they are hereby, requested and directed to take immediate measures to investigate, in the most thorough man- ner, by medical and chemical aid, the purity, healthfulness, and value of said product as an article of food, and to report to this body the results of their investigation, with such recommendations, if any be necessary, as may relate to the manufacture and distribution of the same as an article of food.” This subject has been before the board on former occasions, and I have little to add to what has been previously stated. Oleomargarine, invented by the distinguished French chemist, Mege Mouries, is manufactured in New York City in a few large establishments. The material is fresh beef suet, brought directly from the slaughter-houses. It is thoroughly washed, ren- dered very carefully, strained to remove a portion of the hard stearine, and then churned with milk to convert it into artificial butter, which contains the same con- stituents as dairy butter. The process is extremely ingenious and simple, and is exe- cuted by machinery. Nothing objectionable exists in the original material, nor is anything objectionable added during the process, and the operations are conducted with the utmost cleanliness. The product is palatable and wholesome, can be made of uniform quality the year round, is in every respect superior as an article of food to a large proportion of the dairy butter sold in this city, and can be manufactured at a much lower price. I regard it as a most valuable article of food, and consider it entirely unexceptional in every respect. In this opinion I am supported by the best scientific authorities in the country. The following distinguished chemists, after carefully studying the manufacture, haye made the most decided statements in favor of this new article of food: Prof. George F. Barker, University of Pennsylvania. IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. 71 Dr. Henry A. Mott, jr., New York. Prof. G. C. Caldwell, Corneli University, Ithaca, N. Y. Prof. 8S. W. Johnson, Yale College, New Haven, Conn. Prof. C. A. Goessmann, Massachusetts Agricultural College, Amherst, Mass. Prof. Henry Morton, Stevens Institute, Hoboken, N. J. Prof. Charles P. Williams, Philadelphia. Prof. W. O. Atwater, Wesleyan University, Middletown, Conn. Prof. J. W.S. Arnold, University of New York. I would further say that this question is one on which there is no difference of opin- ion among scientific investigators familiar with the chemistry of dairy products and fats, I have never seen a statement emanating from any person having any standing among scientific men in which a contrary opinion is advanced. There has recently been a very strong confirmation of my opinion published in England. A bill came before the House of Commons in England, directed against this kind of butter from America, and, after considerable discussion, was defeated by a vote of 75 to 59. In the discussion the stro: gest opponent to legislation against it was Dr. Lyon Playfair, one of the most distinguished chemists and sanitary authorities in England. A pupil of Graham and Liebig, he has filled the chairs of chemistry in the Royal Institution of Manchester, and at the University of Edinburgh was appointed Chemist to the Museum of Practical Geology by Sir Robert Peel, represented the Universities of Ed- inburgh and Aberdeen in Parliament, was postmaster-general in the first Gladstone cabinet, has been member of several sanitary commissions, and is now a leading member of Parliament. In his remarks he stated that ‘‘bad butter is a fraud upon the poor, and oleomargarine would sooner or later drive it out of the market”; he “thought that good oleomargarine at one shilling a pound was a great deal better and cheaper than bad butter at one shilling fourpencea pound”; and he said that ‘‘as a general rule the former (oleomargarine) did not become so readily rancid as the lat- ter (butter).” I would further state that as there is nothing unwholesome in oleomargarine, no legislation in regard to this article is necessary to protect the public health. I append to this report a copy of the resolutions adopted by this Board on February 8, 1872, in response to a resolution of the State senate requesting an opinion; and also a copy of a report which I made on March 27, 1880, in response to an inquiry ad- dressed to me by Hon. M. R. Wise, chairman of the Committee on Manufactures of the House of Representatives. All of which is respectfully submitted, C. F. CHANDLER, President. [Report to the Senate of the State of New York. ] NEW YORK, February 8, 1878. To the Honorable the Senate of the State of New York: The Board of Health of the Health Department of the City of New York having been requested to report upon the subject of oleomargarine, by the following resolu- tions of the Honorable the Senate of the State of New York: ** Resolved, That the Board of Health of the City of New York be requested to re- port to the Senate at as early a day as possible: “Ist. Whether, in the opinion of said Board, oleomargarine is a good and wholesome article as food. 2d. That if it is not, what legislation is required to effectually prevent its manu- facture and sale. “3d. That ifit is, what additional legislation is necessary to prevent its imposi- tion upon the public as pure butter, the product of the dairy.” —has given to the subject due consideration, and is of the opinion: Ist. That oleomargarine is a good and wholesome article of food. 2d. That no legislation is necessary to prevent its imposition upon the public as pure butter, the product of the dairy, additional to chapter 415 of the laws of 1877. All of which is respectfully submitted. By order of the Board, C. F. CHANDLER, President. EMMONS CLARK, Sccretary. EMMONS CLARK, A true copy. 72 IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. [Letter to Hon. M. R. Wise, Chairman of the Committee on Manufactures, House of Representatives. } HEALTH DEPARTMENT, 301 Morr STREET, New York, March 27, 1880. My Dear Sir: In reply to your letter of inquiry, I would say that I have been fa- miliar with the discovery of Mége Mouries and its application in the manufacture of artificial butter, called ‘‘butterine,” or ‘‘ oleomargarine,” since the date of its first pub- lication. I have frequently seen it manufactured, witnessing all the operations, and examin- ing both the material and the product. I have studied the subject with special reference to the question of its use as food, in comparison with the ordinary butter made from cream, and have satisfied myself that it is quite as valuable as the butter from the cow; that the material from which it is manufactured is perfectly fresh beef suet; that the processes are harmless; that the manufacture is conducted with great cleanliness. The product is palatable and wholesome, and J regard it as a most valuable article of food, and consider the dis- covery of Mége Mouries as marking an era in the chemistry of the fats. Butterine is manufactured of uniform quality the year round, and can be sold at a price far below that at which ordinary butter is sold. It does not readily become ran- cid, and is free from the objectionable taste and odor which characterize a large pro- portion of the butter sold in this market. IT am informed that there are at present thirteen factories in the United States li- censed under the patents to manufacture this butter. The Commercial Manufactur- ing Company of New York is making at the present from 30,000 to 40,900 pounds daily. In addition to this industry there is a large manufacture of what is known as ‘“‘oleo- margarine oil,” which is shipped as such to Europe, to be there converted into butter 5 so that this product has become an important article of export to fureign countries. The beef suet which was formerly converted into common tallow, only suitable for the manufacture of soap, is, by this beautiful discovery, now manufactured into oleo- margarine oil and stearine of double the value of the tallow formerly produced. The following analyses made by Drs. Brown and Mott sufficiently illustrate the composi- tion of the butterine: ] : | No. 1, No. 2, Constituents. | natural butter. artificial butter. “TVET Re ein Ee ALI (al ACA ED NE | 11. 968 | 11. 203 IBUTHORSOLOSses fac ree cee Sen menace = cece eee em ems ene Be Se SEE | 88. 032 | 88. 797 100. 000 | 100. 000 Tnsoluble fats: | | NiGibaescugodeaboceee soboco nde SoveseegotSaesoet, Ene Ein Seve whatsi clavate a | aGa ROS. on. tee RP SL. OEE ATER, ¢| ues 24, 893 SCO ANTING rere es meee ene oe ee ls Ate ena en = la ctw awe rota aie Severe arent | | INSPNO MIN Ss cdo doce sca se dacae sed Gcmcacadosreodmn dada dee see se EECIaS | 51. 422 56. 29 NAHI SENSE Ae abee seeing sobs enc a= so 4e ates aoe seeme eS SenUoecce HSaaae } Soluble fats: puty yn ifs Se lars acai stag a ayo ters aferere ie eiarnee aes ete tet set ohba ce icaaie etdele slate ] SyPTUN eels SE LR ee ee Ne Bee Me ce eS ieiaie es ee ieee a (ORV ewe hes Sas pesos cose seep eae ero SMHEb So SMoraStar oubesan sosce 7 ( 7. 432 1, 828 Garoriy in Mee ay ce mete ere ace ore etna atom ase ora eg aja e atatctere ein a cieter are J Casein es at cc ce ce smece comes Soe wuis tee se cee eae eNO E oe Rien etantceoete . 192 . 621 SaliGuee Edee sailor Seis aw tees as ale eo satstniciermie Perio ne aisle ciao @ baum eeme tee 5. 162 | 5. 162 Coloringemattersccesceencee sek eae eee otlae os nese seein ees ein eels Trace. Trace. 88. 032 88. 797 Last winter a resolntion was adopted by the legislature of the State of New York requesting the board of health of the city of New York to investigate the subject, and report, whether in its opinion the butterine is a wholesome article of food. In response to this resolution, the board of health stated that in its opinion there is no sanitary objection whatever to the unrestricted manufacture and sale of this sub- stance. In support of my opinion herein expressed, I inclose the statement to the same effect made by Prof. George F. Barker, of the University of Pennsylvania; Dr. Henry A. Mott, jr., of New York; Prof. 8. C. Caldwell, of Cornell University ; Prof. S. W. Johnson, of Yale College; Prof. C. A. Goessmann, of the Massachusetts Agricultural College ; Prof. Henry Morton, of the Stevens Institute of Technology, of Hoboken ; IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. 73 Dr. Charles P. Williams, of Philadalphia; Prof. W. O. Atwater, of the Wesleyan University at Middletown, Conn.; and Professor J. W. S. Arnold, of the medical de- partment of the University of New York. Hoping that this, my reply, contains all the information you desire, I remain, Very respectfully, yours, CH. F. CHANDLER, Pu. D., President of the Board of Health. To Hon. M. R. WISE, Chairman of the Committee on Manufactures, House of Representatives, Washington D. C, {Letter from Professor Barker. } UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA, Philadelphia, March 22, 1880. The United States Dairy Company: GENTLEMEN: In reply to your inquiry, I would say that I have been acquainted for several,years with the discovery of Mége Mouries for producing butterine from oleomargarine fat. In theory, the process should yield a product resembling butter in all essential respects, having identically the same fatty constituents. The butter- ine prepared under the inventor’s patents is, therefore, in my opinion, quite as valu- able a nutritive agent as butter itself. In practice, the process of manufacture, as I have witnessed it, is conducted with care and great cleanliness. The butterine pro- duced is pure and of excellent quality, is perfectly wholesome, and is desirable as an article of food. I can see no reason why butterine should not be an entirely satis- factory equivalent for ordinary butter, whether considered from the physiological or commercial standpoint. Respectfully yours, GEORGE F. BARKER. [Letter from Dr. H. A. Mott, jr., Ph. D., E. M., Analytical and Consulting Chemist, office 117 Wall street. | New York, March 12, 1880. United States Dairy Company: GENTLEMEN: Having been acquainted for the past six years with the process of the manufacture of the product called eleomargarine butter, or butterine, and hay- ing made numerous microscopical and chemical examinations of the product, I am clearly of the opinion that the product called oleomargarine butter is essentially identical with butter made from cream; and as the former contains less of those fats which, when decomposed, render the product rancid, it can be kept pure and sweet for a much longer time. I consider the product of the Mége discovery a perfectly pure and wholesome ar- ticle of food, which is destined to supplant the inferior grades of butter, and be placed side by side with the best product of the creamery. Respectfully j HENRY A. MOTT, Jr., Pu. D. (Letter from Professor Caldwell. } CHEMICAL LABORATORY, CORNELL UNIVERSITY, Ithaca, N. Y., March 20, 1880. I have witnessed, in all its stages, the manufacture of ‘‘oleomargarine” and of oleomargarine butter or ‘‘ butterine.” The process for oleomargarine, when properly conducted, as in the works of the Commercial Manufacturing Company, is cleanly throughout, and includes every rea- sonable precaution necessary to secure a product entirely free from animal tissue, or any other impurity, and which shall consist of pure fat made up of the fats commonly known as oleine and margarine. It is, when thus prepared, a tasteless and inodorous substance, possessing no qualities whatever that can make it in the least degree un- wholesome when used in reasonable quantities as an article of food. In the manufacture of butterine, since nothing but milk, annotto, and salt, together with perhaps a little water from clean ice, are added to this oleomargarine, to be in- timately mixed with it by churning and other operations, I have no hesitation in 14 IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. affirming that this also, when properly made according to the Mége patent and other patents held by the United States Dairy Company, and when used in reasonable quantities, isa perfectly wholesome article of food; and that, 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 cannot enter into competition with fine butter; but in so far as it may serve to drive poor butter out of the market, its manufacture will be a public benefit. 8. C. CALDWELL. | Letter from Professor Johnson. } SHEFFIELD SCIENTIFIC SCHOOL OF YALECOLLEGE, New Haven, Conn., March 20, 1880. The United States Dairy Company : GENTLEMEN: I am acquainted with the process discovered by M. Mége for produc- ing the article known in commerce as oleomargarine or butterine. I have witnessed the manufacture in all its stages, as carried out on the large scale, and I can assert that when it is conducted according to the specifications of M. Mége it cannot fail to yield a product that is entirely attractive and wholesome as food, and one that is for all ordinary, culinary, and nutritive purposes the full equiy- alent of good butter made from cream. Oleomargarine butter has the closest resemblance to butter made from cream in its external qualities—color, flavor, and texture. It has the same appearance under the microscope, and in chemical composition differs not in the nature, but only in the proportions of its components. It is therefore fair to pronounce them essentially identical, While oleomargarine contains less of those flavoring principles which characterize the choicest butter, it is, perhaps, for that very reason comparatively free from the tendency to change and taint, which speedily renders a large proportion of butter unfit for human food. I regard the manufacture of oleomargarine or butterine as a legitimate and benefi- cent industry. S. W. JOHNSON, Professor of Theoretical and Agricultural Chemistry, Director of the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station. {Letter from Professor Goessmann. } AMHERST, Mass., March 20, 1880. United States Dairy Company, New York: GENTLEMEN : I have visited on the 17th and 1&th of the present month, your fac- tory on West Forty-eighth street, for the purpose of studying your mode of applying Mége’s discovery for the manufacture of oleomargarine butter or butterine. A care- ful examination into the character of the material turned to account, as well as into the details of the entire management of the manufacturing operation, has convinced me that your product is made with care, and furnishes thus a wholesome article of food. Your oleomargarine butter or butterine compares in general appearance anl in taste very favorably with the average quality of the better kinds of the dairy but- ter in our markets. In its composition it resembles that of the ordinary dairy butter; and in its keeping quality, under corresponding circumstances, I believe it will sur- pass the former, for it contains a smaller percentage of those constituents (glycerides of volatile acids) which, in the main, cause the well-known rancid taste and odor of a stored butter. I am, very respectfully, yours, C. A. GOESSMAN, Ph. D., Professor of Chemistry. {Letter from Professor Morton. ] STEVENS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, Hoboken, N. J., March 16, 1880. United States Dairy Company: . GENTLEMEN: During the last three years I have had occasion to examine the prod- not known as artificial butter, oleomargarine or butterine, first produced by M. Mége, of Paris, and described by him in his patent of July 17, 1369. IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. 75 I have also frequently witnessed the manufacture of this material, and with these opportunities of knowing exactly what it is, lam able to say with confidence that it contains nothing whatever which is injurious as an article of diet; but, on the on- trary, is essentially identical with the best fresh butter, and is very 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 conseq nt purity in the product, sach as are by no means necessarily or generally attainei n the ordinary making of butter from cream. Yours, &c¢., HENRY MORTON. [Letter from Dr. Williams.] LABORATORY, No. 912 SAMSON STREET, Philadelphia, March 22, 1880. * During a period of upwards of two years I have been practically familiar with the details of the manufacture by the Mége method of oleomargarine butter or ‘‘ but- terine.” From my experience and observation of the care and cleanliness absolutely necessary in the manufacture of this product, together with my knowledge of its com- position, I am satisfied that 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. I will add further, that, owing to the presence of a less quantity of the volatile fats, the keeping qualities of the oleomargarine butter are far superior to those of the dairy product. CHARLES P. WILLIAMS, Pu. D., Analytical Chemist, late Director and Professor Missouri School of Mines, State University. —== = {Letter from Professor Atwater. | WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY, Middletown, Conn., March 29, 1880. I have carefully looked into the theory and the practice of the manufacture of but- terine (oleomargarine) by the ‘‘Mége process,” and examined the product. A con- sideration of the materials used, the process of manufacture, and the chemical and microscopical character of the butterine, seem to me to fully justify the following statements : As to its qualitative composition, it contains essentially the same ingredients as natural butter from cow’s milk, Quantitatively, it differs from ordinary butter in having but little of the volatile fats which, while they are agreeable in flavor, are, at the same time, liable to ran- cidity. I should, accordingly, expect butterine to keep better than ordinary butter. The best evidence within my reach indicates that just such is the case. The but- terine is perfectly wholesome and healthy, and has a high nutritious valne. The same entirely favorable opinion I find expressed by the most prominent European authorities—English, French, and German—who are unanimous in their high esti- mate of the value of the ‘‘Mége discovery,” and approval of the material whose pro- duction has thereby been made practicable. I am, very truly, yours, W. O. ATWATER. {Letter from Professor Arnold. } UNIVERSITY PHYSIOLOGICAL LABORATORY, 410 Kast Tweuty-sixth street, April 2, 1880, This is to certify that I have carefully examined the ‘‘Mége Patent Process ” for the manufacture of oleomargarine butter or butterine; that I have seen and tasted at the factory each and every ingredient employed; that I have made thorough microscop- ical examinations of the materials used and of the butter; and I consider that each and every article employed in the manufacture of oleomargarine butter or butterine is perfectly pure and wholesome; that the oleomargarine butter differs in no essential manner from butter made from cream ; in fact, the oleomargarine butter possesses the advantage over natural butter of not decomposing so readily, as it contains fewer volatile,tats. 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. J. W. S. ARNOLD, A. M., M. D,, Professor Physiology and Histiology, Medical Department, University of New York. 76 IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. The CHAIRMAN. You stated at the beginning of your remarks that this article of oleomargarine had never been fairly presented to the American people. How would you have it presented, on its own merits, or in what way? ' Professor CHANDLER. On its own merits. of course. The State of New York is spending $50,000 a year to disgust people with oleomar- garine and artificial butter. I would have no legislation to forbid the manufacture or sale of it, but I would forbid the sale of it fraudulently. There is no one in the United States who has done more to prevent the sale of fraudulent and adulturated food than I have. The milkmen of New York City aloue paid nearly $50,000 into the city treasury by way of fines while I had charge of that business. The CHAIRMAN. You think this article ought to be seld to the con- sumer for just what it is? Professor CHANDLER. Yes; and we have laws enough to effect that object. Congress has passed a law on the subject of food adultera- tions, which I took part in drawing up. That law has been adopted in New York and other States. As chairman of the sanitary com- mittee of the State beard of health I attempted to enforce it, but while the legislature appropriated $50,000 to hound down this butter, I could not get money enough to pay counsel to prosecute cases of adul- terated food in New York. We tried to stop the sale of adulterated medicines, but could not get an appropriation for the purpose. The State board did what it could, but it was not supported. The CHAIRMAN. Are not the laws in New York in regard to oleo- margarine directed towards the compelling of dealers who handle it to sell it for what it is? Professor CHANDLER. They are; but the difficulty is that we have State officers whose business it is to disgust people with it, and who print reports and continue to circulate these absurd stories about the unwholesomeness of it. They sell it in Massachusetts for what it is. Senator BLAIR. | believe you stated that you indorsed everything that Professor Morton stated to the committee. Professor CHANDLER. I do. Senator BLAIR. He says that it is admitted everywhere that coloring matter is in it, and that it is innocent in its effects. Do you admit that? Professor CHANDLER. I do. Senator BLAIR. And that the yellow color is introduced to make it look more like natural butter than it otherwise would. Now, my ques- tion is this: If oleomargarine is to be colored at all, and your object is that it shall be sold for what it is, and stand upon its own merits, and if the coloring matter that is used is not hurtful or expensive, why should not that coloring matter be such as to distinguish oleomargarine from butter, and let the two articles go upon the market of different colors, so that to the consumer the difference may be made one of actual demonstration ? Professor CHANDLER. Because the people who want butter want it yellow. Senator BLAIR. Do you think that is an answer to my question? Professor CHANDLER. I do. I think it would be very wrong to com- pel the manufacturer to color his product red. Senator BLAIR. Then the people who want to eat oleomargarine could do so, and every one could distinguish it. Professor CHANDLER. But when they want to eat it they want it yellow. Senator BLAIR. Do you think that is a perfectly honest answer ? IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. 17 Professor CHANDLER. I do think so, and I think it would be a great hardship to compel people who want to eat oleomargarine to have to have it red when they want it yellow. Senator BLAIR. You admit that it is just as healthy as an article of food if colored in that way ? Professor CHANDLER. Yes; it is just as wholesome. Senator BLAIR. Is it not colored yellow for the purpose of making a more complete imitation of dairy butter? Professor CHANDLER. It is colored yellow because it is butter, just as much as the other is butter. Senator BLAIR. Is it dairy butter? Professor CHANDLER. No, sir; it is not dairy butter; it is artificial butter. Senator BLAIR. Please use the two terms so as to distinguish them in your answer. Do you understand that this is a controversy between butter on the one hand and an article which looks to be actually the same thing? Professor CHANDLER. Yes; except that it is oleomargarine. Senator BLarr. But the public who furnish the money to buy the article understand they are purchasing dairy butter. Professor CHANDLER. They do not in Boston. They do not where it is properly sold without Government interference. Senator BLarr. Do you believe that one man in a hundred who eats oleomargarine understands that he is not eating dairy butter? Protessor CHANDLER. | do not suppose he does in New York State, but the inspector in Boston, where they have a law to prevent its sale for anything but butter, reports that he has found that in almost all cases the article is properly sold, and that all means are used of informing the customer what it is, and it is bought in small! quantities by consumers. Senator BLarr. And at substantially the same price as butter? Professor CHANDLER. No; it is cheaper than butter made from milk. Senator BLATR. How much cheaper ? Professor CHANDLER. It is sold at wholesale in New York at present for 105 cents a pound. Senator BLarr. | am speaking of the price to the consumer. Professor CHANDLER. It is sold at retail at 18 cents a pound; that is about the price, as I am told by dealers. Senator BLAIR. And at about the same price in Massachusetts ? Professor CHANDLER. I presume so; I do not know. Senator BLAIR. Do you know the price of dairy butter in the same localities ? Professor CHANDLER. The last time I heard my wife say anything about it she was paying 80 cents a pound. Senator BLAIR. Do you understand that is the ordinary price? Professor CHANDLER. It is for some grades. That was the Darling- ton butter. Senator BLAIR. I do not care to consume more time, but this other question is purely a chemical or scientific one. It is admitted by both gentlemen that the coloring matter is not expensive or hurtful. I would Jike to know why there is any objection to employing a differ- ent color, so that the articles might be distinguished. Dairy butter being naturally yellow, let the oleomargarine be sold with some other color. | Professor CHANDLER. My objection to that is simply this: In mv Opinion, as soon as poor people find out that they can get an article of 78 IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. food which is just as good as dairy butter for a considerable less price, they will buy it for what it is. But they will not want it colored red or blue; they want it yellow. We all want to spread our bread with yellow fat; we do not want to spread it with red fat; and I do not see why the poor people of this country should not be permitted to pur- chase butter made artificially if it 1s just as good and just as whole- some as the butter made from cream. Senator BLAarr. And you would add to that, if they have knowledge of what they are purchasing. Professor CHANDLER. Certainly. We have laws sufficient already, if they are properly enforced, to prevent fraud in butter. They should be enforced. That is the way it is done in Europe. The only country that has a prohibitory law against the sale of artificial butter is Schles- wig-Holstein. France, Germany, Russia, Portugal, Sweden, and Spain have no laws against the sale of it. They have strict laws against frauds and adulterations in food, but as I said there is no prohibitory legislation against artificial butter except in the little state of Schles- wig-Holstein. Whether they carry it out or not I do not know. The CHAIRMAN. Sweden has a law which permits it to be sold under very great restrictions. Senator PLUMB. Why do you pay 80 cents a pound for dairy butter and use itin the place of this other article, which you say is just as good and which you can buy for 18 cents a pound ? Professor CHANDLER. Because my wife has a fancy for it, and if I can satisfy her fancy for it | am willing to do it. It makes no difference to me. I like oleomargarine, and am perfectly satisfied with it. I have bought it and send it to the hospital on Blackwell’s Island, of which I have charge. Senator BLAIR. Would you regard it as the proper thing to do to put it on your table so that your wife and children would eat it as 18-cent butter? Professor CHANDLER. I did do that. I took some of it and had it put upon the table for the use of the family, and they ate it for two days without discovering what it was. Then I bought some gilt-edge butter, but my wife and family suspected it was oleomargarine, and nothing would induce them to touch it. I would simply like to say further that I have carefully studied the literature of this subject and I have not found, either in this country or abroad, any chemist or physiologist who has any standing in the profes- sion who has ever uttered an opinion adverse to artificial butter. Certain persons who have no standing whatever, in the employ of these parties, who are paid by State governments to hound this article of food, have put forth statements, and one of them has published pictures attempt- ing to disgust people by illustrating what he alleged to be what he saw in these compounds under the microscope. His statements are entirely without foundation. He made similar ones against the Croton water in New York when he had a filter to sell. He published just such pict- ures, showing every conceivable creature as growing in the Croton water, in vrder to disgust people with the water. Senator Gipson. Is dairy butter colored ? Professor CHANDLER. Yes, sir; more than half the time. Senator GrBson. Is it a product or a manufactured article? Professor CHANDLER. Butter is a manufactured article just as oleo- margarine is a manufactured article. . Senator Gipson. As a practical chemist, will you tell us some of the differences in the manufactured product ? IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. 79 Professor CHANDLER. The finished dairy butter and the finished artificial butter are the same. There is nothing in one not found in the other. All the percentages of stearine, palmatin, and olein, and the percentages of water and of salt, are practicaily the same in the two kinds of butter. Senator Gipson. Therefore, when you observed that oleomargarine was butter you spoke scientifically. Professor CHANDLER. Yes, sir; I spoke scientifically, regardless of the question in controversy. I was speaking simply of the finished article when it is put on the table, and I say they are essentially the same thing. Senator GIBson. And the coloring process used in the manufacture of dairy butter is the same as the coloring process used in the manu- facture of oleomargarine ? Professor CHANDLER. It is the same thing exactly, and they color it just in the same way. The same coloring matter, annatto, is generally used. It is used by the farmer when his cows produce milk that makes white butter. Senator GIBSON. Suppose Congress should pass a bill prohibiting the - coloring of dairy butter, what effect would that have? Professor CHANDLER. Dairy butter would not be as acceptable to the consumer, and it would be a bad law. Senator GIBSON. Snppose Congress required the dairy butter to be colored red, would not that protect people against oleomargarine if that remained of a yellow color? Professor CHANDLER. Yes; and it would ‘“*boom” oleomargarine. Senator GIBSON. Suppose Congress should pass a law providing that oleomargarine should be colored yellow, and dairy butter should be colored red. Would that be satisfactory or proper, do you think? Professor CHANDLER. No, sir; I think it would be very wrong. The CHAIRMAN. Perhaps you had better state that the butter made from the grass in summer time is naturally yellow. Senator GiBson. I desire to add that I come from a country where there is as good grass as in New York. The CHAIRMAN. You are aware, of course, that the greater proportion of butter is not colored at all. Senator Grspson. I was brought up around Lexington, Ky., in the blue-grass region, where we think we can produce pretty good butter ; but the best butter I ever ate was along the Gulf of Mexico, where the cows feed on cane, and it makes the best butter I have ever seen. The CHAIRMAN. I think it is too broad a statement to say that all dairy butter is colored. It is not colored, as a rule, in the summer time ; but in the winter time it is done to keep it the same color. Professor CHANDLER. About half of the dairy butter is colored, I understand. Senator VAN Wyck. I understood you a few minutes ago, in speak- ing of the examinations and reports made by some chemist or scientist connected with the State of New York, to say that the State was pay- ing him for circulating reports against oleomargarine. Professor CHANDLER. No, sir; Ido not think the gentleman who pub- lished the pictures I referred to was connected with the State of New York. I meant to say that the State of New York appropriates $50,000 a year to support what they call the dairy commission, which was originated for the sole purpose of interfering with the sale of artificial butter. There was no excuse for the passage of the bill to interfere 80 IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. with the sale of bad milk, for we had all the law we wanted, and I was enforcing it as chairman of the State board. Senator VAN Wyck. Those gentlemen who made this scientific ex- amination were professional gentlemen? Professor CHANDLER. They may call themselves such, but they have no standing. Senator VAN Wyck. You spoke of their being under pay from some source—the class of men who furnish those reports. I want to ask you—it would be but fair—whether the scientific gentiemen who are here arguing in favor of oleomargarine are doing it simply for the pub- lic good, or whether they are paid for their services? Professor CHANDLER. My investigations were made in the interest of the city of New York, as president of the board of health. Senator VAN Wyck. Then scientific gentlemen are paid on both sides ? Professor CHANDLER. I do not quite understand your meaning. Senator VAN Wyck. You said those who spoke against oleomar- garine were paid by the State. Now, my question is, are not the gentle- men who are advocating oleomargarine paid in some way, or do they do it for the public good? Professor CHANDLER. I say the reason why the public is prejudiced against oleomargarine and other forms of artificial butter is because the State spends $50,000 a year in discrediting it. Senator VAN Wyck. Precisely. But oleomargarine is advocated by equally distinguished chemists, who are endeavoring to allay this public clamor, and they are equally paid, are they not, from some source, or do they do this as a labor of love, in the interest of the public? Professor CHANDLER. Oh, no. I presume that the experts who have left their homes to come before this committee will receive some compensation for it. Senator VAN Wyck. Then you are on the same footing so far as com- pensation is concerned; the advocates on both sides are compensated? Professor CHANDLER. Butit makes a great deal of difference whether a man makes his living solely out of a certain thing, or whether a per- son who has made investigations in the public interest is asked to come before the committee and his expenses are paid for doing so. Senator GrBson. What is the natural color of dairy butter? Professor CHANDLER. It is a pale yellow. Senator GrBson. What is the natural color of oleomargarine ? Professor CHANDLER. It is almost white. Senator GIBSON. So that naturally these two products do differ in color? Professor CHANDLER... Yes, sir. Senator GIBSON. And might be detected one from the other ? Professor CHANDLER. Yes, sir. There would not be so much differ- ence in color in the winter. Winter butter, if not colored, would not have much more color than artificial butter uncolored; it would have a little more, perhaps. I do not know that I have anything further to say,excépt that I have the names here of twenty or thirty of the best chemists in this country and abroad, who have committed themselves favorably on this subject. Prof. George F. Barker, of the University of Pennsylvania; Prof. S. W. Johnston, head of the agricultural experiment station in Connecticut; Prof. 8. C. Caldwell, who is the professor of agricultural chemistry at Cornell University; Prof. C. A. Goessman, of the State Agricultural College of Massachusetts; Prof. J. W.S. Arnold, who was professor of IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. - sl physiology in the University of the State of New York; Prof. W.O. At- water, of the Wesleyan University at Middletown, Conn., the writer of the article on butter in the Encyclopedia Britannica; Prof. Adolph Meyer, of Germany, who investigated the digestibility of artificial but- ter; Prof. W. H. Brewer, of Yale College; Sir Lyon Playfair, who is one of the most distinguished chemists in England, and who was also the deputy speaker of the House of Commons. recently Mr. Auton Jurgens read a.paper before the Society of Arts, in which he approved of it, and was awarded a silver medal for his paper on the subject, and in the discussion which followed, Professor Redwood, Dr. James Bell, Professor Odling, the chairman, and several others spoke heartily in approval of artificial butter. Recently the Berlin board of health published a report on the subject; in which they have brought together everything that has been written; but I am sorry to say that they have quoted from the report of the Low commnit- tee. They do not understand in Germany that when our Government investigates a matter it is not done in the same way it is done .in Ger- mauy. But their conclusion is, after getting ev ery thing on the subject together, American and foreign, that artifici al butter is perfeetly whole- some. They do say, I am bound to explain, that if unwholesome mate- rials are used, then they may have some fear of it. But so far as they know they are not aware of any unwholesome materials being used. After they read the Low report the suggestion Came up in their minds in regard to the use of unwholesome material. Senator Buair. I understand you object to any legislation, and think that any legislation would be wroug which would serve to distinguish these two articles the one frém the other ? Professor CHANDLER. I do, but I would have severe penalties im- posed for the sale of oleomargarive under any name which would create the belief in the mind of the purchaser that it was dairy butter. Senator BLAIR. Why, then, do you object to legislation which would seem to enable me to detect the difference between the two and protect me against either ? Professor CHANDLER. Because I think it is unfair and interfering with the rights of the consumer, who does not want red butter. The consumer does not want red butter. Senator BLAIR. You object to any legislation by which the*two arti- cles can be by law distinguished from each other. Professor CHANDLER. Yes, because a chemical analysis will always distinguish them. Senator JONES. He does not mean to say that he objects to any law by which people should be put on guard against it. Senator BLarR. What legislation would you think proper which would enable the consumer to tell whether he was eating the one or the other? Professor CHANDLER. Nothing but the labeling of it. The CHAIRMAN. Do you think it is possible to distinguish the fat of an animal that has died by disease and one that has been killed, both taken the same length of time after death ? Professor CHANDLER. | do not think you could make a marketable butter out of the fat of diseased animals. Senator BLAIR. Thatisnotmy question exactly. What lask is, whether scientifically you could detect the difference between the fat of a hog dying this moment of cholera and the fat of a hog killed this moment by the butcher, the fat being taken from the two animals at the same length of time after death ? Professor CHANDLER. No,.sir; you could not distinguish them. 17007 oL——6 82 ' IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. Mr. WHEELER 4. PECKHAM. Would the Senator ask him whether he could distinguish the butter made from diseased milk from that made of healthy milk? The CHAIRMAN. You can answer that if you have any knowledge about it; it is not of any importance here. Professor CHANDLER. | do not think you could unless in the ease of such milk as the Paris board of health has just excluded or proposed to exclude from Paris. It is found there that in the case of cows suffering from tuberculosis or consumption the milk is charged with the germs of consumption, according to a recent statement I have seen. If that is the case, I have never seen any such; those germs would get into the butter and one could take them into a laboratory and cultivate them and inoculate them and in that way might detect the presence of those germs, provided they are alive when they get to his hands. The CHAIRMAN. Don’t you think the salting process in butter would kill those germs the same as you admit it would the germs found in oleomargarine ? Professor CHANDLER. ‘I was talking about trichinz worms then, but the germs in the case I speak of are not so easily killed. The CHAIRMAN. Do you desire to make any further statement? Professor CHANDLER. I think of nothing further at present. The CHAIRMAN. Then the committee will stand adjourned until to- morrow morning at 10 o’clock. The committee then adjourned. WASHINGTON, D. C., Wednesday, June 16, 1886. The committee was called to order at 10.15 o’clock a. m. The CHAIRMAN. I have received no information from the gentlemen who desired to be heard to-day as to how many of them desire to speak, or how much time they wish to occupy. If some one will give me the names of the parties who desire to be heard this morning g, we will call them in their order. I suppose they have selected among themselves those who are to speak and whom they wish to have heard. STATEMENT OF JAMES F. BABCOCK. Prof. James F. Babcock, of Boston, Mass., then addressed the com- mittee: Iam a chemist by profession. At present I occupy a position which our statutes require all mayors of cities to fill by appointment, namely, that which is called with us in Boston inspector of milk. By our stat- utes, inspectors of milk are also charged with the enforcement of the laws in regard to butter and some other food products. I have been asked to state to the committee what facts have come to my knowledge and observation in the process of carrying out the laws which we have in Massachusetts, and more especially as applied to Boston. The committee doubtless are familiar in general with the character of the law which we have in Massachusetts, which, I will say in brief, is simply one which provides that oleomargarine, butterine, imitation butter, and such goods shall be sold in marked tubs, and sold at retail in marked papers. In pursuance of the execution of that law, our plan in Boston has been this—but I will say before I come to IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS, 83 speak on that subject, that the city of Boston, in the last year and the present year, has appropriated a very generous sum of money for the carrying on of this department, for it is made a department in the city gov ernment. They have appropriated $9,000. They furnish us a well equipped laboratory, we have four assistants, two of whom remain away employed constautly upon the street, a part of their time in re- gard to matters relating to milk and a part of their time in regard to butter and oleomargarine. These men are called collectors of samples. They make daily reports. They not only take samples of milk, but they visit places where oleomargarine and butter are sold, to see that the parties selling those goods comply with the law. They make a written report in every case, upon a blank which is provided for that purpose, giving the date, the time of the day when the inspection was made, the proprietor’s name, place of business, &c., whether he keeps butterine or not, and whether it is properly marked. A record is made of all these inspections. In the case of retail dealers, grocers, and provision men who sell these goods at retail, we find that some of them do not have the papers marked as the statute requires; thatis, they have no papers at all. We find almost universally that the tubs are marked upon the top and side as required by the law. We find that to be the case with the wholesaler almost universally. There have been some exceptions and some prose- cutions have resulted, but the great majority of the dealers, both whole- sale and retail, have their tubs marked. If we find a retailer who is selling thes goods at retail and who has no marked papers, we send him a printed notice, such a one as [ have in my hand, and which [ will pre- sent to the committee, merely calling his attention to that fact. It is what we call a warning. The paper submitted by the witness is as follows: City oF Boston, OFFICE OF INSPECTOR OF MILK, BUTTER, AND VINEGAR, 1151 Washington street, Boston, —, 138-. You are hereby notified that a compound made in imitation of butter, and not made exclusively of milk or cream, and known as oleomar garine, butterine, or imitation butter, has been fonnd in your possession with intent: to sell. the same not being marked as required by the statutes. You are respectfully netified that the sale of such compound not properly marked, or the possession or custody of the same with intent to sell, renders you liable to the penalties provided by the public statutes. Further information will be furnished on personal application to this office. Respectfully, ’ Inspector. All these people who sell goods in this way without marked papers are not those who are selling the goods for what they are not, but they are in many cases the owners of small stores or new places of business, where they do not know what the provisions of the statute are, and that is a notice to inform them. These notices are all numbered, as you will ob- serve. It is torn off from a book with a stub, and a record is made on the stub of that notice, and after the notice is sent, in a week or two, the same collector visits the place, and it is found that in almost every case—I should say in 95 per cent. of the cases where notices are sent— that they have complied with the law in consequence of receiving that notice. The number of inspections which we make in this way, and have made, is a matter of record. The number of these warnings which have been sent out is recorded on the stubs, so that we are able to state with comparative certainty the number of cases in the city of Boston 84 IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. of stores which sell butter and oleomargarine and imitation butter, who are and are not selling in accordance with the provisions of the statute—not necessarily doing it fraudulently in all cases. I will give some figures to the committee on this subject. In Janu- ary of this year our collectors reported three hundred and sixty-three inspections. Forty-five of those inspections resulted in parties receiving a notice similar to the one which you have. If I have figured it cor- rectly, that is 12.12 percent. In February three hundred and sixty- seven inspections were made and thirty-five warnings given. I have other figures here for the months of Mareh, April, and May, which I will hand to the reporter, as | do not desire to occupy too much time. I will say, however, that the whole number of inspections made since I have held the position which I now hold, which covers a period of about a year and four or five months, is 3,371, ‘and the number of warnings of this kind issued up to the Ist day of June was 294. The percentage is easily figured out, and is about 9 or perhaps 10 per cent. In view of these facts, these figures, and these inspections, which are made systematically, Is say, without fear of contradiction, that the laws of the State of Massachusetts, in the city of Boston, are enforced as well as any law can be. We have ms against various crimes, against robbery, yet there are complaints of robbery and assault, and “there have also been complaints against Gudtteg who hate sold these goods in violation of Jaw. Those cases, however, are the exception and not the rule. It has been within my knowledge, and is within my knowledge at the present time, that there are thousands of persons in the city of Boston who buy butterine, knowing perfectly well what they are buying—who eall for butterine, who pay the price of butterine, and who receive it in a paper marked as the statute requires of them in those cases. The marking, so far as those persons are concerned, is uunecessary, because they know what they are buying. But the dec ler must mark it whether the person knows it or not. Not only are these goods marked upon the tubs and marked upon the papers provided for the retail sales, but I know of a great many dealers in Boston who in addition to what the law requires mark their goods by hanging a large sign directly over the tub or the ice-chest or refrigerator where the goods are kept. I have in mind at the present time a new store which has only been started within a couple of weeks at the south end in Boston, fitted up, I had almost said with elegance, a store for selling dairy products. They have a refrigerator with some nine or ten compartments in it, with glass doors, and nine of these contain butter and one of them contains but- terine. The butterine is marked by a sign hanging over that place with letters I should say three inches long; the price of it is marked— 15 or 16 cents, the retail price—and the prices of ali this butter, rang- ing from 18, 19, and 20 cents up to 30 and 35 cents per pound at this season of the year, are also indicated. You will find in the same way, in the market located in that section of the city, where the patronage is chiefly trom poor people, that these goods are exposed for sale and the name is marked upon the goods. A gentleman in South Boston, a very respectable grocer, whose name I could give tothe committee if necessary, said to me only last Saturday, speaking of these goods—I will say that he had two tubs of butter and one tub of butterine, and his butterine and papers were marked—he was speaking to me of the sale of these goods to poor people. He said that a regular customer of his had s said | to him only a few days before that the butterine which he had bought during the winter for 15 cents a IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. 85 pound had enabled him to give his boy butter to eat; he called it butter, but butterine is what he bought. These goods are spoken of in that general way as butter, although they are substitutes for butter. This man said thatthe sale of butterine at 15 cents a pound had enabled his boy to have butter during the winter; otherwise he would have had to go without. He said his boy had nev er eaten any butter in his life, and the man spoke of the goods as being something which he regarded it a privilege to buy. I say it cannot ‘be disputed that in the ‘city of Boston, and in some of our large manufacturing cities in Massachusetts, such as Fall River, Lawrence, and Lowell, there are thousands of pounds of oleomargarine ‘and butterine, imitation butter, sold to people who know perfectly well what they are buying, who call for it, and who could not be cheated in regard to it; they know what it is worth. Senator JONES. Do they buy it for themselves and their families, or to feed boarders on? Professor BABCOCK. They buy it for themselves and their families; they do not keep boarders. A poor man with a family of four or five has all the boarders he can take care of. It is undoubtedly sold to and bought by boarding-house keepers, saloon and restaurant keepers, and it is certainly true that they do not put any mark upon it when they put it on their tables. There is a large sale in that direction. But the people who buy it for their own consumption are very pbumerous and know very well what they are buying. The CHAIRMAN. Do your inspections of these dairy products go out- side of the city of Boston? Professor BABCOCK. No, sir; not officially. What € know in regard to this matter outside of the city of Boston is only a matter of informa- tion from conversation with other inspectors or inembers of boards of health, We. The CHAIRMAN. For what purpose do you appear before the commit- tee? Professor BABCOCK. I was requested by some of the gentlemen inter- ested in the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine to state to the com- mittee the figures and results of our inspections in the city of Boston. I want to say further that we think, in Massachusetts, that our health laws are enforced as well or better than in any other State. The gen- tleman who is now the chairman of our State board of health was elected president at the last meeting, in Washington, of the National Health Association—I refer to Dr. Walcott—and our State board of health, in a report which may be found among the Massachusetts documents in 1883, three years ago, discussed this question of oleomargarime in its relation to the public health, and their report and their conclusions are printed in that document. Upon that board was Mr. Thomas Talbot, ex-gover- nor, aud Mr. John Fallon, who for many years was superintendent of the Pacific Mills, in Lawrence, which, as some of the committee may know is one of the largest cotton mills inthe world. They reported as follows in regard to oleomargarine. They say that “itis inferior to the best butter, but is much superior to the low grades of butter to be coin- monly found in the markets.” So far as its influence ou health is con- cerned they say they can see no objection to its use. They say ‘its sale as genuine butter is a commercial fraud, and as such very properly cou- demned by law.” They go on to say, as to its prohibition by law, that the same law which prohibited it could also prohibit the sale of lard and tallow, and more especially of low-grade butters, which are far more injurious to health than a good, sweet article of oleomargarine. 86 | IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. Senator BLatr. You say in speaking of its sale they say in a certain contingency it is a commercial fraud? Professor BaBcoock. Yes, sir. Senator BLAIR. Would they consider, or would you consider, the sale of it to a man who ects if as a sale? Professor BABCOocK. Certainly I should consider that a sale. Senator Buarr. If it is sold to him in such a way that he does not knew what he is eating, is that a commercial fraud ? Professor BABcocK. Yes, I should regard that as a commercial fraud. In this report I refer to the board say: ‘A great deal has been said abot a poor grade of fats, of which o:eomargarine is made. Any one making such an assertion in regard to fats is simply ignorant of the whole subject. When a fat has become in the least tainted it can no longer be used for this purpose, as it is impossible to remove the odor from the fat after it has once acquired it. The use of a substitute for butter seems to be steadily on the increase in this country. When good butter is from 40 te 50 cents a pound it has passed beyond the means of persons cf moderate circumstances, and they have the choice of three thivgs—to do without, to use poor butter, or to use some substitute.” That is the published official statement of the state bowd of health of Massachusetts, and I indorse every line of it. [I believe it to be true. I do not know that the committee care to hear anything from me as to my particular views as to the purity or wholesomeness of butter further than what has been expressed in this report of the Massachusetts State board of health. The CHAIRMAN. You state that under your law the retail dealer has his tubs marked and has the wrapping-paper printed with the word “oleomargarine” or “butterine” on it, which he has to put on the arti- cle when sold? Professor BABCOCK. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Is it not possible that the retail dealer, having both butter and oleomargarine in the same shop, could constan‘ly sell oleo- margarine to a customer without putting the paper on it, and as but- ter? Professor BABCOCK. He certainly could. The CHAIRMAN. Without being caught by the consumer at all? Professor Babcock. He certainly could; he might. The CHAIRMAN. And any law that would more ettectually guard and prevent that condition of affairs would be desirable, would it not? Protessor BaBcock. Any law which would more effectually prevent the sale of oleomargarine for what it is not I should be glad to have passed by the national legislature or by our State legislature. The CHAIRMAN. Your inspectors, of course, do not stay in every re- tail dcealer’s shop to see that every pound of oleomargarine is put up in an oleomalgarine paper? Professor. BaBcock. No, sir. But there are certain dealers that we regard with suspicion. We take means to see whether or not the goods are sold in these papers by employing persons to occasionally go into such stores ov Saturday nights when there is a rush of business, when, if ever, they aie selling these goods fraudulently, and buy a pound or two pounds, or Whatever sinall quantity i is desired, and carry it away, and we have found that in the great majority of cases these goods are marked. It niust be admitted that there are some persons who violate the law, but they will always do it. The CoatikMaAN. The tem;.tation would be very great to sell it ata profit of 10 or 12 cents a pound? IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS, 4 87 Professor BaBcock. For a dishonest man, yes; for an honest man, no. There are people who will sell you a piece of cloth to-day, and w ho will say it is all wool, knowing that it is not. They will tell you it is all wool, and they eet the price of all-wool goods. The increased price is a temptation, and as long as these goods can be bought at 9 or 10 cents a pound some dishonest man will take the risk and chance of sell- ing the goods for what they are not. A man will sell you a piece of American silk and tell you it is a foreign silk, if he thinks you have a prejudice against American silks. The CHAIRMAN. Any law that more thoroughly guards that retail sale, then, is desirable, I suppose? Professor BABCOCK. Yes; [ should be strongly in favor of that. Senator BLArR. You are an inspector. Have you any means of ob- taining data which you could give to the committee which would be a guide to it as to the amount of oleomargarine that is consumed in your vicinity, or within your jurisdiction as an inspector, and as to the rela- tive amount as between that and butter? Professor Bascock. Yes, | can do so approximately. In a report which I have here, and which I will hand to committee, you ean obtain some idea of the character of the work which is done in Boston. Ihave given an estimate of the amount of butter and oleomargarine, based on the most reliable figures which I could obtain, soid in Boston. I will say in regard to these figures, however, that from such informa- tion as Lhave received since the publication or the printing of this report, which was on the Ist of January of the present year, I have reason to believe that the figures I have given in this report as to the amount of oleomargarine received in Boston and from there sent ont, not only through the State of Massachusetts but to adjacent States, is some- what overestimated. The amount is, probably, considerably less than the figures I have given here. But the figures which I did give in this report are ag follows: The total number of pounds, estimated, was 9,945,725 of oleomarga- rine. In this calculation, let me say, [ was assisted by a member of the Produce Exchange of Boston who is not favorably disposed towards oleomargarine, so that this statement doubtless is high rather than low as an estimate. You will find the details of these figures in the report. As I say I believe these figures are too high, but the value of that amount of oleo, at the average wholesale value of 114 cents a pound, was $1,143,758.37. The total number of pounds of butter was 24.400,111, which, at the average wholesale price of 20 cents, amounts to $4,880,022.20. Senator BLAtr. Those figures cover what territory ? Professor BABCOCK. They represent the quantity received in Boston at. the Produce Exchange and from there distributed. Senator Bhar. Where did it come from? Professor BABCOCK. I got those figures from the books of the Pro- duce Exchange so far as they are capable of giving the figures, and a part of them are estimated. Senator BLAtTR. When you say “oleo” you mean ‘ oleomargarine?” Professor BABCOCK. Yes, sir. Senator Buarr. And from what points is that amount collected ? Protessor BABCOocK. In Boston we have two factories. There is a factory in Providence which sends goods to Boston, and the Western factories send their goods there. Senator BLAIR. Can you give us an idea of the proportion in which these several localities furnish you oleomargarine tor that market? 88 IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. Professor BABCOCK. Yes, sir; approximately. There is made in or near Boston about 150,000 packages. Senator BLAIR. How much is contained in a package? Professor BABCocK. At an average of 25 pounds to the package. The rest of it comes from other sections; from the West and from New York. Senator Buarr. But butter is mainly, I suppose, collected from New England? Professor BABCcOcK. No, sir; a good deal of Western butter comes to Boston. Senator BLAIR. From how far west? Professor BABCOCK. As far west as it is produced—from Wisconsin and Iowa. New England does not produce butter enough to supply her own needs. Senator BLAIR. Hardly enough to supply her own rural regious—the smaller cities and villages. Professor BABCOCK. I understand that to be the fact. I will say one single word in regard to the matter of testimony taken before this com- mittee at a former session, which [ read from the stenographie report which has been printed. A gentleman from Boston stated that the law was not enforced in Boston, aud he relates certain circumstances which, I think, the committee ought to know occurred some tive or six years ago, so that what he said does not apply at all to the present condition of things. You may remember that it was stated that he sought to have ceitain parties complained of, and that the then milk inspector, Mr. Griffin, declined to make a prosecution because there was no mouey to pay for it. Now the tacts in that case were these: There were four complaints, which were instigated by members of the Produce Ex- change. They came to the then milk inspector; samples were taken; and at that time I was doing the chemical work for the office, and [ made an analysis. I appeared before the grand jury; true bills were found, and when it was discovered that true bills were found against certain people who not only sold butterine quietly, but occasionally bought some butter also of members of the Produce Exchange, these gentle- men came before the district attorney, and at their representation those cases were put on file. That is the reason they were not prose- euted then. There was a party in Boston whom L| had occasion to prosecute this spring for selling goods not marked as required by law, which came from the state of Wisconsin. Some gentleman here may know the goods. I think they were marked ‘Kureka Creamery,” and the “ Horse-Shoe Creamery” isanother one which we know perfectly well. They are both high grades of butterine. They are made and intended to be sold by these people there as a substitute for butter, and the people who have them do not mean to mark them if they can help it. The CHAIRMAN. You mean they are intended to be sold as butter? Professor BABCOCK. Yes, | think they are. Senator BLATR. Where is that butterine made? Professor bABcock. I do not remember where the Horse-Shoe Cream- ery is made, but the Eureka Creamery is made, | think, in the town of Eureka in lowa or Wisconsin; [think lowa. A party had some of those goods. The members of a firm were complained of and they paid their tine the next day and marked all the goods they wanted to keep, and the rest they shipped back. One of the gentlemen who bought some of these goods from this firm was complained of, and he came to me through a friend, a member of the Produce Exchange who does not believe in oleomargarine at all, with this proposition: He says this party—we will IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. 89 call him Mr. B.—did not care anything about the fine, but he was a dea- con of the church, and he did not want it to appear that he had been convicted of selling these goods. He said: ‘* You know we have been contributing money to pay the expenses of counsel and other expenses towards having this matter investigated at Washington, butif you would consent to have Mr. B.’s case put on file, Mr. B. would be willing to con- tribute $100 to that fund.” I said: ‘* I do not know anything about Wash- ington, but we have a State law and Mr. Batchelor—that is his name; I did not intend to give it, but it bas slipped out—Mr. Batchelor has violated that law and he ought to pay the penalty,” and he did. The CHAIRMAN. I do not think your administration of affairs has been questioned before the committee, but that is all right. Professor BABCOoCK. | desire to have the committee know that there is at least one spot on the face of the earth where oleomargarine is sold, in the great majority of cases, for what it is; and what is done in Bos- ton can be done in every city of the country if the machinery of the law is provided. Senator JONES. Has it been any part of your duty to determine whether these substitutes for butter are injurious to health or not? Professor BABCOCK. It has not been a part of my duty to determine that. Senator JONES Have you investigated that matter? Professor BABCOCK. I have. Senator JONES. What are your conclusions on that subject? Piotessor BABCOCK. My conclusions are that what is perfectly good on the side of a beetsteak is perfectly good when it is melted ont and mixed with salt and milk. My conclusions are, in general, that oleo- margarine is a perfectly wholesome food in every sense ot the word. There are some points in relation to it in which it 1s superior to butter, I refer more especially to its keeping qualities. You take an oleomar- garine print and put it on this table and leave it here for three months alongside of butter, and the oleomargarine will remain sweet while the butter will not. The CHAIRMAN. Is that any cvidence that it is better food? Professor BABCocK. It is no evidence that it is better food, but it is evidence that the fat from which it is prepared is freer from foreign sub- stances. The CHAIRMAN. Would it not equally be evidence that it is not as easily digested as butter if it will last that length of time?) Salt meat will keep longer than fresh meat. Projiessor BaBcock. Certainly; but it is perfectly healthful, never- theless. I presume it must be admitted asa physiological fact, at least to be debatable, that oleomargarine is slightly less digestible than butter. But bow much less digestible? It is not as if oleomargarine required five hours to digest and butter required only a half an bour or an hour, The figures are expressed in much closer relations than that. {1 will not undertake to give them, but the committee can find them in the books or in the investigations of those who have considered the matter. It takes three anda half hours in one case and four hours in the other case, or something of that kind. Practically there is not any difference, and as far as food value is concerned, I do not think the physiologists have ever differed in the opinion that oleomargarine has a higher food value than butter. I mean by that that the amount of heat-producing quali- ties in oleomargarine is greater, theoretically, than in butter, but the relation still is very close; one is about the same as the other. 90 IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. The CHAIRMAN. You are a chemist, I understand? Professor BABCOCK. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Can you undertake to show by an analysis of any article that is submitted to you what its effect will be, absolutely, on the human system, as to whether it will be a healthful or unhealthfual food? Professor BABCOCK. In some cases, yes, and others, no. The CHAIRMAN. In what cases yes? Professor BABCOCK. In cases yes, many of the absurd substances which are found in the patents which have been taken out—alleged im- provements in the manufacture of oleomargarine. If there was any sulphuric acid in butterine we should find it. If there were any of the thousand and one things in those patents which could only make a chemist laugh, and the judicious friend of the poor grieve, present in oleomargarine, we could find them chemically. We could not find the germs of disease. You cannot find the germs of typhoid fever in milk, but they get in there. Senator JONES. Have you examined specimens of these substances frequently? Professor BABCOCK. Yes; we make analyses of them, and some of them are given in this book merely to determine whether or not they are butter or oleomargarine. The CHAIRMAN. You can determine by your analysis whether a food product contains any known poison, i suppose? Professor BABCOCK. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. But, can you undertake to show by‘an analysis of all facts what their exact effect would be upon the human system with- out going through the experiment of having the articles fed to individ- uals ? Professor BABCOCK. We certainly should not undertake to do that. That is a physiological experiment. The way to find out whether a thing is poison or not, supposing it to be a new poison of which chem- ists know nothing, is not to analyize it and say what it is and give it a name, but to find out whether it is a poison or not you want to try it, so to speak, on a dog, and if you try it on a dog and it does not kill him or produce a marked effect, we say that it is not a poison. If it does produce an effect, we say it is a poison, and we study it further. The CHAIRMAN. If you take a food product and analyze it and find no known poison in it, then you can give a scientific and absolute opin- ion as to the healthfulness or unhealthfulness of it; but is it not neces- sary that there should be a long experiment in the use of that article, as food, in order to determine what its ultimate effects on the human system will be? Professor BABCOCK. Certainly. The CHAIRMAN. Have you made that experiment? Professor BaBcock. I have not made the experiment, but the public have been making them for ten years. The CHAIRMAN. The public have been making them without know- ing they were making them, and therefore we have no results. They did not know whether they were eating butter or oleomargarine. Professor BABCocK. As I was saying, a dose of poison would kill a man whether he knows it or not. If you have some strychnine in your food put there by accident or design, you may thiuk it is wholesome, but it will kill you. Senator BLAIR. Have not any of those people died within tenyears ? Professor BABcocK. I never heard of it. IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. 91 Senator BLAIR. None of those oleomargarine people bave died within ten years? Professor BABCOCK. I never heard of it.. The CHAIRMAN. Have-you ever made any experiments in the way of feeding oleomargarine to persons and judging of its effects as distin- guished from butter? Professor BABCOcCK. No, sir; and there have never been any physio- logical experiments made in regard to butter which ts put on bread, or on the bread itself merely to determine whether it be wholesome. If you ask me how I know bread is wholesome, I could not point you to any scientific experiments to establish the fact. The CHAIRMAN. You could probably point to the experiments which have been going on for a thousand years? Professor BABcocK. Yes; and that is what I base my opinion on. The CHAIRMAN. But in regard to oleomargarine, we have not had that sort of experience yet. What I wanted to get at was the ground of your statement of your belief that it was a wholesome food. So far, I find it has been simply a scientific opinion based upon an analysis to determine the elements in it. We were told yesterday, for instance, that lard was substantially the same in its constituent elements as oleo after the stearine had been extracted from the tallow. Do you under- take to say, or do you believe that lard, as an article of food, is as health- ful as tallow or butter? Professor BABCOCK. I see no reason why it is not as healthful as tal- low or batter? The CHAIRMAN. Do you think it is considered to be so by people gen- erally ? Professor BABCOocK. I think well-informed people hold that opinion. I will explain to you the ground of my belief if you will allow me. The objection to pork is well founded, but the fat of the hog tried out and purified, so far as I have ever heard, is no more objectionable than any other similar fat, whether of beef or whether it is produced from a veg- etable product such as olive oil or cotton seed oil. The CHAIRMAN. Is it not generally held as an opinion by the major- ity of people, cooks, housewives, and others, that the use of much lard in cooking is not healthful? Professor BABcocK. That is true, but it is not because it is lard. The use of any fat in excess is undoubtedly objectionable. ‘The man who puts a piece of butter on his bread larger than the bread itself will have dyspepsia after awhile. [t is not because it is lard, but be- cause it is fat. The epicure who covers his lettuce with olive oil will suffer in the same way. The CHAIRMAN. Do you think lard is as healthful as beet fat? Professor BABCOCK. Pure lard is as healthful as any other animal fat. The CHAIRMAN. And you base that opinion on the chemical fact that they are very much alike in their elements? Professor BABCOCK. Yes. Senator BLAIR. Why is pork unhealthful? Professor BABCOCK. In the first place, hogs are fedin a great variety of ways. Some are kept well and some are fed on filth. Those which are kept well furnish a perfectly healthfal meat, except so far as trichi- ne may develop in them, and that does not come in the fat, but is de- veloped in the muscular fiber. The CHAIRMAN. Leaving out trichinae, why is the meat of pork fed upon refuse any better than the fat, when there is no disease, but simply healthy fat? 92 IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. Professor BABCOCK. For the same reason that the milk from a well- ted, carefully-tended cow is better than the milk of a cow fed on swill and slops. The CHAIRMAN. But I understood you to say that the fat of the hog in the one case was good, and the meat was not healthful in the same animal. Professor BABCcocK. If I should draw a line between the two, I should say that the fat from the hog would be less affected by changes of con- dition, as regards feeding and keeping, than any other portion of the animal, unquestionably. Senator BLAIR. You seem to have had great experience with this subject, and, in discussing the matter of legislation awhile ago, you dropped the expression that you thought any judicious national legis- lation that could be had would be a good thing. I would be very olad to hear your views in that direction as to what national legislation would be serviceable. Professor BABCOocK. Any national legislation which would establish a uniform law for ali the States, in the direction of having the goods marked, and other provisions of a similar nature, so that they might be sold for what they are, would be of advantage. In Massachusetts we have a certain law in regard to the matter. ‘In the West they have no law. Massachusetts cannot make a law which shall require these goods to be marked before they come into the State, so that they naturally come into the State unmarked. We do the best we can to follow these goods to their market as soon as they come. I say without fear of con- tradiction that that is the case. The CHAIRMAN. Let us see how that operates right there. These goods come, aS you state, from outside points in the west and come marked as creamery butter with certain brands. Professor BABCOCK. No, sir; they do not; that is the exception. I will tell you how they come. The CHAIRMAN. | understood you to state a short time ago that two or three kinds came into your state marked with the brand of a certain creamery, and you gave the name of the creamery. Professor BABCOCK. But not marked creamery butter. The words were “* Kureka Creamery.” The CHAIRMAN. Everybody knows that butter is made from milk and the use of the words “ Eureka Creamery,” without any qualifying word, would be a deception. If you see a firkin that has something that looks like butter in it, and it is branded ‘“* Eureka Creamery” on the top of it, you would naturally say that it was butter which came from that cr ea mery. Professor BABCOCK. Yes, unless otherwise marked. The CHAIRMAN. Is it possible; the bulk of it coming branded in that way, that even in Boston you are able to detect it, or to prevent its sale? How are you to do it except by an analysis of each particular lot? Professor BABCOCK. We get accustomed to seeing the tubs and know their general appearance, the number of hoops on them, and sometimes they have them m: iked with a brand, a diamond H. N. P., or what not, and there are a great many of those goods that we know are oleomar- garine, even if the mark is turned around on the other side. We know the tubs. And while, as I said a moment ago, some goods have been brought into Boston marked in the way I say, and those cases have been prosecuted, the great majority of goods are immediately marked alter they are received. Some goodscome from Chicago already marked. IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. 93 There are some agencies in Boston who have their goods marked in Chicago, and they are received in Boston marked. The Providence Dairy, which is the name of a manufacturing concern there, which manufactures oleomargarine, send their goods to Boston, and they are’ all marked before they come there. The oleomargarine folks in Boston mark their goods, but their goods come from States outside of Massa- chusetts w here they have no law, and of course they cannot be com- pelled to wark them. But when those goods are received at the store they are marked and we follow them up. The CHAIRMAN. If there was some general law requiring that all this material, wherever made, should be ‘branded, you think it would be beneficial 2 Professor BABCOocCK. Yes; it would be a benefit to any State where they have laws, to the State of New Jersey or Connecticut. The CHAIRMAN. And it would aid you in carrying out your State law ? Professor BABCOCK. Yes, and I should be very willing to see any reasonable provision of that kind enacted. Senator BLATR. This inspection you have been familiar with is mainly for the city of Boston? Professor BABCOCK. Yes, sir. Senator BLATR. I would like to know to what extent a like inspection is followed up throughout the commonwealth ? Professor BABCOCK. There is nothing like it in detail, because in the smaller cities they cannot afford to pay the money which iS necessary, or to anything like the extent prov ided in Boston. But there are local inspectors in “those places, and the State board of health have men who are collecting samples around the State, and they see to the en- forcement of the law in other parts of the State. Violations of sucha law as we have are undoubtedly practiced outside of Boston, if at all, much more frequently than in Boston, because the law is not enforced to that extent. Senator BLAIR. J suppose the efficient administration is all in its details. Professor BABCcocK. Undoubtedly. The goods that leave Boston are marked, and so far as those goods are concerned, I am sure that the goods received in cities of the commonwealth comply with the provisions of the law. * Senator BLAIR. Does the coloring matter used do any harm to either butter or oleomargarine? Professor BABCOCK. No; it is a harmless color. J wish the national legislature would pass a law to prevent the coloring of either. It is just as much a fraud in butter as in anything else. Senator BLAIR. If the coloring matter is used at all, should it not be different, so as to distinguish the articles? Professor BABCOCK. It does not do any harm, but it is like a man painting up his frost-bitten oranges so as tosell them. They should be sold for just what they are. If the cows do not give milk in winter which will make a good colored butter, they should not be allowed to color it and sell it as June butter, by adding a little color to it. Senator BLarrR. It all seems to be wrong, but if the coloring matter does not do any harm, why not have a different coloring substance used in these two articles, so that you can tell them apart? Professor BABCOCK. For this reason: Any color different from that which the public have been in the habit of seeing in butter would create a prejudice. People have been accustomed to strawberry-colored ice 94 IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. cream, and if a person should ask a confectioner for strawberry cream and he should produce a white cream it would not satisfy him, because he wants a strawberry-colored cream. Senator BLAIR. You say that oleomargarine is a healthful food, and usually sells upon its merits? Professor BABCOCK. Yes. : Senator BLAIR. And you also say that it can be furnished at one- half or one-quarter the price of excellent butter? Professor BABCOCK. Yes. Senator BLAtTR. Then just as soon as the public mind grasps that idea its sale will correspond ? Professor BABCOCK. Certainly. Senator BLATR. We eat things that formerly were disgusting to us. The Frenchman eats frogs, and we wouid soon become accustomed to them. Now, let the people know the truth about this, and attack this popular fallacy that oleomargarine is hurtful, and very soon oleomar- garine will take the field against butter? Professor BABCcOoCcK. I think it would. ° Senator BLArR. On that theery oleomargarine is much better than butter? Professor BABcCOCcK. For certain purposes, all things considered in reference to the price. Senator BLAIR. As good, absolutely, and not costing more than half as much ? Professor BABCOCK. Yes. Senator BLATR. Then, why not put oleomargarine upon its merits ? Since butter has been allowed to be yellow from time immemorial, give oleomargarine a color we can tell it by, so that the consumer who buys it knows what he is getting. Give him a color to go by. What is the objection to that ? Professor BABCOCK. I will tell you why I think that would be unfair. There is no article of food which people use to-day on their tables, that I know of, that is partly colored except butter. The use of any article to color oleomargarine pink or blue or black would excite a prejudice against it in the minds of everybody. Senator BLAIR. But not long. Professor BABCoCK. It would excite a prejudice long enough to have everybody who ever bought it ask the question, ‘* What is this color that you use? How do you make it?” Senator BLAIR. We all understand there is color put into butter. Professor BABCOCK. Sometimes there is and sometimes there is not. Senator BLAIR. The butter that sells the best is understood to be arti- ficially colored, and yet we eat it without hesitation. Professor BABCOCK. The use of a color which, in its nature, as applied to any kind of food, is repulsive, is unfair. Olive oil, which a great many people eat, is yellow, and cotton-seed oil, which people in the South eat, is yellow; fat also is yellow. Senator BLAIR. Those are natural colors, not artificial. Professor BABCOCK. Yes, they are natural colors, and when you make an article to take the place of or be used as a substitute for a natural product, it is certainly but fair to allow the party to color it with a harm- less color which makes it resemble the article which it is intended to substitute. That is perfecily fair, I think. Senator BLAIR. Undoubtedly it is true that for a little while there would be a prejudice created against oleomargarine, but it is based on IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. 95 a false ground, on false data, and in a little while the public would learn to know the truth. Professor BaBptock. I firmly believe that oleomargarine coiored any eolor which was not in itself repulsive would be sought after if its merits were understood, but I do not think you could ever make it salable if you colored it black, for instance— Senator BLAIR. J introduced in the Senate yesterday, to be sent to committee, an amendment to the bill providing that there should be no foreign substances injected in the process of manufacture, or in any process of the preparation of oleomargarine for food to be sold to the consumer, of a yellow tint or hue. You may take all the other colors of the rainbow, but let butter have its preempted color. What harm is there in that, so that the man who eats it can understand what he is eating. Professor BABCOCK. It is simply unfair. If you can make it one color you can make it another. Senator BLAIR. Select your color. Professor BABCOCK. I think that some who might favor such a plan as that would be in reality aiming a blow at the article itself, rather than guarding the people. As I say,if you can color it one color you ean another. Senator BLAIR. Set aside the question of motive. Here is a collision of motives between these two great interests. Hach wants to get the better of the other, of course, naturally. It is a mereantile competi- tion. But set that all one side. Is not the nan who consumes the but- ter, or who consumes oleomargarine, entitled to know what he is eating and what he is paying for? Professor BABCOCK. Yes; certainly. Senator BLAIR. And is he to be left to the mercy of the hotel keeper and the boarding house keeper and compelled to pay 50 cents a pound for this article by reason of this false color by which it is imposed upon him as butter, when it is really worth and costs, and ought to be sold for less than, 20 cents a pound? Professor BABCOCK. There is no reason why he should not know what he is eating. Senator BLAIR. These colors exist in nature; they are in flowers, and in the landscape in every form, The fat has a color when you extract the tallow. Now, why should not the oleomargarine people choose some color, a white or a chocolate color, or a reddish hue, whatever they see fit to select, and then, as the article is very much cheaper, as it is as wholesome or more wholesome, as you claim, than butter, will not the people very soon under’ your instruction, become consumers of oleo- margarine rather than of butter? Professor BABCOCK. In time, undoubtedly. Senator BLAIR. And in a short time. Protessor BaBcock. No, not in a short time. Senator BLAIR. You eat it now as readily as you do butter? Professor BABCOCK. I suppose a chemist will do very many things that the general public will not do. The public are always very slow in such matters, and it will take a good many years for people to over- come the prejudices in regard to oleomargarine. I say, in short, that I think the coloring of oleomargarine by a distinctive color would be unfair. Senator BLAIR. Well, I have drawn out your opinion, and I will not consume more time. ~ Senator JoNES. I think you said, some time ago, that you had exam- 96 IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. ined this substance to determine its quality as an article of food, whether it was healthful or not. Professor BABCOCK. Yes. ‘ Senator JoNnES. And you believe it to be entirely healthful ? Professor BABCOCK. Yes. Senator JoNEsS. There is a statement made on high authority in a paper that I have marked in pencil, and I would like to have you look at it and tell me whether, from your examination as a chemist, you be- lieve that those substances enter into oleomargarine and butter to any large extent, and if so, to what extent [banding a paper to the pro- fessor]? Professor BABCOocK. I should be pleased to go over this list in detail if you desire it, and state in regard to every specific article what it is. Senator JoNES. I would be glad to have you do so, Professor BABCOCK. In the first place, I see on this list nitric acid. I do not believe that that has been or is used in the manufacture of oleo- margarine. It doubtless occurs as an ingredient in the specification of some person who has taken out a patent for doing something or other, such as the refining of some sort of fat. Senator Jones. It could be detected if present in this substance? Professor BABCOCK. Yes. Senator JONES. Have you ever detected it? Professor BaBcock. No, sir. The next article here is sugar of lead. That is poisonous. Senator JONES. Would that diminish the cost of the manufacture of oleomargarine? Professor BABCOCK. No, sir. Senator JoNES. Is there any reason why it should be used if it could be? Professor BABcocKk. I do not know of any reason why it should be used. Sugar of lead is a poisonous substance, and | never heard of its being used in any food product whatever. Sometimes salts of lead have been detected in wine and vinegar, but what possible use it would be, or how the manufacturer could make use of sugar of lead in the making of oleomargarine, I do not know. The next article is sulphate of lime. That is what a man drinks a great deal of when he drinks any water found west of the Alleghany Mountains, especially in the far west. I do not know that it has ever been used in the manufacture of oleomar- garine. I cannot conceive of any purpose for which it should be used in such manufacture. Senator GIBSON. Is it not used some in the manufacture of sugar? Professor BABcocK. Sulphuric acid is used to manufacture starch into glucose, and then lime is added for the purpose of neutralizing the acid in that manufacture, and that leaves a little sulphate of lime in glucose. Senator Gibson. It is not deleterious to health? Professor BABCOCK. No, sir; not at all. Butyrie acid is named here. Well, that is a normal constituent of butter; that is legitimete. Gly- cerine is a normal constituent of butter, not as such, but glycerine in a modified form exists in butter. Thatis, glycerine exists in a modified form in allfats. ‘‘ Capsic acid” is a mistake. It means capric acid, which is another of the acids natural and peculiar to butter. Commercial sul- phuric acid. I do not know of that having been used in any way in the manufacture of these goods. Tallow. That is confessedly an ingredi- ent. Butyric ether. That is anatural product which is developed from butter when it becomes rancid. The butyrine forms what is called an IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. OF ether. Castor oil. I do not know why a man should use that. Cer- tainly an oleomargarine manufacturer making a product that be sells at 9 cents a pound would not make use of an article that sells for a dol- lar or two a gallon; I do not know what the exact price is. Castor oil is a high priced article. You go to the druggist and buy a little bottle of it for the baby, and you pay him a quarter for it. No manufacturer would use that in making an article to sell for 9 or 10 cents a pound. Caul. Well, that of course is one of the articles used, the caul fat of the animal. Gastric juice. In some of the earlier patents for making oleomargarine—I think in the original Mege process, the French process—that a preparation made from gastric juice—what is called pepsin—was an ingredient. That we all to-day regard as a valuable remedy. It will cure dyspepsia quicker than almost anything else. It is the digestive principle of the animal, and is made from the hog’s stomach. It is perfectly good and pure, and recognized as a valuable remedy by physicians. This paper refers to gastric juice. It is a reference, | suppose, to some preparation derived from the hog for digesting and dissolving the animal tissues which are found in fat. Curcumine. That is the active property of curcumsa root, or turmeric, which we are glad to have in our curry-powder. Curry- powder is colored with curcumine. If it is good there, it may be in butter. Chlorate of potash. I never heard of that being used for this purpose. If used, however, it is perfectly harmless. Peroxide of mag- nesia means black oxide of manganese. I do not know how it could be used in the manufacture of oleomargarine. Nitrate of soda is harmless, but I never heard of its being used in that way. It may have been used in some process of salting. Some of the pork that comes #om Southern countries, and indeed some of our pork that is salted here, is salted with nitrate of soda. It is another form of saltpeter. Dry blood albumum. That is perfectly legitimate. Not only dry blood albumum, but fresh blood is used by all the sugar-houses in the country, and if a man should want to create a newspaper prejudice against pure white sugar some day, he could write up an article on dry blood, bone-black, burnt bones, and all those things used in refining sugar—facts that would discount the articles on oleomargarine 100 per cent. I should have no trouble in disgusting the people by an enumeration of the processes used in the manufacture of sugar. Saltpeter. That is harmless. Borax. That also is harmless, and so is orris root. Bicarbonate of soda is used in bread. Capric acid, sulphite of soda, pepsin, lard, caustic potash—I never heard of that being used, and so on. I will not take up the time of the commit- tee in going over the rest of them, butif there is anything else you de- sire explained, I will do so with pleasure. I characterize that statement as an ignorant and prejudiced statement which no person would intelli- gently make. Undoubtedly those articles have been found in specifi- cations of patents relating to the manufacture of oleomargarine, but I do not believe that any manufacturer to-day uses any of those things. Senator Gipson. Could he use them ? Professor BABcocK. I do not know for what purpose. Senator JONES. If they were used, as I understand you, they would be used not as a constituent part of the product, but might be used in processes adopted for the purpose of purification ? Professor BABCcocK. If used at all, they would be used, most of them, in the process, and not as constituent products. But with very few ex- ceptions, I cannot conceive that they would be used at all. The CHAIRMAN. Could these various acids be used without there being danger of some portion remaining in the product? 17007 OL——7 98 IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. Professor BABCOCK. Yes; they might. The CHAIRMAN. There is no danger of their remaining in the product at all? Professor BABCcocK. If used, there would be a certain danger of their remaining in the product—I misunderstood your question. If they were used, traces of them might remain in the product or might not. If they did so remain, we should find them. The CHAIRMAN. Your statement was that you had no knowledge of any of these articles being used. How many oleomargarine factories . have you investigated, so as to be familiar with their processes ? Professor Babcock. Cnly two; we have oniy two in our vicinity. My personal knowledge of the actual practical manufacture of oleomar- garine is much less than that of many other gentlemen present. The CHAIRMAN. You do not believe that nitric acid or any of those other deleterious substances are used at all by any manufacturers, I understood you to say? Professor BABcock. I do not believe they are. The CHAIRMAN. Do you know anything about the factory of N. I. Nathan & Co., in New York, and of the process used by them? Professor BABCOCK. No, sir; I do not. The CHAIRMAN. [hold in my hand here a letter headed “N. I. Na- than & Co., manufacturers of butterine, under patent granted to N. I. Nathan,” which reads as follows: NEw York, March 30, 1886. Sirs: We have taken the liberty of forwarding to you per P. R. R. one 10- -pound tub of our creamery brand of butterine, which we claim is the finest in the market, for which we do not charge you anything. We guarantee uniformity in quality at all times, and our present price for the same is 10 cents per pound net, F.O. B., New York, in the following packages, viz: Half firkins, 10, 20, 30, 40, and 56 pounds Welsh tubs; 1 pound rolls, 30, 40, or 50 in a tub; 60-pound tubs, catch-weight rolls; 1 pound round prints, 40 in a case; 1 pound square prints, 52 pounds in a case. a ee quality and price are satisfactory, we would be pleased to receive your valu- able orders. i Very respectfully yours, N. I. NATHAN & CO. The CHAIRMAN. I also hold in my hand a business card which reads as follows: “N, 1. Nathan & Co., manufacturers of butterine, under pat- ent granted to N. I. Nathan.” I have also here a copy of a patent granted by the United States to N. I. Nathan, of New York, for a process of making artificial butter. After going on about preliminary matters, it says: The lard which has passed through the sieve is then subjected to the action of cold water, to which has been previously added and thoroughly stirred a quantity of bo- rax and nitric acid, about in the proportions hereinafter specified. By treating the lard in this solution, composed of water, borax, and nitric acid, the effect is to fur- ther cleanse the lard and make it partake of or assume a clear white color, free of all odor, and almost perfectly tasteless. After being subjected to this treatment, the mass is removed and thoroughly rewashed in cold water, preferably in a separate and distinct vessel from that previously employed, whereby the product becomes a purified or deodorized leaf lard, its characteristic being that it is of a beautiful color, a clear white, perfectly odorless, remarkably solid and free from the disagreeable taste usually present with lard. Arriving at this stage of the process, a certain minute quantity of nitric acid is added to the water, and incorporated with a cer- tain quantity of the purified or deodorized lard to further strengthen the solution, and this mode of treatment and addition of nitric acid are continued as mass after mass of the purified or deodorized lard is prepared, the operation being continued until the product assumes a clear white color, void of odor and taste. The product thus obtained is mixed with oleomargarine, which is then a commercial article and readily obtained in the market, and when all is thoroughly mixed, the mass is sub- jected to heat, &e. And he goes on and describes the amount of nitric acid used. IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. 99 Professor BABCOCK. What was your question, sir? The CHAIRMAN. You stated that you had no knowledge of anything of this kind being used, and did not believe it was used. Now, I ask you what you have to say in regard to that process? Professor BABCOOCK. I should like to see the whole of that patent first. I do not think because a man has a patent, and because his letter-head says that he works under a certain patent, that it by any means follows that his goods are so made. The CHAIRMAN. What do you mean by that? Professor BABCcocK. I mean to say that a man to-day may make a certain kind of goods, and may say that he has taken out a patent for that purpose, and that his goods are made under that patent. But it does not follow that he does so. ‘There are numerous patents taken out not worth a cent, and it is done merely to give a man the right to put that on there, and he does put it on. The CHAIRMAN, Mr. Nathan says, under his letter-head of March 30, that these goods are manufactured under a patent of the United States, and I have here a copy of the patent. Professor BABCOCK. I understand that he says so. But I say in the first place, it does not follow that because he has a patent, or because he refers to it in his letter-head, that he makes use of it. The CHAIRMAN. It follows, then, that he misrepresents the facts as to the making of it? Professor BABCcocK. I should say that in that case it might be so. The CHAIRMAN. Then you do not believe Mr. Nathan’s statement, that that is made under his patent? Professor BABCOCK. I did not say that; I did not say what I did not believe. I said this: That in the first place I was not aware of any manufacturer using nitric acid. It appears: that Mr. Nathan has a patent, and he says that he uses it. I admit that that may be true. But I say it does not follow that it is true because he has a patent and refers to it in his letter heads. But if he does use it—which | do not know, and which I am thankful to have received information concern- ing—what of it? It is not a poison in the manner in which it is used, in any way, shape, or form. The CHAIRMAN. In answer to another question I understood you to say that it was a poison, and that if it was used a portion might re- main in the resulting product, and therefore it might be injurious. Professor BABCocK. Let me explain that. If you take nitric acid in the strong form in which you buy it in a drug store it is a caustic. It is not a poison per se, but a poison because corrosive. But in a diluted form it is not a poison unless taken in large quantities. In the same manner salt is a poison. If used at all it is used in that patent for the purpose of oxydizing certain inaterials, so as to remove color, probably. As a chemist, I doubt very much whether Mr. Nathan uses any such thing. I do not believe he can use it. I do not understand how a man is going to work nitric acid in that process. Senator JONES. He says in his patent that he uses it in extremely small quantities, or words to that effect. The CHAIRMAN. The patent goes on and gives the proportions to be used for a gallon of water, and so forth. Senator BLAIR. What are they? The CHAIRMAN. Three ounces to a certain mixture here. Professor BABCOCK. I wish you would let me see that patent. The CHAIRMAN. I understood you to say some time ago that the bad odor which comes to the tallow or fat of any kind after it has been lying 100 IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. exposed to the atmosphere for a short time can in no way be removed. Do you mean to be understood as broadly as that? Professor BABCocK. Of course it is a question of degree. In making oleomargarine you need perfectly fresh fat. The CHAIRMAN. That is to say it makes the product better. Professor BABcocK. I do not think you can take any fat material which is tainted and use it successfully. The CHAIRMAN. I judge from the nature of that patent that nitric acid and other chemicals that were used there were for the purpose of deodorizing the fat. He speaks of deodorizing the mass by the use of nitric acid, borax, and water. Professor BABCOCK. He says, also: “In practicing my invention I purchase in open market fresh leaf lard.” He does not take refuse ma- terials and work them up, but he starts with fresh leaf lard. The CuHarrRMAN. If he starts with fresh leaf lard what is the object of deodorizing it? Professor BABCOCK. To make it still better and to remove the last traces of the animal. Itis to carry it another step. This nitrie acid, if used according to this patent, is intended for removing the last traces from the fresh leaf lard, which he admits he uses. He does not use re- fuse fat any way. The CHAIRMAN. But might he not use refuse fat and still state on his letter heads that he works under the patent, and that use of nitric acid, would that not apply to lard as well as the other things? Professor BABcocK. I do not believe that he can use refuse fat. The CHAIRMAN. What knowledge have you on that subject? Professor BABCocK. I know something of the difficulty of refining fats. I have made that a special study—the matter of oils and fats— and I know that if you have a fat that is tainted, and you want to refine it to a degree so that you can make oleomargarine of it, you have got something which chemists have not yet been able to accomplish, in my judgment. You have got to start with the best fat you can procure and then you have to carry that on by carefully treating it all the way through, and the object of the various patents which have been gotten out has been to accomplish that in some other way than by the original method which was covered in the Mege patent. The CHAIRMAN. There is no use of nitric acid, or any suggestion of the necessity of it, in the original process of Mege. Professor BABcOcK. I think not. The CHAIRMAN. The fact of finding it in the patent would suggest, would it not, to every one, that the object of using it was to deodorize fats which had contracted an odor so that they could not be used with- out it. Professor BABCcocK. I think not to any intelligent person who would read that whole specification. When a man says, ‘In practicing my invention I purchase in open market fresh leaf lard, and after having thoroughly washed it, cause it to be cut up and minced in a suitable machine,” it indicates that he buys fresh material and the best he can get. The CHAIRMAN. Further down it says he uses nitric acid and borax. Is that not a process of deodorizing? Professor BABCOCK. Certainly it is. The CHAIRMAN. Why should he deodorize it if it is in the condition in which Meve intended it should be—fresh and without odor? Professor BABcock. He wants to get the odor perfectly out of it and to make an absolutely neutral fat. IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. 101 The CHAIRMAN. You think that can be done only in fresh fat, and that fat not absolutely fresh cannot be deodorized at all? Professor BaBcock. It cannot be practically deodorized. In a chemical laboratory I will not say that it could not be done by the use _ of chemicals so that a man could get a patent and sell out to some com- pany if he wanted to. But it is not practical, because it would cost 30, 40, or 50 cents a pound. The CHAIRMAN. I will ask you one other question right on that point, as you have given your opinion very positively. We will suppose that a fat is not perfectly fresh; that it has been removed a short time from the animal and has become slightly tainted by being exposed to the at- mosphere. Do you not believe it possible under that patent, or some other patent, by the use of chemicals, to so far deodorize it that it could be used for making an article of oleomargarine, and that whatever odor was left could be concealed by the use of flavoring materials like bu- tyric acid or other matters. Professor BaBcock. I do not think that any fat which had become in any sense offensive or unpalatable could be so treated. The CHAIRMAN. You mean after it has become putrid or partially decayed ? Professor BABCOCK. No, sir; not so far as that. I mean fat not per- fectly fresh—fat which is not more than 24 or 36 hours old. You cannot take old fat and work it. The CHAIRMAN. For how long a period after fat is taken from an animal can it be used ? Professor BABCocK. I would not undertake to express an opinion in regard to that. I frankly say I do not know. But [say the fat must be relatively fresh. Now a single word on a matter which I think is quite clear, about this purification of the pure leaf lard. If you take water from a well or pond, you say it is pure, nice water, that it has only five or ten grains of solids to the gallon, and you use it for drink- ing purposes. But for certain manufacturing purposes it is necessary to get absolutely pure water, and so, at a great deal of trouble and ex- pense, so that it costs you 12 to 15 cents a gallon, you take that water and distill it, and it is absolutely pure. Thatis what thisis. It is pure leaf lard that he starts with. The CHAIRMAN. One other question about the color. Mr. Nathan produces as a result a color which is a pure dead white. That is of course the natural color of butterine or oleomargarine uncolored. Why not leave it right there? Why not provide that no coloring matter shall be added to it, but that it shall be left in its natural form—not compel it to be colored pink or any other color, but leave it in its natu- ral color? Professor BABcocK. For this reason: In that way oleomargarine could not be distinguished from lard or tallow, and if the goods were uncolored in that way, in three or four years some people might come before a legislative committee and say, ‘‘ Here are people who are sell- ing tallow and lard for oleo—lard unpurified instead of oleo.” How are you going to provide for that? The CHAIRMAN. They could be distinguished by the taste and flavor. Professor BABCOCK. No, the lard might still be purified so as to bea lard without flavor. Senator BLArirR. Why do they not sell lard for butter now, on that theory ? Professor BABCcocK. For the reason that it is not adapted to the purposes of butter; it is too thin, too fluid. 102 IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. Senator BLAIR. Would it not be just as useless for butter then as now; it would be lard still. Professor BABCOCK. It would be lard, but it would be purified. I will say in regard to this matter of color that it is done to please the eye and to make it resemble an article which it is confessedly made for the purpose of resembling as a substitute for it. Ifa man was going to make a substitute for butter he would not want it black or pink or any other color, any more than he would want to make a substitute for ebony any other color than black. The CHAIRMAN. You do not think it would injure its commercial value to color it? Professor BABcocK. I think that for a number of years any other color than that people are accustomed to see in the goods used for the purpose of butter would create a prejudice which it would require a number of years to overcome. That would be the effect. Senator JONES. Do you think there is any difficulty practically in enforcing a properly-guarded State law to insure the public against the purchase of oleomargarine except where they choose to buy it? Professor BABCocK. I think there is no difficulty in enforcing a properly guarded State law, a local law. If you have a law providing that such and such things shall or shall not be done, and you have no- body to look after it, it is not going to be enforced of course. You must have officers to execute it. Senator JONES. You think there would be no difficulty in executing a law with proper machinery and a properly framed law? Professor BABCOCK. I think there would be no practical difficulty in executing it. The CHAIRMAN. How would you reach every tittle town and village in Massachusetts and every wayside grocer—by an inspector ? Professor BaBcock. I should make the attempt in the same way that I should try to enforce the law against rum or anything else of that nature. You have a law about this, that, or the other thing, but it is not enforced in every little town. STATEMENT OF GEORGE H. WEBSTER. Mr. GEORGE H. WEBSTER, of Chicago, then came before the com- mittee. The CHAIRMAN. Please state in what behalf you appear ? Mr. WEBSTER. I am a member of the firm of Armour & Co., of Chicago. Senator JONES. In what business are you engaged ? Mr. WEBSTER. We are slaughterers of cattle and hogs, and pack and ship the product. As a preface, I wish to say that it is my desire and intention to cover the ground fully, in order that this investigation may be as exhaustive and comprehensive as possible under the circumstances. If, therefore, any points should be omitted about which you desire to be informed, it will give me pleasure to be interrogated, and, if unable to furnish im- mediately the information desired, I promise to obtain it. We have nothing to conceal that will tend to enlighten you on this important matter. As I have stated, I am a member of the firm of Armour & Co., of Chicago. We are slaughterers of cattle and hogs in Chicago to quite a formidable extent, having killed last year 330,000 cattle and 1,200 000 IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. 103 hogs on our own premises. We send the products to all parts of the world, and as an element of this business we are producers of oleo oil and neutral, as well as the much abused products known as oleomar- garine and butterine. The testimony to which you listened yesterday and this morning from Professors Morton and Babcock and Chandler was altogether scientific. It is my privilege this morning, as a mer- chant and manufacturer, to present the matter to you from a commercial standpoint, having noticed yesterday that several questions propounded to those gentlemen regarding the cost and selling value of the articles were not satisfactorily answered. The methods for producing the several products were so minutely described to you by Professor Morton, that I promise to be very brief in alluding to them again. The product which is most affected by this bill, and which is the more far-reaching in its extent, is that which is commercially known as “oleo oil,” the manufacture of which enhanced the value of the cattle slaughtered in Chicago alone, during the past year, to the sam of fully $4,000,000. This I mention as appertaining to Chicago only; my friends who are present from the cattle districts of the West will have something to say concerning this product and the interest they have in it. The method of producing oleo oil is as follows: The selected fat is taken from the cattle in the process of slaughtermg, and after thorough wash- ing is placed ina bath of clean cold water and surrounded with ice, where it is allowed to remain until ‘all animal heat has been removed. It is then cut into small pieces by machinery, and melted at an average temperature of 150 degrees until the fat in liquid form has separated from the fibrine or tissue, and then settled until it is perfectly clear. Then it is drawn into graining vats and allowed to stand a day, when it is ready for the process. The pressing extracts the stearine, leay- ing the remaining product, known as oleo oil. It is this article which, when churned with cream or milk or both, and with sometimes a small proportion of creamery butter, the whole being properly salted, gives the new food product oleomargarine. HEachanimal yieldsan average of about 40 pounds of oleo oil, and the quantity produced in the United States during 1885 was about 200,000 tierces, equal to 75 millions of pounds; of this about one third is used in this country, the remainder going to various parts of Hurope, but mainly to Holland, where the manufacture of oleomargarine for shipment to England is one of the principal indus- tries of the Kingdom. ‘The average market value of oleo oil, over that of common tallow, for the past three years has ranged from 5 to 8 cents per pound, and figuring it at 7 cents per pound, gives approximately $3 per head which beef cattle are benefited by its manufacture. Of the total quantity mentioned, Chicago and vicinity produce about one-half. This oleo oil is manufactured to a large extent in Austria, France, and Germany, over 40,000 tierces, equal to 15,000,000 of pounds, finding its way into Holland alone during the year 1885. With this large pro- duction abroad the United States has to compete, and if oleo oil used in this country is taxed, which is one of the propositions of the bill, it will throw just that additional quantity on the foreign market and lower the price correspondingly, which, at a low estimate of two cents per pound, would amount to $1,500,000. Does it seem right or just, from any standpoint, that any portion of your fellow-citizens should be de- prived of their own home market for so valuable a product, and forced into an unprofitable export outlet as being the only one open to them, and simply because it is the principal component part of a clean and wholesome food product whose only sin is that it is competitive with 104 IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. another? Has not an American citizen as much right to make butter from oleo oil as another American citizen has to make it from cream and milk, and has not the consumer as much right to buy and eat it if he so desires? There is no doubt, bowever, that the consumer should be made aware of what he is buying, and this can be easily accomplished and regulated by proper State police surveillance, but onerous prohib- itoryv taxation is unnecessary and opens the doors for endless troubles in the future. I have now described oleo oil and oleomargarine and their relations to each other, but there is another product, called butterine, to which allusion was made yesterday, but no satisfactory description of it was given, for the reason that very little of it comparatively speaking is made in the East or in New York, from which city the two gentlemen came. The difference between oleomargarine and butterine is this: In making butterine we use neutral lard, which is made from selected leaf lard prepared and rendered in a very similar manner to oleo oil, except- ing that no sterine is extracted. This neutral lard, which is a beauti- fully white and odorless product, is cured in salt brine for 48 to 70 hours at an ice-water temperature. Itis then taken and with the desired pro- portions of oleo oil and the finest creamery butter is churned with cream and milk, producing an article which, when properly salted and packed, is ready for market. We use the same coloring that is used by all butter-makers, and which has already been fully described. The but- terine is generally made of two qualities, differing only in the propor- tions of the ingredients used. In cold weather a little salad oil, made from selected cotton-seed, is used in both products for the improvement of their texture. We get an average of about eight pounds of raw leaf lard per hog, which render net about five to six pounds of neutral. This neutral is worth from two to three cents per pound over ordinary steam-rendered lard. Therefore figuring five pounds per hog as a min- imum, at two and a half cents per pound, adds twelve and one half cents per head to the value of every hog slaughtered in the large cities. There were slaughtered in Chicago during the past year 5,000,000 of hogs, which at 123 cents per head makes an enhanced value from neu- tral alone of over $500,000. This article is seldom exported, and there- fore if this bill should go into effect the industry of its manufacture would be entirely crushed and destroyed. The proportions of the com- ponent parts used in preparing these several articles of oleomargarine, creamery butterine, and dairy butterine are approximately as follows: Oleomargarine is mainly made of oleo oil exclusively, but sometimes 5 per cent. of the finest butter is added, which is churned with the cream and milk to improve the flavor. Creamery butterine is usually composed of 25 per cent. creamery butter, 40 per cent. neutral, 20 per cent. oleo oil, and the balance milk, cream, and salt. Dairy butterine differs from creamery only in the proportions. It is a cheaper product, and its proportion of butter about 10 per cent., neu- tral 45 per cent., and oleo oil 25 per cent., the balance being made up of cream, milk, and salt. The average cost of these products respectively is about as follows: Oleomargarine, 8 cents per pound; dairy butterine, 10$ cents per pound; creamery butterine, 15 cents per pound; and the average selling prices, taking our own as an index, are: Oleomargarine, 9 to 94 cents; dairy butterine, 114 to 12 cents; creamery butterine, 14} to 15 cents. Senator JoNES. Do I understand you to mean by oleomargarine, as IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. 105 you use the term there, the oleo oil, or oleomargarine as prepared in imitation of butter? Mr. WEBSTER. What I have just stated about the cost and selling price related to oleomargarine—the prepared product. Senator JONES. Prepared as a substitute for butter ? Mr. WEBSTER. Yes, sir; it is made mainly from oleomargarine oil. On special occasions, and in order tomeet competition, wehave sold the product at one-fourth to one-half cent per pound over actual cost, all showing that the business in itself is competitive, and done at best on very limited margins of profit. In Chicago there are thirteen manu- facturers in all, but the business is principally confined to about half that number. The manufacturers in the whole country,east and west, as far as I can ascertain, number about thirty. The manufacture of these products furnishes employment to probably two thousand men, while the production of oleo oil neutral farnishes employment directly and indirectly to at least three timesas many more. At the last Ameri- can fat stock and dairy show held under the auspices of the Illinois State Board of Agriculture in Chicago, in November last, the butterine manufacturers were allowed, after mucb dissention, to make an exhibit of their products, and the effect was wonderful in turning popular preju- dice into popular favor. The butterine men, in order to show their sympathy and sincerity at that time, offered two thousand dollars in premiums for the best display of fine creamery butter at the next ex- hibition, to take place November next. I hold a letter in my hand, re- ceived by my firm only a few days ago, which I will take occasion to read, if you desire, as it shows how the butterine-makers’ premiums are appreciated by the [llinois State Board of Agriculture. We, as manufacturers of the component parts of oleomargarine and butterine as well as of the products themselves, respectfully urge that you recommend the appointment of a committee to visit the places of the principal manufacture of these articles, and to make a thorough investi- gation of all the methods and ingredients used. It will be our pleasure to extend every possible facility, that the whole facts may be obtained and every item uncovered that will lead to the whole truth and nothing but the truth concerning them. In regard to these products being similar to butter, so there are carpets and every other article made in almost exact imitation of those of a higher and more expensive grade, and such imitations are often sold for originals, yet the manufacturers have never had prohibitory taxation thrust upon them, an: their offense, if such it is, is far greater than our own, for we sell our products on their merits alone. A sugar planter in Louisiana would surely consider it a hardship if he should be threatened with taxation because some remote retailer mixed his product with sand and glucose, and then took advantage of the consumer. Undoubtedly the proper way to stop such illegitimate transactions is through the State laws and strict police surveillance in their enforcement. Nothing, I assure you, would please the makers of oleomargarine and butterine more than just exactly such a regulation. Our products are daily increasing in popular favor, and solely upon their own merits; the people generally prefer them and buy them, rather than the unpalatable and unwholesome grades of medium dairy butter. Such butter is fit only for grease, and these new food products are to be thanked for forcing it to find its own true and consistent level. The manufacture of these products does not affect the price of butter adversely, but quite the contrary is the fact. We expended during the past season $95,000 for creamery butter for use in our butterine and 106 IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. oleomargarine factory. This represented between 350,000 and 400,000 pounds, at an average cost of 264 cents per pound, and we have sold our creamery butterine during the past two weeks at 15 cents per pound, when the price of butter in Elgin was exactly the same figure. This shows the hold these products are taking on popular taste and popular favor; it shows, furthermore, that the average consumer is a philoso- pher, from the fact that he would rather “bear the ills he has than fly to others that he knows not of.” The business of manufacturing these articles will not stand a tax of any kind. Weare willing to pay a license if considered admissible and will brand the product; more than this we think should not be de- manded. In regard to the wholesomeness of these products, I want to say a word or two. A short time ago, when Dr. Cyrus Edson, of the New York board of health, was in Chicago, we invited him, in company with Dr. De Wolf, who is health commissioner of New York City, and Dr. John H. Rauch, who is secretary of the Illinois State board of health, to visit our factory. They did so and voluntarily gave us these letters: CuicaGo, May 15, 1886. Messrs. ARMOUR & Co., Chicago: GENTLEMEN: It gives us pleasure to say to you that we have recently visited your factory at the Union Stock Yards in this city, and thoroughly examined the whole process of the manipulation and manufacture of butterine and oleomargarine. We cheerfully testify that we consider the products cleanly, palatable, and wholesome food products, containing nothing injurious or detrimental to health, but, on the con- trary, cheap and desirable substitutes for the medium grades of dairy butter. Yours, respectfully, Hepite soe OSCAR C. Dz WOLF, M. D. [Illinois State Board of Health, Office of the Secretary. ] SPRINGFIELD, ILL., May 17, 1886. To ARMOUR & Co.: GENTLEMEN: While engaged in an official investigation with regard to the slaugh- tering of beef at the Union Stock Yards, accompanied by Dr. Cyrus Edson, food inspector of the New York board of health, and Dr. O. C De Wolf, health commis- sioner of Chicago, recently, I witnessed your process for the manufacture of oleomar- garine and butterine. By what I saw I am convinced that it is conducted with the most scrupulous cleanliness; that nothing in the manufacture, or the material used, is detrimental to health, and that the products are wholesome. Very respectfully, carte Crna ; Hiei 10). I would be pleased to leave with the committee several of our circu- lars which we send out for our customers, showing how we place the article before the people from a manufacturer’s standpoint. The CHAIRMAN. Have you any knowledge as to how other manu- facturers brand their goods and send them out, or only in regard to your own practice ? Mr. WEBSTER. I know very tittle as to what others do, but I believe that al) manufacturers send out their products as we do, and sell them as we do. The CHAIRMAN. You heard the statement made by Professor Bab- cock, who preceded you, in regard to goods coming to Boston from some places in the West, branded “‘ Kureka Creamery,” and so forth. Have you any knowledge on that subject at all? Mr. WEBSTER. I am not familiar with those brands. The CHAIRMAN. Then I will not ask you to say anything about that. Senator SAWYER. Do you use any patent right in any of your manu- ~ factories? IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. 107 Mr. WEBSTER. No, sir; we do not. A number of years ago, in con- nection with others, we had a patent issued to us simply as a matter of protection against the prosecution of the Commercial Manufacturing Company who held the Mége patent in this country. We had that _ patent issued, but it was a mere pro-forma matter, and was never put into practical effect. It was done for a purpose, and tbat purpose was our protection from prosecution. The CHAIRMAN. Can you state about the proportion of butterine, as compared to oleomargarine, now made generally in the country? Mr. WEBSTER. | thirk the preponderance is largely in favor of oleomargarine. I have no definite figures of the total manufacture of these products separately. The CHAIRMAN. I understood you to state that there was more but- terine made, or the product containing lard, than there was oleomarga- rine. Mr. WEBSTER. I said there was more butterine made in the West than there was in the East. The CHAIRMAN. I understood you to say that about two-thirds of the latter, or oleomargarine oil, went abroad. Mr. WEBSTER. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. About how much fat, on the average, comes from each animal slaughtered? I mean fat that can be used in the oleomar- garine factories. About how many pounds of raw fat is the average of each animal slaughtered ? Mr. WEBSTER. They figure about 5 per cent. It averages, I think, about 55 pounds, from which we get on the average, approximately, 35 pounds of oleo oil and 22 or 23 pounds of stearine. The CHAIRMAN. That is 55 pounds on the average, from each animal slaughtered, of fat that is suitable for oleo? Mr. WEBSTER. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. What is the raw fat worth in the market now? Mr. WEBSTER. I am unable to answer that question definitely, be- cause we never sell it; we manufacture it into oleo oil. The CHAIRMAN. Has it not any market value in Chicago ? Mr. WEBSTER. Oh, ves, it has. The CHAIRMAN. Can you not state about what the raw fat is worth ? Mr. WEBSTER. I should think it would be worth, approximately, in Chicago, six cents a pound, judging from the value of the other prod- ucts. The CHAIRMAN. What was that fat used for before the manufacture of oleo was discovered, chiefly ? Mr. WEBSTER. It was rendered into ordinary tallow. ; The CHAIRMAN. About what was the price of tallow in this country before this process began ? Mr. WEBSTER. I can furnish you with those statistics. The CHAIRMAN. Can you furnish us with statistics as to the price of tallows and lards running back for a number:of years; are there any such BEurOS as those made by the Produce Exchange of Chicago, or other parties? Mr. WEBSTER. Yes, I think so. Senator BLAIR. And ean you give the present prices to show whether there has been any change in the prices of lard and tallow ? Mr. WEBSTER. I have the prices of oleo oil and tallow for three years past, but I can very readily obtain them for twenty years if you desire them. It is merely a matter of statistical reference. I cannot do so to-day, but I will do so with pleasure hereafter. This oleo oil, if you 108 IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. will allow me to say it, is a very sensitive article. A year ago it sold as high as 17 cents a pound, and it has sold since as low as 8 cents a pound, a fresh oleo oil suitable for this purpose. Tallow has sold as high as 8 cents a pound and as low as 33 cents a pound. It is worth in Chicago to-day 4 cents a pound, and fresh oleo oil 124 cents a pound. The CHAIRMAN. About how much tallow would be derived from the average cattle killed; taking the whole fat of the animal, how much tallow would be produced? Mr. WEBSTER. Of the rendered tallow I think about 55 pounds. I think there is about 80 pounds, if I remember rightly, of rough fat, which makes, rendered, in the neighborhood of 55 or 60 pounds of reg- ular tallow. That is the figure, when all the fat goes into the tallow, if I understood your question. The CHAIRMAN. Yes, it was if the whole of the fat was rendered into tallow how much would be produced from the animal? Mr. WEBSTER. The average difference in the price, as I believe I mentioned, for a series of years, has been from 5 to 8 cents a pound. I have known it to be 10 cents a pound, but I figure it in my estimate here at 7 cents. The CHAIRMAN. I wish you would furnish me, at your convenient leisure, the prices of tallow and lard running back for a number of years—the statistics. Mr. WEBSTER. I will do so with pleasure. Senator Jones. I think those figures ought to go into and be made a part of his statement. The CHAIRMAN. They should, if they come in time. Senator BLAIR. Do you sell oil for consumption in this country or do you turn the whole of your product into oleomargarine and butterine yourselves ? Mr. WEBSTER. We sell large quantities of it to other manufacturers. Senator BLArr. To what points of the country do you send it, and give us some idea of the quantities. I do not expect much accuracy about it. Do you send it to the Pacific coast ? Mr. WEBSTER. We make ourselves, at our packing-houses, about 25,000 tierces of oleo oil per annum, and we shipped last year about 12,000 tierces, about one-half. I presume out of the remainder we used two-thirds. My idea of the volume of business would lead me to suppose that we use approximately 7,000 or 8,000 tierces and sell the balance ; that is, in this country. Senator Buarr. I understood you to say that you shipped about 12,000 tierces abroad ? Mr. WEBSTER. Yes, sir. Senator BLAIR. And you consume in your own manufacture into oleomargarine and butterine how much? Mr. WEBSTER. I think six or seven thousand tierces. Senator BLair. And the difference, some five or six thousand tierces, you sell to manufacturers in this country ? Mr. WEBSTER. Yes, sir. Senator BuLArr. I would like to know something in regard to the parts of the country it is sent to. Mr. WEBSTER. Certainly. We send it to New York quite largely— that is, the oleo oil, and we sent it to Cleveland, Columbus, Pittsburgh, Pa., and to various points in the West. Senator BLAIR. Can you state where, substantially, all the oil used in oleomargarine and butterine is produced? Is it pretty much all produced in Chicago and New York—the oil itself I mean ? IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. 109 Mr. WEBSTER. The oleo oil? Senator BLAIR. Yes. Mr. WEBSTER. The bulk of it is produced in Chicago and New York. Our Kansas City house is a large producer, but they do not kill as many cattle as we do, and use the greater portion themselves. They ship but very little. Senator BLAIR. I would like to know how extensive the business of the smallest establishment is. I want to know whether the manufacture of this oil into oleomargarine is becoming common in small places, among small producers and dealers. Mr. WrpstErR. In the city of Cleveland I think there are three man- ufactories—three or four. In Columbus, Ohio, there are one or two. In Pittsburgh there are two, and I think three—two that I know of, and J do not recall any more. Senator BLAIR. Do you know whether, as a matter of fact, farmers and those who are managing what are calied creameries are making use of the oil at all? Mr. WEBSTER. I do. Senator BLAIR. Will you give us such information as you have as to the extension of its use among those who call themselves butter mak- ers, principally farmers and others? Mr. WEBSTER. I cannot give you any definite figures in regard to that matter. Senator BLAIR. I do not expect it; I suppose it is a difficult thing to get figures about it. But I would like to know to what extent butter is being adulterated by the use of that oil. Mr. WEBSTER. We have seut both oleo oil and neutral out into the farming districts, the dairy districts. Senator BLAIR. To what class of producers alers and farmers ? Mr. WEBSTER. No, sir; I think they are mostly butter manufactur- ers and cheese manufacturers. Senator BLArR. This enters into the manufacture of cheese somewhat, then ? Mr. WEBSTER. Yes, I understand so. I know but little of that in- dustry ; simply from what I have heard and read in the papers. Senator BLAIR. It is added into the dairy butter and cheese of the country ? Mr. WEBSTER. I do not know about the regular cheese. I know there is a cheap imitation of cheese that is made out in that district that this article goes into, or at least I have been told so; I cannot speak from absolute knowledge, for I never saw either product of cheese manufactured. Senator BLAIR. But as a business man, you understand that process is going on. Of course it is a healthy article; at least it is, certainly, from your standpoint. Do you see any objection to its becoming grad- ually diffused through the entire manufacture of butter and cheese so far as it can be used and utilized? Mr. WEBSTER. So far as its wholesomeness is concerned I should think not, unless they use some other compound or product in connec- tion with it. | Senator BLAIR. But if it be a cheaper product than ordinary butter, why is not the natural commercial tendency to its general diffusion through the entire butter manufacture of the country? People can make money that way. Mr. WEBSTER. That is a matter of conjecture that I am unable to give you satisfaction about. 110 IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. Senator BLAIR. But that is going on to some extent I understand. I have not heard much said about the extent to which the tallow of sheep was used. Mr. WEBSTER. It is never used, that I know of, for this purpose. In the course of our business we kill from 50,000 to 60,000 sheep per annum, and all the tallow from them we sell to soap makers. Kirk & Company, of Chicago, are our principal buyers. Senator BLAIR. You do not understand that mutton tallow enters into the manufacture of oleomargarine? Mr. WEBSTER. I never heard that it did. Senator BLAIR. No animal is killed simply for the purpose of increas- ing the manufacture of oleomargarine, I suppose ? Mr. WEBSTER. Not solely for that purpose. Senator BLAIR. Then it is the animal which is killed for consumption as meat, as food, and which would be killed any way? Mr. WEBSTER. Yes, sir. Senator BLAIR. You utilize a portion of the dead product in the way which you speak of, so that the only limitation to manufacture is the demand of the animal as a food, as meat, is it not ? Mr. WEBSTER. Yes, sir; as food—not altogether as fresh meat. Senator BLAIR. Not altogether; the hides and tallow and all that. But I want to get at an idea of the extent to which this business can naturally be competitive with the ordinary dairy manufacture of the country. There must be some limitation, and it is incident only to the general meat business, and incident to the general production of meat as food. Mr. WEBSTER. Yes; that is so. Senator BLAIR. And as it is carried on all the animals killed in the country, substantially, are now utilized, are they not? Mr. WEBSTER. No, sir. In small towns in New England, for instance, where a country butcher kills a few cattle from week to week, they do not pretend to make oleo oil; it cannot be done. It requires a process, machinery, and an expensive plant. Senator BLAIR. But in the great slaughtering business of the coun- try, on the extensive scale it is carried on in your business, the fat of the cattle and of the hogs are already utilized to the fullest extent to which they can be in the manufacture of oleomargarine and butterine; is not that so? Mr. WEBSTER. The fat from the hog is a very small percentage. This leaf lard is the choicest fat from the hog, and only weighs about eight pounds ip the rough. We get about five pounds of neutral from a hog, when we ordinarily get about forty pounds of lard. Senator BLAIR. To what greater extent could the fat of the hog be used or utilized for the manufacture of oleomargarine than now; how much more could it be used than it is now? Could you double the produc- tion? Mr. WEBSTER. I do not think so. Senator BLAIR. Could it be increased materially ? Mr. WEBSTER. I think not, except from the general growth of the country and business. Senator BLAIR. As more animals were killed. But in all the hogs killed, substantially, all that portion of the hog product which is fit to work into Gleomargarine is already utilized in that way, is it? , Mr. WEBSTER. Yes; from the hogs killed in the larger cities. The small packing houses throughout the country do not make neutral at IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS, bh i § all. It is only in cities like Chicago, though some is made in Boston, some in Kansas City, and I think some in Saint Louis. Senator BLAIR. What proportion of the animals killed in the coun- try are killed in these large centers, do you think? Mr. WEBSTER. The greater portion by far. Senator BLatr. Four-fifths? Mr. WEBSTER. Yes, sir. Senator BLAtR. Of the animals killed in these great centers, then, just four-fifths of the whole, or more, of the hog and the beef creature are utilized, as far as they can be profitably, already in the manufacture of oleomargarine and butterine. I understand that to be your state- ment. Is that correct ? Mr. WEBSTER. In the manufacture of oleo oil and neutral. A neu- tral or oleo oil is manufactured which does not go into the manufacture of oleomargarine in this country. Senator BLAIR. But it goes into the manufacture somewhere else. Mr. WEBSTER. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Does your ties ship its products to this District; I mean oleomargarine or butterine ? Mr. WEBSTER. We do. The CHAIRMAN. How are the tubs that come here branded? Mr. WEBSTER. I do not know, but I think they are branded as we usually brand them. Sometimes we put on merely a specific name, but our products usually are branded like that. [Hxhibiting a printed paper to the committee. | The CHAIRMAN (reading the paper). ‘‘Armour & Co.; pure dairy but- terine.” ‘‘Armour & Co.; finest creamery butterine.” Senator VAN Wyck. Why are the words “dairy” and “creamery” put on that bill? Mr. WEBSTER. Merely to distinguish the grades. Creamery butter- ine is the highest grade. Senator VAN Wyck. Why do you not say “first quality” or “second quality”? Senator SAWYER. Mr. Webster stated, before you came in, that they used 25 per cent. of butter besides the milk, which ran it up to 35 per cent., and in some other grades less. _ The CHAIRMAN. Do not all the manufacturers in branding it leave out the words ‘“ oleomargarine” and “ butterine,” and simply brand it “dairy” or “creamery” ? Mr. WEBSTER. Possibly so. Sometimes they put on asingle name without specifying whether it is dairy or creamery. The CHAIRMAN. What do you mean by that? Mr. WEBSTER. Sometimes they will put on the name with the word “‘ oleomargarine” under it. The CHAIRMAN. Does your house ever brand it without using the words ‘“‘butterine” or “oleomargarine ”? Mr. WEBSTER. Yes; but not to any great extent. Wedo that on an order, because customers ask it. The CHAIRMAN. You brand it just as your customers ask to have it branded, if they have any desire about it? Mr. WEBSTER. Well, we use a consistent judgment about that. If our customers should ask us to brand it ‘creamery butter,” we should decline to do it. The CHAIRMAN. But if they ask you to put any special brand or name upon it, you do that? Mr. WEBSTER. Yes, sir. 12: IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. Senator BLAIR. What are some of those names which occur to you which you put on at the request of customers—those brands? Mr. WEBSTER. I am not very familiar with that. My business is at the office, 5 miles from the packing-house, but ‘“‘Oakfield” is one. Senator BLAIR. That represents oleomargarine? Mr. WEBSTER. Yes, sir. That is the brand, I believe, that some of our customers ask us to put on. Senator VAN Wyck. Is there anything on that label indicating that it is oleomargarine or butterine ? Mr. WEBSTER. No, sir; nothing specially. Senator BLAIR. You sell in quantity to those who sell to the con- sumers? Mr. WEBSTER. Yes, sir. Senator BLAIR. Why should not they desire the thing they have to sell to be branded according to the fact? Mr. WEBSTER. I canuot answer that; that is their own matter. Senator BLATR. Do you not understand that is a matter of deception on their part? Mr. WEBSTER. Not altogether. A man may have a sort of private brand. Many people have private brands that they sell their products under; not this product specially, but many things which I should think it would be legitimate to mark with a brand. Senator BLAIR. But there is nothing on this package to indicate what itis. You say ‘‘ OUakfield.”. We will suppose it is the name of a place or the name of a person; but there is nothing to indicate whether it is butter, butterine, oleomargarine, lard, or what not. Mr. WEBSTER. ‘They may have a brand that they put on after that. Senator BLAIR. They may have. Mr. WEBSTER. Well, I do not pretend to follow it to its remotest limit. The CHAIRMAN. Would you, at the request of a customer, brand it ‘Oakfield Creamery,” or “ Oakfield Dairy,” without using the word “butter.” Would you put that on if they asked you to? Mr. WEBSTER. I think we would. The CHAIRMAN. Simply ‘ Oakfield Creamery,” without the word “butter” attached to it; simply “ Oakfield Creamery,” or ‘“ Oakfield Dairy,” if a customer desired that brand put upon it? Mr. WEBSTER. I think we would. It is merely a distinguishing term as to quality. Senator BLArR. Is there such a creamery in this country as the “ ‘)ak- field Creamery’ ? Mr. WEBSTER. Not that I knew of. The CHAIRMAN. What do you think of the possibility of the business being carried on in a very small city of making oleo oil by parties going around to the various butcher-shops and buying up the fat as fast as it is produced and taking it to their places of business and making it into oleo oil? Mr. WEBSTER. That is done in New York City to quite a large ex- tent. The CHAIRMAN. They go around to the various butchering establish- ments and get the fat? Mr. WEBSTER. No, sir; not to the small butchers, but to the large slaughtering establishments. nee CHAIRMAN. They could get it from small places as well as large ones IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. 113 Mr. WEBSTER. \It is not likely to be fresh in that case, and unless if is fresh it is utterly valueless. The CHAIRMAN. They could collect it every day ? Mr. WEBSTER. It would have to be collected and handled in a very prompt manner, because where there is the slightest decomposition it is rendered entirely valueless for this product. The CHAIRMAN. You say that is done in New York ? Mr. WEBSTER. Among the large slaughtering-houses I understand it is to some extent. I do not know it of my own knowledge, but I un- derstand it is so. The CHAIRMAN. You have no knowledge of your own as to that? Mr. WEBSTER. No, sir. The CHAIRMAN. You think it might be done? Mr. WEBSTER. Yes, I think it might be done safely. Senator VAN Wyck. Who do you send to heré in the District from your establishment ? Mr. WEBSTER. We have a branch house of our own in the Center Market. I have made my statement from a commercial standpoint. I do not pretend to be an expert in all these matters. The CHAIRMAN. That is the information we want. Mr. WEBSTER. I thought so. Senator JONES. How long have you been engaged in the manufacture of oleomargarine and butterine? Mr. WEBSTER. About four or five years; not exceeding five years. Senator JONES. Do you.know anything about its effect on the health of the consumers ? Mr. WEBSTER. I never heard anything adversely concerning it. Senator JONES. Do you believe it is a wholesome article of food ? Mr. WEBSTER. I do most positively. I have used it in my family for years. Senator JONES. Do you use, in the manufacture of this article, the fat of animals which have died of disease, or any filthy or disgusting fats? Mr. WEBSTER. Never. Senator JONES. Do you believe you could do it if you wished to? Mr. WEBSTER. I do not think we could. Senator JONES. You think it would injure the product in such a way that you could not use it? Do you use any poisons in the manufacture of these articles ? Mr. WEBSTER. Nothing whatever approximating anything of that kind. Senator JONES. You stated awhile ago that you did not use mutton tallow. Why do you not use it? Mr. WEBSTER. We have an outlet for that, and I have never known that it was suitable for this purpose. Senator JONES. Do you think it likely that there would be any odor connected with it that wouid render it unfit for this purpose ? Mr. WEBSTER. I should think there would be. I am not an expert ov the subject, but I should judge so. I do not think it could be util- ized advantageously. Senator JONES. You spoke awhile ago about the rough fat of beeves and hogs as a distinct sort of fat. Do you use that in the manufacture of these articles ? Mr. WEBSTER. We do not. We use only the selected parts from each animal—the caul fat from the steer and the leaf lard from the hog. 17007 oL——S8 114 IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS Senator JoNES. And you think it is a necessity to use that kind alone, to make a success of the business of this manufacture ? Mr. WEBSTER. Undoubtedly it is. Senator JONES. Do you think that the manufacture of this article, and the utilization of every product of the hog and beef as it is butch- ered, tends generally to render the whole animal more valuable and enables you to sell the other products at a cheaper rate? For instance, are you not able to sell the beef and other things at a lower rate than when you were compelled to dispose of them in a more limited market, or in the old way. Mr. WEBSTER. I think it would naturally have that tendency. Senator JONES. Could you use rancid or refuse butter in making this product ? Mr. WEBSTER. We could not. Senator JONES. And you do not? Mr. WEBSTER. We do not. We tried the experiment a year or two ago of buying some butter in the month of June and putting it in tierces and laying it away in our cooling rooms, thinking we might be able to use it in the fall; but we sold that butter recently for five cents a pound, which is the price of common grease. Senator JONES. Could small butchers in small towns profitably use the fat of their animals for this purpose ? Mr. WEBSTER. They could not. It requires a certain plant, machin- ery, and expert knowledge. Senator JONES. I should like to have an idea, if you can give it to me, about what you think would be the value of the smallest plant that could be profitably used in this sort of manufacture. Mr. WEBSTER. In manufacturing oleo oil and neutral, you mean, I suppose. Senator JONES. Yes. Mr. WEBSTER. I should not think a plant could be constructed that would be of any profitable service under five or six thousand dollars; ours probably cost $100,000. Senator JONES. And it would cost more than that to be able to man- ufacture oleomargarine and butterine as it is prepared for the market, or would that plant be sufficient ? Mr. WEBSTER. The smaller the quantity produced of either of these products, the greater would be its approximate cost. Senator JONES. I understand that; but do you mean that a plant costing five or six thousand dollars would justify a man’s entering into this? Mr. WEBSTER. I thought your question related to the plant in a small town. Senator JONES. It does; but I should suppose that even a plant put up in a small town would necessitate the butchering of a certain num- ber of animals before the man could profitably enter this field of man- ufacture. Mr. WEBSTER. It is merely a matter of conjecture; I am not able to answer that question satisfactorily. Senator JONES. If I tell you my object, perhaps you will get the idea { have in my mind. If there was a law requiring the licensing, for in- stance, of these manufactories, would it be possible that there could be a manufactory of this kind, an underground establishment, so to speak, that could be profitably conducted where it would not be likely to be found out by the officers of the law; or would it necessarily have to be conducted in such a large way that there would be no difficulty in find- IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. 115 ing out who was in the business of manufacturing butterine and oleo- margerine as a food project. Mr. WEBSTER. I think that would depend a great deal upon the amount of tax, if taxation should be decided upon. I recollect an ex- perience in the old whisky times, when high wines were worth 30 cents a gailon and the tax was $2, that our house in New York used to receive consignments and make advances of 25 to 30 cents a gallon for ship- ments made to us in bond from various distillers in the West. I have sold that whisky repeatedly at 30 to 35 cents a gallon with a $2 tax, and have seen it on the market next day at $1.50. Senator JONES. I understand, of course, the difficulties that we are met with in a matter of that sort, and there would be necessarily, in any licensing system that could be adopted, evasions. But what I wanted to get at was whether they could be easily detected ? Mr. WEBSTER. And more especially in a tax system, if you will allow me to correct you—you said a license system—would a specific tax en- courage that kind of illegitimate business. Senator JONES. Still you do not get my point. If a law was adopted the object of which was simply to have this product branded and put on the market honestly, so that the people would know exactly what it meant, and if there was a license system for all manufacturers simply for the purpose of enabling the officers of the law to find out where this article was produced, and to follow back to its origin any packages that they might find in the market, how would that operate? That is what I want to get at. Mr. WEBSTER. I do not think there could be very much, if any, pro- duced under those circumstances. Senator JONES. There would be no difficulty in regard to the matter with any concern which manufactured an amount of it that would be profitable? Mr. WEBSTER. No, sir. Senator VAN Wyck. You do not think there would be as much dan- ger of the illicit manufacture of oleomargarine as there is of whisky, for instance ? Mr. WEBSTER. No, sir; unless they had a probibitory tax. The CHAIRMAN. I understood you to say that if the matter were under regulation of law, and placed altogether under the control of the Government, it would not be easy to establish smali factories to evade the law, because they would be readily discovered ? Mr. WEBSTER. Yes; and that is with merely a licensing law, com- pelling a branding of the product. The CHAIRMAN. The business has to be carried on in such an open way in the rendering of lard, &c., that any one could find the place ; it could not be easily covered up. Mr. WEBSTER. I think that is so. Senator BLAIR. What tax do you think could be borne without lead- ing to attempts at evasion ? Mr. WEBSTER. | do not think any tax at all could be borne. Senator Barr. It would not depend so much upon the amount of the tax—lI understood you to say that. The CHAIRMAN. A smali tax would not be apt to be evaded so much as a large tax, of course. Are there any other gentlemen here, from the West particularly, who desire to be heard ? Senator JONES. There is a gentleman from New England, I think from Rhode Island, who will be here to-morrow, who desires to be heard. 116 IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. The CHAIRMAN. I told some gentlemen who wanted to be heard on the other side that we would hear them to-morrow; but if there is any- thing more to-day I should like to hear it. Mr. WEBSTER. A few days ago we sent from Chicago a number of sainples of all these different products. They have arrived, and we have sent for them this morning, and it will give us great pleasure to exhibit them to you if you will allow us the opportunity. We have samples of oleomargarine, butterine, oleo oil, and neutral. The CHAIRMAN. We will look at them in the morning. If no one desires to be heard at present, we will adjourn until to-morrow at 10 o’clock. The committee then adjourned until Thursday, June 17, 1886, at 10. a.m. WASHINGTON, D. C., Thursday, June 17, 1886. The committee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10 o’clock a. m. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Webster desires to submit a few additional re- marks to those he made yesterday. Mr. GEORGE H. WEBSTER. Two questions were propounded to me yesterday which | did not answer satisfactorily to myself, although of course unintentionally. One of them was addressed to me by the chair- man, and the other by Senator Jones. The chairman’s question was whether we ever made oleo oil from anything but the caul fat. IL hav- ing the Armour & Co. brand in my mind, told him that we did not. We do make a second brand from the kidney fat, but its preparation is very small and it goes exclusively to Holland. I do not think we sell a hun- dred packages of it in this country; it goes to Holland entirely. I had our Armour & Co. brand in my mind when you asked me the question, and I thought it was only right to put myself properly on record, as it was an unintentional oversight. Senator GEORGE. Are you connected with the Armour factories ? Mr. WEBSTER. | am a member of the firm. Senator GEORGE. I was not here yesterday, and that was the reason I asked the question. Mr. WEBSTER. Senator Jones asked me a question yesterday which IT have given consideration to since, but which I did not quite appre- ciate at the time, and I would like to make a further explanation or answer to that question. The CHAIRMAN. You may do so. Mr. WEBSTER. Senator Jones asked me about the cost of a plant, and whether the manufacture of oleo oil could be profitably or consistently carried on in small places. In thinking the matter over further, I think the cost of a plant to manufacture oleo oil would be larger, as it would necessitate all the paraphernalia and fixtures of a large slaughter-house, which, of course, would be very expensive, and probably cost twice the sum I named as a minimum. And as to the number of cattle which a man with a moderate plant would be required to handle in order to make it at all profitable, I should think that a plant costing ten, fifteen, or twenty thousand dollars would require the handling of ten thousand cattle, and not only that, but oleo oil being such a small percentage of the product of the animal, he would require to find a market for all that beef, which is no small matter, as the average country butcher only slaughters from twenty to thirty cattle a week, say froin 1,000 to 1,500 a year. So that the point is, that it would be impossible to carry on this business to any extent in any surreptitious manner and in a man- ner that could not be directly traceable. IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. 117 Senator GEORGE. In addition to that, it is an industry which could only be carried on by men of large capital. Small capitalists are not, by the conditions of the business, allowed to invest in it. Mr. WEBSTER. It does not necessarily require a very large capital, but a liberal capital. Senator GEORGE. Well, $20,000 or $30,000; that is a large capital in my part of the country. Mr. WEBSTER. Yes; very likely it would. The CHAIRMAN. Did you state yesterday whether you could give us an estimate of the entire amount of oleomargarine and butterine made in this country ? Mr. WEBSTER. There are no statistics on that point, and it would be entirely a matter of conjecture. [ have had that in my mind, and would be very glad indeed if I could be of some tangible service in giving them, but I cannot. The CHAIRMAN. I think you stated that there were about thirty man- ufactories that you knew of. Mr. WEBSTER. Yes; in the United States. 1 can make out an esti- mate if you would like to have it. The CHAIRMAN. I would like to have your data. Mr. Wmpsvrer. I will give you the data from which I obtain it, and submit it for what is worth; but there are no statistics that I know of, or I should be glad to submit them. The CHAIRMAN. I did not know but what the people engaged in the business, knowing each other, might know pretty nearly what it was. But we would be glad to have your estimate if you will send it to us. Mr. WEBSTER. I will do so. Senator BLAIR. Were there any census statistics on the subject. Mr. WEBSTER. I think not. I never have seen any. Mr. WiLLIAM J. CAMPBELL. At the adjournment yesterday Mr. | Webster stated that he had some samples showing the various stages of manufacture of these products, and if any of the Senators desire to see them they are here and they can do so. The CHAIRMAN. I think we had better wait until we get through the regular hearing and then all will have an opportunity to examine them. It was intended to give the time to-day to people appearing in favor of the bill; but I understand there are two or three people here from Chicago who did not have an opportunity to be heard yesterday, and who desire to address the committee to-day. We can hear them now if they will make their statements very brief, or perhaps they can put them in writing, to go into print with the rest of the statements, be- cause these proceeding are all to be printed, and of course each member of the Senate and of the committee will have a copy of the entire pro- ceedings. If any of these parties have their statements prepared in writing, they might make some explanatory remarks, submit them, and let them be printed. Mr. WILLIAM J. CAMPBELL. Mr. Hammond desires to make a state« ment. STATEMENT OF FREDERICK HAMMOND. Mr. FREDERICK HAMMOND, of Boston, Mass., then addressed the committee : I am employed as manager by George H. Hammond & Co. for the sale of their oleomargarine or butterine in New England, with head- quarters at No. 54 Chatham street, Boston, Mass. I was employed for the position about three and a half years ago, at which time this firm 118 IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. commenced the manufacture of oleomargarine or butterine. Since that time a large amount of these goods has passed through my manage- ment, most entirely to the jobbers of butter and oleomargarine in Bos- ton and its vicinity. I have here affidavits stating that we sell and bill the goods honestly and strictly according to the law. While we do not usually sell in small quantities, many people come to our place of busi- ness and ask us to sell a single tub for use in their families. We have done this in some instances, but being manufacturers, we prefer to do a wholesale trade. I have used our goods in my own family for the past three years. I never have heard of any injurious effects from the use of these articles, and I believe them to be a perfectly healthful arti- cle of food and a much needed product for the poorer classes. I most positively have reason to believe, and do believe, that most all of this class of goods sold in Massachusetts is sold to the consumer honestly for just what they are, and at such low prices that the consumer is much benefited thereby. AVVAISCONISIN bee seiseceictaiate sivin s mispa nei= c)einte/=tsvainlsjeine = nies Siac = aise metalaeie aa is 478,374 | 28, 762 622, 005 TULA SSS BS SB ASB HRS cOce OAR UBC tS BME a EOE Crier eres Bee erator a (= stasis eta | 895, 923 | 3, 246 1, 515, 812 RG Witte eee ic re cle snes ot ack ca ctiace asain oe weeamiae See ciccemme sek lee 854, 187 | 2, 506 ° 1, 755, 343 TENT ost SEDUCE COG See Rint rs GO ICCs DOES ote eee Aron ee 494, 944 3, 970 864, 846 TRATES AR ee tei sinwhcta aes clarc'e ae ojseieewias = eiainigds eee eels aetias Peciabitte Sic 418,633 | 16,789 1, 015, 9385 1S GTA Sus eR SENS re a BN NOG aE a eee 384,578 | 40, 393 466, 669 VIBTIITE SO Geli ees) see tals wai sire eis cronetaenl sete ialeinisem ei=ifete wl aisloiwinie ses =a 275, 545 | 39, 844 347, 161 INS ROUT Ieee etree ate a ed oe Stereo teyste sera wi mw sieisialers are sn | 661, 405 | 9, 020 1, 410, 507 Newmworl: f2455,.). -5.-< Bo.) Pee HE Sete te: CMe ab: GAC Reese ek 1, 487,855 | 39, 683 862, 233 ONT) Lhe ae a Rh TN 7 Ga CA ey Peek 769,043 | 8, 220-1, 084, 977 TE SreTET INO SRE ase! Go Se Btn se bn Senate eae eet eee ee rere 854, 156 | 15, 062 861, 019 Cag ek Gee Rn ee NS ng nk a ips sabe | 7,524,643 | 207,945 | 10, 806, 498 | *20€, 945 7, 494, 643 raanictal =o) ee ee ee de et A Bho | | 38, 587, 086 * Oxen Eleven dairy States had in 1880 more than one-half of all the cattle in the United States. It is claimed that the counterfeit business has added to the value of beef stock. We say the market quotations do not justify the claim, while it is an indisputable fact that the value of aj] dairy stock has been very much reduced—it is believed fully 25 per cent.— while the number of cows in the country has been correspondingly lessened from what it would have been had dairymen had only honest and open competition to contend with. To illustrate the preposterousness of the claim of the stockyard gang that their use of lard and tallow in the manufacture of counterfeit butter has added to the value of beef cattle and hogs, we give the following prices per 100 pounds live weight, taken from the stock yard books: q | pee atia! lek AED ie Beet hs aks ein ae lence a oA ePem mela aiccate chee bhatetats xb adbherere | $4 25 to $9 30 | $3 25 to $6 80 | $5 40 to $9 35 Tee ett he we att ate Sinica ens pi pater eter of stmiaayeica'e Swe aiees 410to 8 25 3 00 to 6 25 3 90to 8 15 LOOSE ean soe Stee toc c cantae eae cOkeaine sae ebeleas 410to 8 00 2 65to 6 25 3 80 to 7 75 RRB etna a ie tetanre eas cic Seo a ciakine oblate We Se ctes oui eteet 3 50to 6 80 2 Bbito: °6.25 3 10to 5 35 We give the range of average prices for the years named. The figures thus far this year are certainly no better than they were last. It will be seen that as the counter- feit-butter business has increased the prices of both beef cattle and hogs have de- clined. But, asa matter of fact, for the information of the cattlemen and all inter- ested, not over 10 to 12 per cent. of oleo oil—just enough to give body—is used in the manufacture of counterfeit butter, the balance being prepared from lard. The neu- tral is so prepared by running the melted raw material into a sulphuric acid bath, to remove the smell of the pig-stye and the cattle-yard. Instead of being heated to 150 degrees, as claimed—a degree far too low to cook it or kill the eggs of parasites—we are credibly intormed that it is barely melted, rarely running above 115 degrees. But, aside from these commercial considerations, is the great question of morality and justice which is involved, and which no Senator can conscientionsly ignore. The consuming public have the right to protection against fraud. Men engaged in an honest industry and furnishing to the public honest goods are entitled to protection against the counterfeit of their goods. Men who engage in counterfeiting should not only have their business suppressed, but be punished for the offense. Men who fraudulently put goods on the market, or connive in any way at their sale to consum- ers for something which they are not, commit an outrage upon the public, which they should not only be restrained from repeating, but for which they should also be pun- ished. Legislation to this end, to cover all cases of the future counterfeiting and fraudulent sale of butter substitutes, is anxiously and hopefully looked for at the ae of your honorable body by a very large majority of the people of the United tates. All the dairy interest, nearly three-quarters of the ‘‘ other cattle” interest, good morals and justice, are against the Chicago stock-yard representation. As to the claim of using a large percentage of fine butter: While we are writing this circular the leading manufacturer of counterfeit butter in Chicago is making a 144 IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. product in which not a particle of genuine butter is used. The only claim it has to be a dairy product is its brief contact with the milkman’s milk in which it is churned. This delectable product is sold to the grocers at 9 cents a pound, and retailed to con- sumers at 20 cents and upwards. With this statement of facts, which cannot be gainsaid, before him, can any friend of agriculture, any believer in honesty and good morals, any lover of justice, for a moment deny that national legislation is imperatively called for to suppress the coun- terfeiting of butter and the fraudulent sale of the counterfeit to the consumer? Respectfully, ROBERT M. LITTLER, Secretary of the National Butter, Cheese, and Egg Association, and Secretary of the Iowa Butter and Cheese Association. CHICAGO, June 9, 1386. STATEMENT OF A. M. FULLER. Mr. A. M. FULLER, of Meadville, Pa., then addressed the committee. I have the honor to represent the Pennsylvania State Dairymen’s Association, an organization of which I have been president some six years. That organization [ will say is supported by the State. I have a very few remarks to offer, and they will bear solely upon one point. We have, during the past six or eight years, discussed very fully this question of oleomargarine. We have endeavored to enact in the State of Pennsylvania the best law which we could possibly get to govern and control the manufacture and sale of bogus butter. I will say that two years ago we held a convention at Harrisburg in connection with the State Agricultural Society over which the governor presided, and we framed a law at that time following very closely after the New York State law. We found, however, that according to the new constitution of the State of Pennsylvania, it was not competent for us to institute a bureau to carry out the provisions of this law, as they are able to do in New York State and some of the other States; consequently I came be- fore you merely to say this, that so far as Pennsylvania is concerned, we feel that we are entirely unable to enforce the law which we have. We feel that the only safety for us and the only certainty in making the law operative is to have it proceed from the General Government. I do not understand that the farmers and dairymen of Pennsylvania ask for protection. Wedo not ask that. We are willing to compete with this product. re- garded as being fully as good as any other branch of the agricul ral industry, and that those profits were controlled by causes which © yer- "PSRT-OLRT ‘snor yopru fo anpva abywap—'] ‘ON WVADVIG i. hg oe — em J =~: 2 nel - vr . - ~= —. — - ee wil = a ee te Ath STA PS eee _— as Wee \ “9RQT-OLST ‘SMOO TO[LUL JO ON[VA OSVAGAR ST OUT] Pe}0q GOO0'000'0L 000 000 IT 000 000 GE 000 O00°EL ‘ORRT-OLRT ‘vawaup fo saynig pap up smoo yoru fo waqunn—'% “ON WVAOVIG a a > a “peeunye Jeg — yews 3 ener oObEDe gael oy a8 cae a a # Sao) J a= ae] inal Ly Sly ‘EB-OL8T ‘sdouo muvf podwursd fo anjna abvivay—'g ‘ON WVADVIC 1 EY Gee," ight? othe Ws uy roe ihe Se he, al i 4 J he r "By. sid ‘ ; 5] * — by sus cuneate orale ; +) Y MAS Be OAs Obl auee aeamemarinal bP eat ehe : my. UN oes ne ‘Ly ‘8. Ty Ny iN \ | SE GL8L iy aol | *L0gn) wnt ‘sabpm hpyywow abv.i0ap—'p ‘ON WVAXDVICL sdo19 [[v ‘osve10Vy ae = =e ei do10 Mey oceoloy Some sees eee S010 Avy ‘one A Se eS — = 5010 [ [2 ‘onlea N i NN N N ™ a ie} S&S Ih GQ |d ~ @ SoS 3 & “ Ss |S mR [S Ls) HNL ‘sabunyo abvjuaowd bumoyg—'s ‘ON WVYDVIC D1aAGRAM No. 6.—Butter and oleomargarine exported. Pounds. 40,000, 000 35, 000,000 30,000,000 ae 006,000 15,000,000 ae 000,000 CC 090,000 IGEZ ISEF ) Pounds. 40,0200,000 35.CO0,000 320,000,000 25,006,000 20,000,000 L5, 000,000 10,006,000 5,000,000 a lane oop thee hey a ee Be ee ee oe De _ DIAGRAM No. 7. 4 _ eal? pare npg | ; Pounds Butter. 30,000,000 DIAGRAM No. 8.—Production of butter in Canada, 1851-1881. 20, 000,000 60,000,000 70,000,000 80,000, 000 __ 90,000,000 100,000,000 Pounds Butter. 30,000,000 46,000,060 50, 000,000 60,000,000 70, 000,800 80,000,000 90,000,000 100,000,000 2 SAM + s - aah, 1 a gtk — ee a —s r a sa S ae . eee Sage : Se. Fgh ial ae caAgsliyfoe Pk Rae ah coueey aes S sie : —h - age. eee ae eee : IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. 185 ated largely upon all the industries of the country alike. Compare diagrams Nos. 3 and 4. Compare with diagram No. 3 the one giving average value of milch cows, No.1; also the one giving average wages of farm labor per month, No. 4. It will clearly appear that similar causes operated in all three cases, and the past three years have seen prices for many products, in very many cases, lower proportionally than have been those of dairy prod- ucts, as, for example, flour, pork, lard, beef, sugar, coffee, tea, and many other products of similar character. Wheat and corn have been and are almost phenomenally low. Diagram No. 4 shows the changes in the average monthly wages of farm labor for the several sections of the country from 1866 to 1882. They clearly show, as does the diagram No.3, giving the values of farm crops, as also does diagram No. 1, giving the value of milch cows, that, “these remarkable fluctuations, from the highest rates after the war to those of the era of industrial depression and return to specie payments, followed by an upward swing of the pendulum,” during the past three years we have also passed through a serious depression in all business, and prices have been unprecedentedly low. Diagram No. 5 shows the percentage changes in the acreage and values of the hay and all crops of the farm from 1874 to 1883. It will be seen that in the increase of value and of acreage the bay closely follows the total of all crops, thus showing that there has been no falling off either in the relative acreage or in the relative value of the hay as compared with the acreage and value of all the principal farm crops since 1874. The acreages and values of the hay crop and of all crops in 1874 is taken as 100, and it will be seen that the acreage of each had by 1888 increased about 63 per cent. The total value of the hay crop had in- creased about 16 per cent., and of all crops about 21 per cent. Diagram No. 6 shows the exports, in pounds, of butter and oleomar- garine since 1877. It should be considered in connection with diagram No. 7, giving the prices of each, as also in connection with diagrain No, 8, giving butter production in Canada. It will appear from the prices that butter can hardly have been dis- placed by oleomargarine, and the very great increase in production of oe butter will explain the falling off in our exportations since 1880. Diagram No. 7 shows the fluctuations of value per pound of the but- ter and oleomargarine exported since 1877. It will be seen that the prices have risen and fallen together, a resuit not in accord with the opinion that the one has displaced the other. This diagram should be considered in connection with No. 6, which gives the exports of butter and oleomargarine in pounds. Diagram No. 8 shows the butter and cheese production of Canada for the years 1851, 1861, 1871, and 1881. Theaverage exports of butter from the United States from 1871 to1881 was 16,728,490 pounds, and it will be seen that the increased butter production of Canada from 1871 to 1881 was 27,372,646 pounds, nearly double our export of butter. This large supply from Canada has doubtless interfered seriously with our ex- portations. It will be seen that while the butter production of Canada increased from 1851 to 1881 over 200 per cent. the production of cheese actually decreased. 186 IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. Diagram No. 9 shows the fluctuations in value per head of farm animals from 1870 to 1884. It will be observed that they closely follow each other, thus conclusively proving that whatever cause or causes have been operative ip increasing or decreasing the value of one have been operative in all. Compare diagram No. 10, which shows the change in percentage of value since 1870, and which shows, therefore, a more marked agreement between the changes of value in farm animals. This chart and No. LO prove beyond a doubt that the~prices for milch cows have not been exceptional. Diagram No. 10 shows the fluctuations in values of farm animals from 1870 to 1884, by percentage of value. The value per head of each at 1870 is taken as 100, and prices each year since are given in per ceuts. of the value per head in 1870. It will be seen that they all show remarkable agreement; that they all attained the minimum price in 1879, and since then rapidly increased. Compare with this diagram No. 9, also Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4, which fully confirm this and each other. The CHAIRMAN. How are those figures compiled ? Professor COLLIER. From the records of the Department of A gricult- ure and from the Bureau of Statistics of the Treasury Department. The CHAIRMAN. Will you turn back to the first chart in regard to the value of cows. You make the highest point of value at what year ? Professor COLLIER. The highest point is at 1870. They were then a trifle over $39 per head. The CHAIRMAN. That chart comes up to what time ? Professor COLLIER. The year 1885 is the last, and [ secured that from the statistics presented, I think, by Mr. Henderson in the House. He used them, and I use his figures for the United States for 1885. I was unable to get them from the Agricultural Department. The CHAIRMAN. What do the figures show for that year? Professor COLLIER. That was slightly more than in 1884. It was about $31 40, or something lke that. The CHAIRMAN. Does that refer to the whole country, or to the Western States only? I do not quite understand. Professor COLLIER. It refers to the United States. I have here in- dicated also the values in Illinois and Wisconsin. They averaged a little higher in those States than in the United States. The CHAIRMAN. Do you not think the average farmer of the country would be somewhat surprised to know or to be told by a statistician that his cows were worth more now than they were two years ago. Professor COLLIER. This does not show what the value is now. I have no results except this one for 1885, which I got from Mr. Hender- son’s speech. The CHAIRMAN. Where does Mr. Henderson’s information come from? Professor COLLIER. It was published in the Congressional Record. 1 think he got it from the Agricultural Department, an advance report which I was unable to get; but I get it from the published annual re- ports of which I have a set, and the last published was 1384. The CHAIRMAN. I think the bulk of the farmers, so far as I know, would be delighted to know that their cows were worth more now than they were two years ago. ; Professor COLLIER. This does not seem to assert that. fle CHAIRMAN. If they could only be made to believe it and could get the money it would be very satisfactory. Professor COLLIER. But the figures from the Agricultural Depart- ment show that there has been a continuous increase in the average value from 1879 up to 1885. What it was for 18386 I do not know. ee ae Sree ee) LI Bll a = = = a Pee —— ae eee =a SS ae Sa INH NU \ i Se e2== a =—_ er OL ff ‘064 “PRST-OL8T ‘sypurun wminf fo poay wad anna abp.aip—'6 ‘ON WVUDVIG ' | \ ie ¥ ba i Cy VON NORE EW ary iat x be pitatel a 4) ay : NT PAS 3 N : D1aGRaM No. 10.—Changes in values of farm animals by per cent. of values in 187 0. I8\72 IS\7Z I8\74 FETS S76 1877 ISV78 IS\79 I8\80 I8\S1 TA ANT WT TTL CTT ee TTT TTT TTL That | | | | | | | | Lat \ 4 | re IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. 187 Senator BLAIR. I would like to ask a question or two of Professor Babcock. What are the principal substauces which you obtain from the animal which are mixed with the dairy products and make the oleo- margarine and butterine ? Protessor Bapcoock. Thereare stearine, palmatin, olein and margarine. Those are the chemical names of well-defined fatty bodies, which are slightly modified in the fats of different animals, but belong to the same general class. Senator BLArIr. I understood from yourself or Professor Morton that some of these substances are obtained from cotton seed. Professor BABcock. A certain amount of stearine and more of the product known as olein are obtained trom cotton seed. Senator BLAIR. Are any of those substances obtained from other veg- etable sources than cotton seed. Professor BABCOCK. Oh, yes, sir; all vegetable oils, what are called fatty oils. Senator BLatR. Please mention some of the vegetable substances which yield them most freely and are most cheaply obtained by proper and suitable processes. Professor BABcock. Palm oil contains less of olein and more of stearine, solid bodies, and is used for making soap largely. Senator BLAIR. That comes from the palm tree. Protessor BABCOCK. Yes, sir. Senator BLAIR. I want to know the vegetable growths from which these substances can be obtained most cheaply and plentifully. Professor BABCOCK. Do you mean, to be used in making butter? Senator BLAIR. Yes. Professor BABCOCK. Palm Oil is not of that character. Senator BLAIR. Lask you what other sources of competition the dairy interests have by the taking of these outside substances and painting them the color of the dairy product. Professor BABCOCK. There are a great many bodies which contain stearine, margarine, aud olein. Perhaps, aS avery general statement, it might be said that all fatty bodies contain one o1 the other of these in different proportions. So does butter. In addition to this pure but- ter contains 4 or 5 per cent., and that ouly, of quite a number of fatty bodies which give it a flavor. Some of those were mentioned in the list of dangerous poisons which it was alleged were referred to in the specifications of patents for making these compounds. Senator BuatrR. Is there anything but cotton seed growing in this country that is likely to yield these oils to an appreciable extent so as to be utilized in the manufacture of oleomargarine or butterine, or any substance competing with pure dairy butter ? Professor BABCOCK. There does not at this moment occur to me any vegetable product other than cotton seed which would be likely to be substituted or used in that way. Senator BLAtR. If cotton seed was utilized to as full an extent as it could be for that purpose, to what extent would it compete with the an- mal fats ? Professor BaBcock. It must be soliditied ; it could not be used as a whole, because it is a fluid. Senator BLAIR. How is that done ? Professor BABCOCK. By a mixture with solid fat. Senator BLAIR. Which must come from the animal ? Professor BABCOCK. Yes, sir. Senator BLAtR. There is no way of dispensing with the anima! alto- gether ? 18S IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. Professor BABCOcK. I know of none. Senator BLAIR. Then there must be some natural limit to the amount of oleomargarine and butterine which can be produced in the country ? Professor BABCOCK. I never heard any one of intelligence doubt that proposition. Senator BLAIR. What is that Ware as itis in your mind ? Professor BABCOCK. I could not say. I donot know. I should have to guess at it; I have not any data at all. But the amount could be estimated (based upon figures which I have not) about the production of cotton seed. Senator BLAIR. But probably cotton seed is not an important faetor in this, is it? Professor BABCOCK. No, sir, I think not. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Webster said they used but a very little of it. STATEMENT OF ELMER WASHBURN. Mr. ELMER WASHBURN, of Chicago, next addressed the committee : Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee: I am engaged in the banking business at the Union Stock-Yards at Chicago. Iam a mem- ber of the Chicago Live Stock Exchange, and am here in company with two other members of that association, asking a hearing before your honorable committee upon the pending legislation “imposing a tax upon and regulating the manufacture, sale, importation, and exportation of oleomargarine.” Our exchange has amembership of two hundred, among whom are the largest feeders, dealers, shippers, and slaughterers of live stock, the largest packers, canners, and shippers of meats, the largest margarine, and butterine in the world. We are here in the interests of shippers of dressed becf,and the largest manufacturers of oleo oil, oleo- the vast cattle-raising industry of the land, and in the interests of equal rights to all, and in the interests of the millions of consumers to whom this object of taxation proves a cheap, wholesome, and almost indis- pensable article of food, to earnestly, but respectfully, protest against the passage of the bill under consideration, and to present such facts as we have at command to justify our protest. Referring to the cattle industry, and in order to give the committee a clearer idea of its magnitude and the consequent loss to the farmer by taxing one of its products, we will state that in the year 1885 there were received at the Union Stock Yards of Chicago 1,905,518 head of cattle. Of this number 1,522,385 head were slaughtered in Chicago, and at least 450,000 more were sold in Chicago and shipped alive for slaughtering in "the East. From an average recently made from the books of our largest cattle-slaughtering house, it seems that during a period of four months ending 10th June, 1886, they slaughtered 147,893 head, which produced: Pounds. LE OKOU. 82 fice Sees Bees 8. Ast eed ee te ae Se ee crs ee 28.1 DUCATING ye As nick Sethe ect ase Se See Ce oe eee eel a oie rr 1 RENIN O eC peter eae Pa Faia ROME Pa one a iu e Sin) Pl Se or esab Baoe sac ci - 12,2 Moa: c(eteyecc esos Ske. ee etre ot lera Sa cee eta eee She 61.5 The value of which would be, at the average prices, for 1885: 28.1 ponundsioleovolls 108. 22 ten, sat heats eee see e een oe eae eee $3 02 21.2-pounds,stearine; OF -.0.5 25... anc « Bases ue Se eres ea ieee eee ee ra ed 12:2 pounds! tallow OF. vos. o'e sew aia kia te Sete wre he toe eee ee ee ee ee eens era 63 IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. 189 Sixty-one and five-tenths pounds tallow at the average price for 1385, 54 per pound, equals $3.19, which subtracted from $5.10, leaves $1.91 net loss per head if manufacture of oleo oil should be stopped. In addition to this, the price of tallow would certainly be very much decreased by so large an addition tothesupply. Figuring the amount of butter stock ifia beet as shown by my statement, to wit, 61.5 pounds, at 3 cents per pound, which would not be too low for tallow with a largely increased supply, and we have $1.84, which subtracted from $5.10, leaves $3.26 for the net loss per head. The net loss could not certainly be less than $3 per head. It will be seen, as previously shown, that the num- ber of cattle slanghtered in Chicago and sold there to be slaughtered in the Kast, amounted in 1885 to 1,722,385 head, and that the net loss on these cattle alone for one year at $3 per head would amount to $5,167,155. To this sum add the loss at same rate per head on the cattle slaughtered at other considerable points, and not coming to the Union Stock Yards of Chicago and not included in that estimate, which, al- though comparatively small, must reach 500,000 head, and we have a total loss on cattle, annually slaughtered at the slaughtering points, of more than $6,500,000. Whatever tends to depreciate the value of fat cattle in the Chicago market tends to depreciate the entire stock of cattle on the ranges and on the farms and elsewhere in the country, and we think it would be pertinent to consider the loss that the passage of this bill would immediately entail upon the holders of the entire stock of cattle in the land, other than milch cows, which number some 31,275,000 head. The CHAIRMAN. Would it interrupt you right there to ask a ques- tion? Of course that statement is based on the assumption that the passage of this law would absolutely stop the manufacture of oleo- margarine and oleo oil; you think none of it would be sold if it was compelled to be sold for what it is? Mr. WASHBURN. If it was compelled to be sold for what it is I think it would be sold. The CHAIRMAN. Then, it business went on atter the bill was passed, and the goods were sold for what they are instead of something else, the consumption of oleo oil would continue to the extent to which the business was conducted ? Mr. WASHBURN. Yes; if the tax and other obstructions were not thrown in the way of its manufacture. The CHAIRMAN. The loss is based entirely on your own figures. In making those figures you have counted out not only the oleo but the Stearine also, and reduced the price of tallow, in case tallow was made, to 34 cents per pound. Before oleo was made at all, stearine was ex- tracted from the fat of the beef and used for making candles and for other purposes, and would continue to be, even if the business of mak- ing oleo oil were entirely abandoned. Mr. WASHBURN. [| do not know; I could not say as to that. The CHAIRMAN. It would be fair to assume, perhaps, that a business carried on for many years would still continue, even if the business of making oleo ceased entirely. I do not see how you can afford to assume that this entire business is to be stopped by this bill, unless you go to the other extreme and say that it will not be sold at all if sold for what it is. Mr. WASHBURN. That is the impression among all the manufacturers. The CHAIRMAN. You think that is their idea; that if this bill were to become a law the entire business would be given up? Mr. WASHBURN. Yes sir. 190 IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. The CHAIRMAN. That must be then on the ground that it cannot be sold under its own name and upon itsown merits. However, I will not nterrupt you further. Mr. WASHBURN. The largest interests to be indireetly and injuriously affected by the passage of this bill are the interests represented by our exchange, amounting in values invested to $100,000,000, and giving: employment to 30,000 men, upon whose daily wages 90,000 people sub- sist. It has been claimed by the dairymen, or some one representing them, that competition with butterine and olecmargarine manufacturers has been so destructive to their interests that it has compelled the sale, at a great sacrifice, of as many as 300,000 milch cows in one year, at the Union Stock Yards of Chicago. The facts do not justify any such statement. In 1885 there were slaughtered at the Chicago yards 117,794 branded or range cows ; 83,925 native cows; total, 201,729. The branded or range cows were never fit for, nor used as, milch cows. Of the total number of native cows at least 90 per cent. were totally dry, and, by reason of age or barrenness, wholly unfit for mileh purposes. The other 10 per cent. could not be called good milech cows, and found their way to the slaughter houses because of vicious habits or for simi- lar reasons. It is not true that cows fit for dairy purposes are slaugh- tered in Chicago in any numbers, as they always sell readily to dairy- men for more than they would bring for slaughtering purposes. It is further claimed that this competition is fast destroying the ex- port trade in dairy butter. There must be some mistake in that claim ; for, while the statistics show that our exports of cattle, saited beef, tal- low, lard, cheese, and butter were considerably less during the first five months of 1886 than the first five months of 1885, both in the aggregate and in separate items, the statistics also show that of all these articles the exports of butter alone during the month of May, 1886, show a marked increase over the month of May, 1885, while they show a marked decrease in the exportation of all of the cattle and hog products for the same time. My statement in relation to these exports may be easily verified at the Bureau of Statistics. The CHAIRMAN. How do you account for that? Mr. WASHBURN. I am unable to account for it. The CHAIRMAN. Is it not a commercial fact that butter only goes abroad according to the range of the foreign price ; that when butter is low in New York City it is shipped abroad, and when it is high it does not go abroad at all? If butter was lower in May, 1885, than usual, the tendency would be to export it until it reached the export price or became too high to export. Mr. WASHBURN. When the butter market is low, of course the export trade is larger. The bill under consideration provides that the manu- facturer of oleomargarine, butterine, &ec., shall be taxed $600, the whole- saler $480, and the retailer $48 per year. I would respectfully call the attention of the committee to the tax at present required of those engaged in rectifying and dealing in liquors, and dealing in tobacco, to wit: Rectifier, according to capacity, $100 to.--. -- Pe Nea oy emeareemmremeaena eens en, i, C200) 1) Wholesale dnguordearlen oe. nena eee ee vt SARE a eR © es harah otto are aloe 100 00 etal ror Galen Wee 2 VAN eet Re OTe ye ate ceiee te teat ae te trate eto le orate = tele ee 25 00 Wiholesale|dealen im: mailpliqmoreees se] ease ee eel ese = eee ee ee eee ete 5u 00 Retail dealerinimaliiquons j4s45: 35 gece oe see eee eee ale ters 20 00 Dealernan manutacturedstobaceo) += == yess oreeie ae are ole Se eee ee 2 40 I will also add that the honorable Commissioner of Internal Revenue in his report for the fiscal year ending June, 1882, recommended the IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. 191 reduction of all of these taxes (except that of the dealer in manufactured tobacco, which has since been reduced from $5 to its present sum) 40 per cent., and at the same time he said: “ The supervision over dealers in taxable articles, which experience has shown to be necessary in order to fully and fairly collect the taxes from all alike, would still be pre- served.” So it can be seen that our Bureau of Internal Revenue has, at one time at least, considered only the smallest sum of taxation neces- sary in order to maintain its supervision over taxable articles. We do not want and are not willing that any tax should be placed on these food products; we deny the right to tax them until the pro- ceeds of such taxation are needed for revenue, and then we will bear the burden manfully and pay the tax without defalcation or discount, We only want to be let alone to pursue an honest living in an honest way. While we can neither see nor understand any legitimate reason for taxing these products in any sum, it is still more difficult for us to understand why (if indeed any one has conceived any legitimate reason for taxing them in any form) it is proposed to make the tax so largely in excess of the amount levied upon persons engaged in manufacturing and selling liquors and tobacco. We can neither discern sound policy nor justice in taxing the manufacture of a wholesome food product three or six times as much as a manufacturer of alcokolic drink, nor the wholesale dealer in the food four and four-fifths times as much as the wholesale dealer in whisky, nor the retail dealer in the food twice as much as the retail dealer in whisky, nor the wholesale dealer in the food nine and three-fifths times as much as the wholesale dealer in beer, nor the retail dealer in the food twice and two-fifths times as much as the retail dealer in beer, nor the retail dealer in the food twenty times as much as the dealer in tobacco. In short, it is proposed by this bill to tax an industry which is supplying a w holesome and almost indispeusa- ble food product, and to make that tax very much heavier than the tax already levied by the Government upon a calling which, in part at least, is stuffing our almshouses, cramming our jails, filling our prisons, and supplying candidates for the gallows. We cannot satisfactorily ac- count for this proposed inconsistency, and fancy that it will be hard in- deed for candidates on the stump to explain why it is that a poor man must pay 25 to 30 cents per pound for an abominable and unwholesome article of dairy butter, when but for the passage of this bill he would have buttered his crust for 10 to 12 cents per pound with a sweet, pure, and wholesome article of oleomargarine. A word in relation to the purity and healthfulness of these products. I have frequently visited our manufactories of oleo oil, oleomargarine, butterine, &c., and I have always found them cleanly and in good order, and have never seen or heard of anything of a suspicious or doubtful character being used in or about these works. I recently went through one of our factories with a party of some dozen gentlemen trom Bos- ton and surrounding country, and they all expressed themselves well satisfied with the product and the methods of its manufacture, and de- clared themselves ‘ converts to butterine.” Our manufactories of these products are situated in the town of Lake, adjoining the city of Chicago on the south. This township has a pop- ulation of 60,000, and it is safe to say that 90 per cent. of them, rich and poor, eat this imitation butter. I have beon engaged in business in that community three and a half years, and have never witnessed but one funeral procession, and I believe that there is no land under the sun where the human race is more prolific, or enjoy better health. For the past three months I have used oleomargarine exclusively, in 192 . IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTs. lieu of dairy butter, and in a house-keeping experience of twenty-five years | have never before known what it was to have uniformly good butter for that length of time. It is claimed by the dairymen that the manufacture of oleomargarine and butterine is interfering with their business and rendering it un- profitable, and if continued, that their occupation will be gone. While we do not admit the existence of such conditions, we are forced to ask, what if they do exist? Is it sound public policy, is it lawful, to tax one industry to support and perpetuate another ? Paths of commerce change and vast cities go into decay. The march of improvement lays a heavy hand upon some industries and builds up others. Such has been the history of the world, and such may be the result of honest competition. And to quote an eminent lawyer who has written well upon this subject, ‘the dairyman is only having his share of the burden of advancing civilization.” And we now submit that if any legitimate reason exists for taxing and supervising the man-. ufacture of butter made from beef fat and creain, the same reason ex- ists for taxing and supervising the manufacture of butter claimed to be made from cream alone. Our ihterests are immense and varied. Competition presents many rough corners, and we naturally guard with jealous care the reputation of our market. For doing this, parties representing the dairy interest here have sought to stigmatize us with the name of * stockyard gang.” But in closing, I wish to assure the committee that the stockyard gang never will appear in Washington extending the hand of a mendi- cant to Congress, aud beseeching them to tax the daily food of every Ina, Woman, and child in the land to perpetuate a waning business, to use the language of the dairymen, ‘to set us on our feet.” STATEMENT OF D.C. WAGNER. Mr. Chairman and gentleman of the committee: I came here at the instance of the Live Stock Exchange of the city of Chicago with a del- egation, of which Elmer Washburn, esq., is chairman, and Hon. Iras Coy and myself members. The Live Stock Exchange represents an in- dustry compared with which the dairy business cannot even claim seec- ond place. I shall not attempt to give you comparative figures. These you already have, and if “ figures don’t lie,” you will have had all you want to arrive at an intelligent conclusion. I will simply submit that, in my humble judgment, you will first have to decide the question upon which all other questions relating to this problem hang, namely, are each and all the component parts that make up and finish the product known and sold as oleomargarine, butterine, &c., wholesome, healthy hu- mau food? If yes, then I apprehend you will have done all you consist- ently can or ought to do as between domesticcompetitors. If, however, on the other hand, you decide that this product is deleterious, injurious, or hurtful to health, then, through the health department, condemn and prohibit its manufacture and sale. Otherwise let it take its place legit- imately in the commercial world on its own merits. After the question of healthfulness of the product shall have been es- tablished the demand for the cousumption of the product will only be circumscribed by taste, superinduced or limited, as the case may be, by one’s necessities. Taxing an internal product, unless it be a luxury, will hardly be tolerated in times of profound peace, and I imagine that the IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. 195 friends of this bill would hardly consent to the distinction when applied to this product. Personally, I never expect to habituaily use oleomar- garine or butterine in my family, not, however, because of any scru- ples or prejudice in the matter, but simply because I have farmer friends who supply me, and have for many years, with the old-fashioned home- made butter, churned in the old spring-house manner. But there have been times in the past when, for various reasons, we failed to get our glorious old-fashioned butter in time, and then has come our discontent. On one of these occasions, not many months since, I asked the butler or steward of a restaurant, where I have been taking one meal per day for years past, where he got his butter; it was good, nearly, if not quite, as good as my old country butter; in fact, he always had good butter, even before butterine was made. He answered by saying it was butterine. Well, I did not then believe him, but upon investigation the story of the butler was duly corroborated, and not only so, but I found I had been eating it once a day for months. 1am quite sure you will ask me whether I still like it as well as I did before I knew the name of it. Well, I don’t care to answer that question directly, but will say that whenever I get short on my old-fashioned country home-made artigle, I shall buy this much-abused butterine in preference to the so- called dairy butter commonly on sale in the Chicago market. STATEMENT OF GEORGE W. SLADE. I am a member of the firm of Allen, Slade & Co., of Fall River, Mass., wholesale grocers. The firm has been in existence a little over twenty years. We deal largely in cream butter and oleomargarine and but- terine. We commenced the sale of butterine about twelve or thirteen years ago, when it was first introduced into New England. Our busi- ness in these goods, at first small, has gradually increased. Our city has a population of about 60,000, 17,000 of which are cotton factory operatives, who, with their families, number 35,000 to 40,000 persons. These people consume oleomargarine almost exclusively. The goods are sold in 10-pound tubs, with the full knowledge on the part of the consumer of their character. These tubs are all marked and sold in accordance with the Massachusetts law, being stamped with the word “¢ oleomargarine ” or “ butterine” upon the top and sides in one-half inch Gothic letters. One of our largest retail grocers constantly advertises these goods under their true name in the daily papers, price $1.10 per 10-pound tub. I have never heard any complaint as to the character of the goods or of any sickness occasioned by their use. We should regard it as a calamity to the poor people if they were to be taxed upon an article which now costs them all they are able to pay for it. Fall River is in competition with the world in the manufacture of cotton goods, and we should regard any tax upon a food product, used largely by our operatives, as being quite as detrimental to our interests as a manufacturing city as a tax would be upon any of our improved machinery. We are stockholders in nearly all of the large cotten mills of Fall River. 17007 oL——13 194 IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. STATEMENT OF WILLIAM B. CLARK. Iam of the firm of Clark Bros., of Worcester, Mass., wholesale pro- duce dealers. We make a specialty of handling oleomargarine and have done so for seven years. So far as I know, the Massachusetts law is generally complied with. I recently saw in the hands of a party engaged in collecting oleomar- garine tubs from families for packing lard 61 empty 10-pound tubs, all of which had regular oleomargarine stencils upon them as required by statute. About three-quarters of our sales reach the consumers in the original marked packages, mostly 10-pound tubs. Consumers of these goods in Worcester and vicinity do not altogether belong to the poorer classes, though the Jarger number of them do. I am personally acquainted with several farmers in our neighborhood who sell their milk and do not make butter, who regularly purchase butterine to use upon their tables. Our firm is interested in several creameries in Vermont, and we have not seen that the sale of oleomargarine interferes with or lowers the price of fresh made creamery butter. STATEMENT OF J. MERRILL CURRIER. I am a member of the firm of J. M. Currier & Co., of Lawrence, Mass. Our business has been that of retail dealers in groceries and provisions since 1850. Among the articles which we keep for sale are the best grades of butter, and within the last five years we have dealt in oleo- margarine. We commenced the sale of these goods because our cus- tomers demanded them, and because if we did not supply them we found that they would goto our competitors, so that we thus lost their trade for other goods. We have found the eall for these goods to con- stantly increase, and that they give general satisfaction. We have less complaint from them than from our cream butter of prime quality. We account for this from its uniform character and quality. We have never heard that any person was made sick by it or that it was unhealthful. Many of our customers say they prefer it to creamery butter, which costs much more. Our customers for this article are principally labor- ing people with families, and I understand they use it for the purpose of saving money with which they are able to procure other necessities. The law in our State, so far as [ know, is very generally observed, and is thought to be a sufficient protection against imposition. Every one who buys oleomargarine at our store knows what he is buying, and no one gets it unless he calls for it. If a person calls for butter he gets butter, and if he calls for oleomar- garine he gets that. We desire and intend to continue our business in this way. We do not wish to be obliged to say that the price has gone up 5 or 10 cents per pound, or that we cannot furnish it, because the Government has put such a tax upon it, while the corresponding article on the rich man’s table is exempted from this burden, and all for the benefit of those who are better off than those upon whom the real burden would come. So far as I know, the feeling in the community in which I live is unanimous in the opinion that any tax would be unjust and bear heavily upon those who are the least able to sustain it. IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. 195 STATEMENT OF T. C. EASTMAN. GENTLEMEN: I have heard the statement of Mr. G. H. Webster, of Chicago, before your committee. So far as it concerns the fatty product of cattle, it is in the main correct. I have been in the business of handling and slaughtering cattle for thirty years, and for the past few years have handled over 100,000 yearly, which have been used mostly in foreign markets. Mycpinionis, that any tax on oleomargarine would materially affect the price of the products of all beef cattle sold in the United States, and that the amount so affected would fall indirectly on the producer. In my opinion, therefore, to tax the cattle growers of the Middle and Western States by the levying of a duty upon a com- pleted product derived trom cattle would be a very unjust thing to do, and if rightly understood would not be done. There is already ample evidence of discontent and fear upon the part ot American cattle-growers, developed by the now uncertain condition of the beef trade of this country and of Europe. Values of all beef products have greatly depreciated, partly caused by the growing belief that action on the part of Congress relating to the sale of butter substitutes will still further decrease the profits of the cattle business and the general adjustment of lower values of all food products. Professor SALMON. No, sir; I did not intend to state that. You asked me if they would not be found in larger quantities. They are sometimes found in ail parts of the body. Ihave seen cattle killed where they were only beginning to show these tubercles. Senator JONES. There would be danger in consuming the animal in any way in the beginning of this disease? Professor SALMON. Yes, sir; unless thoroughly cooked. Senator JONES. Would there be any danger of its being communi- cated in the milk? Professor SALMON. A little danger, but I will state that it is gener- ally recognized by scientific men that it is not communicated through IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. 219 milk unless there are tubercles in the udder, and that is the last organ in which tubercles are found. Senator GEORGE. Would it be possible then to convey these things in butter? Professor SALMON. I suppose it would be possible, but as a fact by the time the tubercles appeared in the udder, the animal is so far ad- vanced in the disease that it does not give milk. They appear first on the serous membranes, and when in that condition the animal is often used for food. Senator JoNES. [I would like to ask if you rely on the scientific infor- mation solely, attained by this investigation in Paris, as to the propriety of using oleomargarine as a food in hospitals, as the only scientific proof you have outside of your own opinion that this thing is deleterious, or has it been asserted by other scientific investigations to be so? Professor SALMON. You refer to the digestibility ? Well, I base that almost entirely on the Paris report. Senator JONES. That was in 1880? Professor SALMON. Yes, sir. Senator JONES. Six years have elapsed since then, and there have been no other investigations of a scientifiz nature tending to establish that theory ? Professor SALMON. I do not know of any other. Senator JONES. That was in the early history of this production, and that has not been affirmed or denied since that time ? Professor SALMON. I do not know that it has, but it is one of those things which in itself bears the stamp that it is of scientific value. Senator JONES. I suppose, from the fact that you have produced it, that is now about the best evidence that can be produced in support of the theor, ? Professor SALMON. I do not know about that; I have not been pay- ing so very much attention to the literature of this subject; my attention has been in another line. But when I was asked only a day or two ago in regard to this matter, I naturally turned to this. Senator JONES. The digestibility, I understand, was soe chief point of objection at that time on this subject ? Professor SALMON. Yes, sir. Senator JONES. I want to ask if, in your opinion as a physiologist, there is any greater difference in the digestibility between oleomarga- rine and butter than between beef and mutton ? Professor SALMON. Yes, sir; there is. Senator JONES. Is there any more difference between the digestibility of oleomargarine and butter than there is between beef and pork ? Professor SALMON. [| could not say the exact degree of difference. I simply wanted to say that there was a difference. Senator JONES. And I wanted to get some approximate idea of what the difference was. Professor SALMON. The details of this matter have never been worked out thoroughly ; it simply stands in the position where we can say there is a difference. Senator JONES. I understand that in a hospital nobody would ever think of feeding a patient on pork, because it would be less digestible than some other meats; still it would not be proper for that reason to pass a law that nobody should eat pork. Professor SALMON. I certainly am very far from recommending the passage of a law which would prevent anybody eating oleomargarine if he wanted to. \ 220 IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. Senator JONES. Your idea is to have this article so guarded by laws that people shall not be imposed upon, and so that anybody who wants to use it can be allowed to use it? Professor SALMON. Yes, sir. Senator JONES. You think there is nothing in the constituent ele- ments of the product that a man should be defended from it as from an enemy ? Professor SALMON. No, sir; I think we should give every man a chance to take it or let it alone. That is all that anybody can reason- ably ask ? STATEMENT OF WALTER BROWN. Mr. WALTER Brown, of Washington, D. C., came before the com- mittee. The CHAIRMAN. Please state to the committee your occupation. Mr. Brown. I am a butcher here in the District. I do not know any- thing about the manufacture of oleomargarine or butter, but I know something about the fat that goes into it. The CHAIRMAN. Tell the committee, briefly, what you do know, if anything. Mr. Brown. We sell our fat to men here. There is a first and a sec- ond grade of fat, and the majority of the beef fat all goes into the oil that is shipped off to the manufacturers of oleomargarine. When it leaves our slaughter houses in the summer time it is fly-blown, and upon the fat that is left from market the fly-blows are hatched, and I have sent it away with them crawling in the fat. Senator JoNES. Where did this go when you sold it? Mr. Brown. We sold it in Georgetown, on Water street. Weaver & Kengla have a soap factory there, and the mutton fat goes into the soap and the rest is steamed; | believe they steam the oil out and press it, and the oil is then put in barrels and sent to Baltimore. Ido not know whether this firm sends to Baltimore or not, but the firm we used to sell to used to send to Baltimore. The CHAIRMAN. How do you know that? Mr. Brown. | know they shipped it there; I have seen it go—the oil. The CHAIRMAN. How do you know? Mr. Brown. I saw the oil shipped away. Ido not know whether it is put in oleomargarine. The CHAIRMAN. You said first it was put into oleomargarine. How do you know that? Mr. Brown. I never followed the oil. I know this, that the agents of these oleomargarine companies came here about four years ago and induced us to stop selling our fat to these fat men. We were then get- ting 54 cents for our fat, and they said they would give us 6 cents and 63 cents if we would sell our fat to them. Senator JONES. Who do you mean by “them”? Mr. Brown. I do not know his name—it was one man, an agent. Mr. Stinchcomb is the name of the agent here who bought for this firm. We sold it at 64 cents a pound. We all went in and sold our fat to them, and the soap man was broken up, and they have been bringing the price of it down until we are only getting 24 cents for the best, and 2 cents for what they call the rough mutton fat with little pieces of meat attached. This agent at the time proposed to me that I should send over there and get the refuse, as he called it; it is chopped up fine and IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. 22% goes through this process. Isent over and got some barrels of it to feed my hogs on, and paid 25 cents a_barrelful, a barrel about the whisky barrel size. I sent over and got three barrels of it, but neither my hogs, dogs, chickens or anything else on the place would touch it. Tobacco and the refuse of oleomargarine are the only things I know that a hog will not eat. Senator JONES. Where is that factory that you got the refuse from ? Mr. Brown. It was shipped from Baltimore. Senator JONES. Who did you buy that from ? Mr. Brown. From Mr. Stinchcomb, the agent of this fat that was shipped away to the oleomargarine companies. Senator JONES, What oleomargarine company manufactured the product ? Mr. Brown. I do not know that. If [ had known that the gentle- men wanted me to come up here I would have had my books with me. Senator JONES. Where is that factory established ? Mr. Brown. It was over in Georgetown. That was about four years ago. Senator JONES. The oleomargarine factory was in Georgetown ? Mr. Brown. No, sir; not the factory, but the agent. It was shipped to Baltimore and this stuff was shipped back. Senator JONES. The oleomargarine manufactory was in Baltimore. Mr. Brown. | suppose so. Senator JONES. What makes you suppose so? Mr. Brown. Mr. Stinchcomb told me what he was doing with the fat, that he was shipping it to the companies, but I do not know to what companies. If I had known I was coming up here I could have brought my books. Senator JoNES. Will you furnish the name of this firm and their loca- tion from your books, and hand it to the stenographer and let it go into your statement ? Mr. Brown. Yes; I cannot to-day, but I will to-morrow. I know it is impossible for us to keep our fat clean in the summer time; the flies will blow it. We commence to kill in the morning of a hot day, for instance, and it may be 10 or 12 o’clock before we get through, and the fat lies there until my wagon comes home from market. Senator JONES. Then what do you do with it ? Mr. BRown. We have a hide and fat association of our own, the District butchers, and we send it there; then Weaver and Kengla send there later in the evening and get it and take it to their place up on Water street, at the soap factory. It is there selected out, the best of it (it is six weeks now since they have stopped), and it is washed and chopped up in pieces to put into soap, and the rest they steam and get the oil, and that was sent to Baltimore, I suppose. I can furnish the name of the place where the oil was sent to. Senator JONES. These people in Georgetown made oleomargarine oil up to six weeks ago? Mr. Brown. Yes, sir. Senator SAwykER. Did you see it; were you there, and did you see them make it ? Mr. Brown. No, sir; I did not see it. Senator SAWYER. Somebody told you about it? Mr. Brown. Yes, sir. Senator SAWYER. That is what I supposed ; you heard so by rumor on the street ? 233 IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. Mr. Brown. Well, we are all connected together, only I have no in- terest in that part at all. They got the fat from the association. The CHAIRMAN. You were told by the people who bought the fat that they used it for making oleo oil ? Mr. Brown. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. That is not a rumor on the street. Mr. Brown. Oh, I saw a letter from the company last summer. The clerk showed it to me. It said, *‘The last oil you shipped to us was musty. Please be careful and keep this sweet.” Ican get the name of the person who sent that letter. I saw that letter myself, and he asked me right there to see that my fat was kept sweet. The CHAIRMAN. You say you got two or three barrels of the refuse? Mr. Brown. I got three barrels. The CHAIRMAN. To feed to your hogs? Mr. Brown. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. But they would not eat it? Mr. Brown. No, sir; nor the chickens nor the dog. The CHAIRMAN. Did you examine that material to see what it was? Mr. Brown. It looked to me like sausage or pudding-meat chopped up fine, just in a kind of loblolly. The CHAIRMAN. Had it been pressed ? Mr. Brown. It had been pressed, and on top the maggots had gath- ered that thick [indicating] on the top of the barrel, and the maggots were pressed as flat as that piece of paper. My own opinion is the oil was pressed out of that; that is all I can say. The CHAIRMAN. Where did this come from ? Mr. Brown. From Baltimore. I bought it from Mr. Stinchcomb, who was the agent here who was buying the fat. Senator JonES. Did he send the fat to Baltimore? Mr. Brown. He shipped the fat then to Baltimore, but since then they have been steaming it here and getting the oil out. Senator JonEsS. He bought all kinds of fat? Mr. BRown. Yes, sir. Senator JoNES. He made oleomargarine out of all sorts ? Mr. Brown. No, sir; the oleomargarine fat did not goin. We had to keep our beef fat as clean as we could, but in hanging up a bullock in a slaughtering house the floor is not very clean; the entrails fall out on the floor, the fat is wiped all over the floor, and it is impossible to keep it clean the way we work there. Senator JONES. Does this establishment at Georgetown make any imitation butter? Mr. Brown. No, sir. Senator JONES. They do not make the oleomargarine as a product, or imitation butter? Mr. Brown. No, sir; but they make the oil and ship it away in bar- rels. Senator JonES. And that is made into butter? Mr. Brown. Yes; I suppose it is made into butter. I know they ship it to these oleomargarine firms, because I saw the letter over there that the clerk showed me last summer. Senator JONES. That was from the oleomargarine firm? Mr. BRowy, Yes, Sir. Senator JONES. And he said that he was using that oil for the pur- pose of manufacturing oleomargarine ? IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. 223 Mr. Brown. He said this: ‘‘ Please be more careful, and tell your men to keep their fat sweeter; the last oil we could scarcely use; it was mighty moldy,” or something of the kind. I know that fat, if it lies over night, gets very moldy, and of course the oil must smell so ; musty and close. Senator JONES. You do not know whether fat could be used after it is in that condition to make oleomargarine or not? Mr. Brown. No, sir; I do not know anything about it, only I know I would not like to eat the oil that is taken out of our fat. The fat that we cutin the market there at our stalls, when trimming meat, we throw in the baskets under the stalls, and after market is over we find it is all covered with green flies. Ihave seen the fly-blows as thick as the end of my finger in bunches. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Webster wants to make a short statement in addition to what he has already said. ADDITIONAL STATEMENT OF GEORGE H. WEBSTER. Mr. WEBSTER said: I desire simply, Mr. Chairman, to explain to the committee why tallow has ruled so exceptionally low during the last few years, as I understood the question was asked yesterday and was not satisfactorily answered. The fact that the price of tallow has ruled especially low during the past few years is due to natural causes well known to the trade, and is not in any way attributable to the manufaet- ure of oleo oil. The markets of Great Britain and France, which are the principal consuming markets for tallow, have been oversupplied with Russian tallow and that from South America, and when we remem- ber that in South Awerica cattle are often killed for their hides and tallow alone, the reason for the low price is obvious. In addition to this, tallow has to compete with other illuminating and soap-making products, tending to depreciate its value. The light from petroleum has almost superseded the old-fashioned tallow candle, while the products of petroleum furnish various materials for making candles which are far cleaner, brighter, and nearly or quite as cheap as tallow candles. Tallow has still another formidable competitor in cotton-seed oil, which is so largely used for soap-making in this country and in Europe, and which sells at from 1 to 2 cents a pound less than tallow. We have marketed the most of our production of tallow in this country for several years past, for the reason that the price has been higher in Chicago than anywhere else, often actually higher than in New York, and relatively higher than the foreign markets. We sometimes get an occasional foreign order, which we are able to fill by a reduction of freight, and perbaps a clipping in exchange, a brokerage, or something of that kind. But the exports of tallow have been remarkably light for several years past for the reasons I have submitted. The export of tallow for the ten months of the fiscal year of 1885 ending April 30 were 2,800,000 pounds, and for the ten months of the fiscal year ending April 30, 1886, they were only a little over 1,000,000 pounds. We have made sales as large as that, at one time, to J. 8. Kirk & Co., of Chicago. So that the exports of tallow have been a mere bagatelle for several years past, and the reason is because the markets of Europe have been oversupplied, and because it has these formidable competitors to con- tend against. The CHAIRMAN. Just one question. Suppose American tallow had continued to be made, and as of good quality as it used to be before 224 IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. oleo oil was extracted, would not the price of American tallow remain higher than it is now and maintain its hold on the foreign markets to a certain extent ? Mr. WEBSTER. I am glad you asked me that question. Ido not think it would. I think our tallow would bring just as much money for the purposes for which tallow is used as it would have brought at any time within the past few years. Yesterday I was unable to be present, but I understand the question was brought up about stearine, whether the stearine ought to be figured as enhancing the value of cattle, when it would be in tallow anyhow. Of course it would. But there is a differ- ence in the value of stearine. As oleo oil is of high grade, and higher in value than common tallow, so is stearine from oleo oil of a better quality, and consequently higher in value than stearine from common tallow. We press considerable common tallow to obtain tallow oil for lubricating purposes, and we get the stearine which we sell for soap- making. But we always get from 2 to 3 cents a pound more for our oleo stearine than for this tallow stearine. The CHAIRMAN. Is not stearine used very largely for soap and candle making ? ; Mr. WEBSTER. Yes, we Sell a great deal to soap and candle manu- facturers in Milwaukee and around Chicago. I have a couple of affi- davits that I would like to offer in connection with the testimony we have submitted, and also the following memorandum: e Estimates submitted by Mr. Webster. Poundsof oleomargarine and butterine made in Chicago and vicinity during year ending June 1, 1586._--...----.- .-. 18,000, 000 to 20, 000, 000 The same product made in the whole United States during WH RAVINE) Soon one saosokoSs Gooseo ssemaenosa sedeerenas 32, 000, 000 to 35, 000, 000 In the West the manufacture of butterine predominates, while in the East the reverse is the case; so that I believe the aggregate out-turn of each product is about equally divided. The manufacture of butterine is only carried on during nine months of the year, or from September 1 to June 1. The following affidavits were also submitted by Mr. Webster as a part of his statement: STATE OF ILLINOIS, Cook County, 8s. : Philip D. Armour, being first duly sworn, deposes and says that he is a resident of the city of Chicago, in the State of Ilinois, and that he is a member of the firm of Armour & Co. Deponent further says that said firm of Armour & Co. in the course of their busi- ness makes and sells oleomargarince and butterine, and that this deponent knows of his own kuowledge the materials and the metbods used by said firm in the making of said products. They are as follows: METHODS OF MANUFACTURE, The fat is taken from the cattle in the process of slaughtering, and after thorough washing is placed in a bath of clean, cold water, and surrounded with ice, where it is allowed to remain until all animal heat has been removed. It is then cut into small pieces by machinery and cooked at a temperature of about 150 degrees, until the fat, in liquid form, has separated from the fibrine or tissue, then settled until it is per- fectly clear. Then it is drawn into graining vats and allowed to stand a day, when it is ready for the presses. The pressing extracts the steariue, leaving the remaining product, which is commercially known as oleo oil, which, when churned with cream or milk, or both, and with usually a proportion of creamery butter, the whole being properly salted, gives the new food product oleomargarine. In making butterine we use neutral lard, which is made from selected leaf lard, in a very similar manner to oleo oil, excepting that no stearine is extracted. This neutral IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. 225 lard is cured in salt brine for forty-eight to seventy hours, at an ice-water tempera- ture. It is then taken, and, with the desired proportion of oleo vil and fine butter, is churned with cream and milk, proaucing an article, which, when properly salted and packed, is ready for market. In both cases coloring matter is used, which is the same as that used by dairymen to color their butter. At certain seasons of the year, viz, in cold weather, a small quantity of salad oil made from cotton-seed is used to soften the texture of the prod- uct, but this is not generally used by us. Deponent further says that no other material or substance, except as above stated, is used by Armour & Co. in making oleomargarine or butterine. Deponent further says that he has read the statement made in a report of the Com- mittee on Agriculture to the House of Representatives, purporting to give the mate- rials used in making oleomargarine aud butterine, and he says that none of the ma- terials or substances therein enumerated are used by Armour & Co. in making said products or either of them, except as herein stated. Deponent further says that he has read a letter dated May 19, 1886, signed Armour & Co., Swift & Co., George H. Hammond & Co., N. K. Fairbank & Co. , and Samuel W. Allerton, a copy of which is hereto attached, and he says that the same is the let- ter of the parties whose names are attached thereto, and that the statements therein made so far as the same relate to Armour & Co. are true, and so far as they relate to the other parties signing said letters, he, upon information, believes them to be true. And this deponent further deposes and says that no ingredient i is or ever has been used by said firm of Armour & Co. in the manufacture of said oleomargarine and but- terine which is in any way injurious to health. PHILIP D. ARMOUR. Subscribed and sworn to before me this 22d day of May, 1886. [SEAL. ] EVERETT WILSON, Notary Public. STaTE OF ILLINOIS, Cook County, 8s: Gustavus F. Swift, being first duly sworn, deposes and says that he is a resident of the town of Lake, in the State of Illinois, and that he is a member of the firm of Swift & Co. Deponent further says that said firm of Swift & Co. in the course of their business makes and sells oleomargarine and butterine, and that this deponent knows of his own knowledge the materials and the methods used by said firm in the making of said products. They are as follows : METHODS OF MANUFACTURE, The fat is taken from the cattle in the process of slaughtering, and after thorough washing is placed in a bath of clean, cold water and surrounded with i ice, where it is allowed to remain until all animal heat has been removed. It is then cut into small pieces by machinery and cooked at a temperature of about 150° until the fat in liquid form has separated from the fibrine or tissue; then settled until it is perfectly clear. Then it is drawn into draining vats and allowed to stand a day, when it is ready for the presses. The pressing extracts the stearine, leaving the remaining product, which is commercially knownas oleo oil, which, when churned with cream or milk, or both, and with usually a proportion of creamery butter, the whole being properly salted, gives the new food product, oleomargarine. In making butterine we use neutral lard, which is made from selected leaf lard in a very similar manner to oleo oil, excepting that no stearine is extracted. This neutral lard is cured in salt brine for forty-eight to seventy hours at an ice-water temperature. It is then taken and, with the desired proportion of oleo oil and fine butter, is churned with cream and milk, producing an article which when properly salted and packed is ready for market. In both cases coloring matter is used, which is the same as that used by dairymen to color their butter. At certain seasons of the year, viz, in cold weather, a small quantity of sesame oil or salad oil, made from cotton seed, is used to soften the text- ure of the product. Deponent further says that no other material or substance except as above stated is used by Swift & Co. in making oleomargarine or butterine. Deponent further says that he has read the statement made in a report of the Committee on Agriculture to the House of Representatives, purporting to give the materials used in making oleomargarine and butterine, and he says that none of the materials or substances therein enumerated are used by Swift & Co. in making said products, or either of them, except as herein stated. 17007 OL 15 226 IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. Deponent further says that he has read a letter, dated May 19, 1886, signed Armour & Co., Swift & Co.,Geo.H. Hammond & Co.,N.K, Fairbank & Co.,aud Samuel W. Allerton, a copy of which is hereto attached, and he says that the same is the letter of the parties whose names are attached thereto, and that the statement therein made, so far as the same relate to Swift & Co., are true, and so far as they relate to the other parties signing said letters, he, upon information, believes them to be true. And this deponent further deposes and says that no ingredient is or ever has been used by said firm of Swift & Co. in the manufacture of said oleomargarine and butterine which is in any way injurious to health, GUSTAVUS F. SWIFT. Subseribed and sworn to before me this 22d day of May, 1886. [SHAL. } D. E. HARTWELL, Notary Public. CuicaGo, May 19, 1886. So much misapprehension seems to exist in the public mind regarding the compo- nent parts and process of manufacture of oleomargarine and butterine that, in view of the false and exaggerated statements and “reports” engendered and promulgated by the so-called ‘‘ dairy interest,” the undersigned, being among the largest manutfactu- rers in the country of these new ‘“ food products,” consider the present an opportune time for laying the matter frankly before the people, and before Congress, where prohibitory legislation is now being sought, in the hope that a full statement of the actual facts concerning these much abused articles may insure a fair hearing and tend to remove the false impressions which may have been created by the misstate- ments of interested persons. Physicians, chemists, and health officers in various parts of the country have pro- nounced them wholesome articles of food, in no way deleterious to health; and the daily increasing demand for them shows their hold upon popular favor, not as imita- tions of butter, but as new food products and most desirable substitutes for the me- dium grades of butter. The report of the Committee on Agriculture to the House of Representatives ac- companying the bill reported by it isso manifestly unfair that we are sure that its effect will be destroyed by its own absurdity. Of the fifty alleged ingredients men- tioned in the report only three are ever used, and those so changed and improved in character from what the report would lead the public to believe that they practically make the whole list a falsehood. The component parts of oleomargarine and but- terine are oleo oil, neutral lard, fresh cream, and milk—some makers use buttermilk— choice creamery butter, fine dairy salt, and clear cold water. The coloring matter used is precisely the same as that universally used by all dairymen and butter-makers. At certain seasons of the year a very small quantity of fine salad oil, which is pro- duced trom selected cotton seed, is occasionally, but not generally, used to soften the texture of the product. The oleo oil above mentioned is made from the choicest fats of beef-cattle, rendered at an approximate temperature of 150 degrees. The neutral is made from selected leaf lard only, and rendered in a similar way and at about the same temperature, producing a clear and odorless product, which is put into a bath of clean, cold brine, containing nothing but salt and water, for forty-eight hours ; after which, with the proper proportions of oleo o1] and the finest creamery butter, the product is churned with cream and milk, salted and colored, and packed for market. We use nothing else. This is all there is concerning the manufacture of these products, and about which political dairymen have published so many falsehoods. We unhesitatingly affirm that these products are not made by any secret process, nor under any “patent” whatever. While it is true that several patents for making butterine were obtained a few years ago, in order to secure Government protection against the French Mege patent prior to its expiration, we do not, nor do we kuow of any manufacturer who does, make use of any of the processes covered by those patents. Cur factories are always open for public inspection, as hundreds of people can testify, and we con- sider such visitations as marks of special favor. We are ready and willing to furnish to members of Congress, or to any committee they may appoint, all detailed informa- tion which they may desire, both as to the materials used and the whole process of making these products. The manufacture of these articles is practically an open industry in Europe, and it is a positive fact that in this country it increases the value of beef-cattle fully $3 per head, by the utilization of the oleo oil above described ; and in addition to all these points in favor of the articles themselves, their manufacture is a legitimate industry which benefits both the consumer and the farmer, and de- serving of positive protection rather than attempted destruction. We are very will- ing that these products shall stand on their own merits, and we do not oppose meas- ures honestly intended to bring about that result, but we do protest against legislation IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. PANT by Congress prohibitory in its character and intended to crush out one industry in favor of another. In corroboration of our statements we append copies of letters written by competent authorities who have recently examined these products and the method of working them, and hope that they may assist in carrying conviction to all minds, aside from the assurances we bave herewith respectfully submitted. ARMOUR & CO. SWIFT & CO. GEO. H. HAMMOND & CO. N. K. FAIRBANK & CO. SAML W. ALLERTON. STATEMENT OF JOHN A. M’BRIDE. Mr. JoHN A. McBRIDE, of Sussex County, New Jersey, next ad dressed the committee. I ain a farmer by occupation. I do not intend to detain the commit tee long, because I understand the time is limited. I have not come here with any prepared speech, but I have come in the interest of the farmers—not only those of the county in which [ live, but in behalf o1 the farmers of this nation. It is a fact that I think none of vou will dispute, that it is seldom, if ever, that the farmers of the United States come to Congress and appeal for help. They remain at home, attend to their work, pay their proportion of the taxes, and trust to you to look after their interests, and it is onlv on an occasion like this that there is any exception to this rule. Why isit? It is because an in dustry—not an honest, honorable industry—has grown up which threat eps to supplant an honest and honorable industry. One thing connected with this matter appears to me very significant, and that is that while the advocates of oleomargarine object to any law restricting the traffic in it, and claim that itis a healthful product, that it is an honest competitor with butter and the dairy interests, yet at the same time not one of them will eatit. Now if oleomargariue is healthful as an article of food, as they say it is, if it is better than this poor butter, if if can be bought so much cheaper, why not eat it instead of eating butter? I had a little experience in the New Jersey legislature this last winter, and had to combat some of the arguments then put forward. An oleomargarine bill was introduced there and passed, and the same arguments were heard then that we hear now; that oleomargarine was a healthful article of food; that it was an honest competitor with the dairy interests ; and yet at the same time none of them eat it. The trouble is, Senators, that this article is not sold upon its merits; I make that assertion. The dairy commissioner of _the State of New Jersey, for the past two months, has been making ex- aminations at different places in the State, and finds that the dealers have not been selling oleomargarine as oleomargarine, but they have been selling it as first-class dairy butter. Now I wish to answer the arguments of the gentlemen in reference to beef cattle. While the price of beef cattle may have advanced in the West, it has decreased in the East proportionately. While milch cows may be in demand in the West, their value has decreased proportion- ately in the East. While land may have, as they say it has, advanced in the West, land in my own county of Sussex and in the county of Orange, which Mr. Richardson represented here yesterday, and other as fertile counties as exist in the civilized world, that a year ago brought $100 an acre, to-day will not average $50 an acre under the hammer, or at their cash value. And I think the chairman of this committee will 228 IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. bear out my assertion that it has decreased in value in the counties of Saint Lawrence and Herkimer in his own State. I wish to say that the gentlemen who appeared before the committee and said that the farmers Jn Saint Lawrence and Herkimer Counties could not to-day make a thou- sand pounds of butter, and that the reason why butter had so depre- ciated in price was the fact that the farmers there had forgotten how to make butter, were using an argument I listened to last winter and which has been repeated here to-day. In other words, they would have you believe that the farmers of this country have forgotten everything they ever knew, and the reason why butter is low and farm products de- pressed is because the farmers of this nation have not common sense. Another point which to me is significant. If itis of such importance to the farmers of the West that this bill should not become a law, why have they not petitioned Congress against it? Has a single petition come from the farmers of the West asking for the defeat of this bill? Are not those here who are advocating it either directly or indirectly interested in the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine itself? While on the other hand petitions by the thousand have come from the tarm- ers of the East asking for the passage of this bill. I say that fact of itself certainly is significant. However, as you have but little time to listen to further argument, I will not detain you longer. The CHAIRMAN. If you can give us any facts in regard to the sale of oleomargarine in your own State, we will give you the time to state them and the committee will be glad to hear you. Mr. McBripbE. The facts are simply as I get them from the dairy commissioner. We had a law passed in our State last winter and un- der it a dairy commissioner was appointed to see that the law was prop- erly and thoroughly executed. As I have stated, the opponents of the bill claimed that oleomargarine could be sold upon its merits, and that if sold upon its merits it would be bought equally with butter; that they were selling it on its merits. Now the facts are to the contrary. One of the deputies made an investigation of the matter at Perth Am- boy and he found that nearly every individual who was selling oleo- margarine was selling it, not as oleomargarine, but as prime dairy but- ter. Senator JONES. Is that since the law went into effect ? Mr. MCBRIDE. Yes, sir. It only went into effect this spring. I pre- sume they thought they would go on as long as they could without branding their goods, as the law prescribes. Senator JONES. What does your commissioner report as the effect of his efforts to have oleomargarine sold for what it is? Mr. McBrIDE. His report is that when it is sold for what it is, people are not very apt to buy it. Senator SAWYER. If we can put this bill in such a shape that oleo- margarine will be sold, as it ought to be, for what it is, would not that remedy the trouble? Mr. McBribE. Individually I never have objected to that at all; in fact, the law which we passed this winter provided that it should be sold for what it was, and with a certain brand. But what we do com- plain of is, that it is not sold for what it is, but for prime dairy butter. Senator JONES. Butsince the passage of the law you refer to can you and do you enforce the law in New Jersey ; does your commissioner enforce it? Mr. MOBRIDE. Yes, so far as I am informed. Senator JoNES. And it accomplishes all that you wish ? IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. 229 Mr. McBRIDE. But, as I say, previous to that they had been selling it, not for what it was, but for prime dairy butter. Senator JONES. But the people are complying with the law, and he finds no difficulty in enforcing it? Mr. McBrRIDE. So far as I am informed, people are complying with the law. Senator JONES. Have you a copy of the law? Mr. McBripkE. No, sir: I have not. Senator JONES. Could you furnish us with a copy of it? Mr. McBripe. I could, but I would have to ride 300 miles to get it. Senator JONES. I would be glad if you would send us a copy of it, or perhaps we can find a copy here somewhere. Mr. McBripk. Mr. Hires, the Representative from our district in Congress, informs me that he has a copy with him. Senator JONES. Then I understand you to say there is no difficulty in enforcing the State law, which requires that this article shall be sold in New Jersey for what it is? Mr. McBripe. I will answer to that that [ have not seen the dairy commissioner since the passage of the law. The only information I get is this: That in the investigation he has made he has found that they have been selling this oleomargarine, as [ said before, for prime dairy butter, and he has arrested these parties. Just what steps he has taken I am unable to answer you correctly now. Senator JONES. Is the American Dairyman, published in New York, a reputable paper ? Mr. McBRIpDE. I cannot say. Senator JONES. I have received a copy of that paper with a marked article reporting what Dr. W. K. Newton said on the subject. Mr. McBribE. That is the name of our commissioner. Senator JONES. He reports that the manufacturers, wholesale dealers, and jobbers sell these products for just what they are, and brand them as the law requires, and that they show their willingness to aid him in enforcing the law. In speaking of the retail dealers, he found that pre- vious to that they had been selling this product for butter, but he says, it only being about two months since the law passed, many of the retail dealers have already fallen into line, and are selling oleomargarine and butterine under its proper name and labeling each parcel according to law. And then this paper goes on to say that the law is being effectu- ally enforced. So that [suppose there is no difficulty in regulating this matter when the States choose to do so. Mr. McBRIDE. It occurs to me that while we may have a State law, it would not do any harm if we had a general law also on the subject. Senator JONES. Would it do any good if the State law accomplishes the purpose ? Mr. McBrink. Undoubtedly. I think the more penalties you place upon the improper manufacture and sale of it the better; that is my theory, and I think if you had witnessed what I have witnessed in the dairy districts you would be of the same opinion. Senator BLArr. I do not understand that you claim that there has been any fair time allowed to test the law? - Mr. McBRIDE. No, sir; I say the law only went into effect about two months ago, and I do not think there has been time enough to make a fair test of it. Senator JONES. Do you think it will be a failure? Mr. McBripE. I could not answer that except in this way: That the man who has charge of it in the State of New Jersey will make a 230 IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. success of it if it can be made a success by anybody. That is as far as I can go, for the experiment has not been tried; it may be a failure or a SUCCESS. Senator JONES. One of its effects, you think, would be the suppres- sion of the manufacture of butterine or oleomargarine? Mr. McBRIDE. That has not been my idea; my idea is, that if it is sold under proper restrictions, if people want to buy it and eat it, with the evidence that has been given before us this morning, I am perfectly willing they should do it, but I do not want it on my plate. The CHAIRMAN. How long has this law in New Jersey been in force? Mr. MCBRIDE. Cnly about two months. The CHAIRMAN. There is not very much known then about its effects ] imagine, as yet? Mr. McBripe. As I have said, I cannot speak positively at all about it. It is an experiment; it may or may not be a success. But State laws so far have proved very ineffectual. Senator JONES. You do not mean in New Jersey ? Mr. McBRIDE. Yes, sir. We had a prohibitory law in New Jersey, and the more they prohibited it the more they sold of it. Senator JONES. So you have tried another one ? Mr. McBRIDE. Yes, sir; we have tried another one, and it may turn out in just the same way the first one did. The CHAIRMAN. Two or three gentlemen want to submit statements in writing,and may wish to make oral statements first. Those gentlemen we have not heard will be permitted in a day or two to submit anything that is proper, and it will go in to the testimony as their statements. Senator BuLair. It ought to be understood that it will take a little time to get it into print, and they should not delay presenting their Statements. The CHAIRMAN. I understand; they will have to be put in by to- morrow. ADDITIONAL STATEMENT OF W. S. TRUESDELL. Mr. W.S. TRUESDELL, of Saint Louis, vice-president of the Missis- sippi Valley Dairy and Cream Association said: I trust the committee will pardon me for inflicting myself upon them a second time. But I doit so that you may properly understand the general methods of the manufacture of butter in the West, in explana- tion of the remarks that have been made by the manufacturer from Bos- ton who is so largely engaged in the creamery business in Iowa. Those of you who have studied the development of the dairy interest in the Western States perhaps are acquainted with the fact that the system of creameries in general use in the Western States is not the system that the gentlemen himself has adopted and which he has found so satisfae- tory and so successful. You are all aware that the system of creameries and dairying is the suevessor of grain raising in all oar Western States. In other werds, as the competition resulting from the development of new and fresh agricultural sections in the West has enlarged the pro- duction of grain in those sections, it has depreciated the value of the grain product to that extent that the older settled States have found it vecessary to turu from that branch of agriculture to another; in other words, to so condense the product of their lands that by the reduction of the cost of transportation they can find it more profitable. By reason of the freshness, newness, and wideveloped condition of the dairying and creamery interests in these Northwestern States, aside IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. Dae from the limited section of Iowa in which the gentleman is interested, a gathered cream system is followed by the creamery, which system is not that the farmer should bring his milk to the factory, involving no expense to the factory man, but that the factory man should send his teams into the country to the farmer, in many cases traveling a distance of 20 or 30 miles, getting the cream, bringing it back to his factory in the shape of cream skimmed from the milk, and then manufacturing that cream into his product of butter. And in order that you may un- derstand the distinction between the two methods, I will say that while the gentleman has truthfully said to you this morning that they can manufacture their product at a cost to them of 3 cents a pound to put it in a marketable condition, the average cost of putting the cream from the hands of the farmer into a marketable shape in the form of butter under the gathered cream system of the Northwestern States is not less than 8 cents a pound. This I know from actual experience in the man- agement of two creameries, one for several years the largest run in the State of Iowa, manufacturing at one time as much as 2, 200 pounds of butter a day, and the other in the northern part of the State of Ilinois. The point I want to make is this, that while the gentleman is able to pay the farmer 50 cents a hundred for his milk, the average farmer in the States of lowa, Missouri. Kansas, Nebraska, and those sections of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Illinois that are working under the gathered- cream system does not receive but 8 or 10 cents per pound for his but- ter, even under the improved creamery system, whereas statistics will show that on the average produced in the past two years he has re- ceived from 15 to 16 cents a pound for his butter in the shape of cream taken from his own cows at his own home, involving no trouble or ex- pense to him. I want to say just an additional word. While tbe remarks of the gen- tleman from Boston would indicate from his successful experience in Northeastern lowa that the creamery business is to-day a successtul one in that State, I want to say to you and to him that if he has money in his pocket and wants to enlarge his experience in the creamery business 1 can invest that money for him to-day at 50 cents on the dollar on the cost of those creameries in perfected creamery buildings, fully and properly equipped for the manufacture of creamery butter, and I would buy buildings and plants that bave been closed through the operations of oleomargarine manufactories. Those are facts. “These men may laugh at them it they choose, but they are facts, and I know they are fair facts because T am intimately ; ssociated with the parties I speak of and know all about them. There is another point [ wish to emphasize, which was stated by the gentleman who addressed the committee a short time ago in re sgard to the source from which emanates the opposition to the measure we have presented to your consideration. There does not come before you, gentle- men, from any section of the country in which the agricultural industry is the leading industry a single remonstrance against the passage of this bill. The resolutions that have been tendered to you are from Boards of Trade representing cities in which the manufacture of the oleo product has becomea leading industry. The facts which have been pre- sented to you have been presented by men directly connected with those industries and those depending upon them, by the bankers who handle the money, by the cattlemen who sell the cattle to the oleo manutact- urers, and not by the representative business elements of those cities, I venture to say, without fear of contradiction, that I can go into Kansas City to-day, and can get the signatures of nine out of every ten men aoe IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. who handle dairy products against the petition that was sent up to you by the Live Stock Exchange of Kansas City. J have in my valise at the hotel the protest of the Chicago Produce Exchange and the assur- ance from an individual member of the Chicago Board of Trade that the action of the directors of those bodies is not the action of the bodies themselves, nor does it represent their sentiments. I have to say to you that the Board of Trade of the city of Saint Louis unanimously voted down the resolution presented to them by the gentlemen repre- sented before you to-day, disapproving of the act now before you for your consideration. They unanimously voted down a petition to disapprove the bill. We were able to make them understand that the constituency which they represented, the grand agricultural interest of the North- west were not prime movers against the bill nor the prime opponents of it. 3ut it does not seem to me necessary to use any arguments to con- vince gentlemen of your intelligence and knowledge about the agri- cultural development of this country, especially the great Northwest, or to show that there is no necessity for this new, man-devised, and man- discovered interest. The food that a wise Creator has provided for the use of man in the form of butter is certainly as good as, perhaps no better than, the product which the ingenuity of even these wise men has been able to discover. They tell us that were it not for the fact that oleo had been introduced in the market, butter would have been 50 or 60 cents a pound. Now, I want to say to you this: That the rea- son creamery butter sold in Boston last winter at 38 cents a pound, was that the manufacturer of oleomargarine and butterine made the price. I know it to be a fact—and I will state it under oath now if you choose or prove it by the records—that on the day butter advanced in Elgin 5 cents a pound last winter, it was freely and abundantly offered at 55 cents a pound, and that the agents of the Chicago butterine manufact- urers said to these men who were oftering butter at 35 cents, ‘‘ you are fools; we will take all your product at 40 cents.” And I, as a purchaser of butter on the Elgin market under contract, was compelled to pay 40 cents when the manufacturer wrote me, under his own hand, that he had expected to sell and had billed me that butter at 35 cents. It was not the scarcity of butter: it was the effort of the butterine men to falsify the market report in order to appreciate the value of their own product and bring it under the appreciated price of butter. In regard to the productive capacity of this country. Is there a ne- cessity for this new element and new industry which has been intro- duced? What is the design of it? Is it to meet a want that the country has found in a deficiency of the butter supply? Is it to pro- vide a channel of industry for unemployed labor? Is it to strengthen the hands of the honest dealers of this country? I claim, Mr. Chair- man and honorable gentlemen, that there is no such occasion as this. It is purely and simply a money-making project on the part of those engaged in it. Why, sirs, will you tell me what the productive capacity of these grand pra‘ries of the Northwest is to be? Is it possible to ar- rive at the possibilities of those acres now undeveloped as they would have developed under the natural impulse of the dairy interest pre- vious to the introduction of this new element? In the State of Mis- souri ten years ago we had not one creamery in operation. Three years ago we built sixty creameries and within the past two years we have not built three. While our State is prolific of minerals and a grand State for the production of grain, our farmers, in the limited experience in the past few years, have discovered that, without this unfair compe- tition which they have received from this new compound, it is the in- IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. 25> terest for them to engage in. Look at the State of Iowa and see what the past ten years has done in the development of her interests. The CHAIRMAN. Do you think Missouri is well adapted to dairying purposes ? Mr. TRUESDELL. There is no question at all about it. Why, in the State of Mississippi they are running creameries successfully, and when the gentlemen tell you that the dairy belt does not extend below the Ohio River they make a mistake—that is an exploded notion. The State of Tennessee is just as well adapted to good dairying as the State of Tlinois. The CHAIRMAN. And I suppose that is the case wherever the proper grasses are found? Mr. TRUESDELL. Yes, sir. Missouri, particularly the upper half of it, is capable of being so developed, and we are developing it more than in the southern part, but we have creameries located all through the State. The best butter I am handling to-day comes from the city of Saint Charles, in the State of Missouri. The CHAIRMAN. You are familiar with the creamery business in all its aspects ? Mr. TRUESDELL. Yes, sir; [ am. The CHAIRMAN. Mrs. Smith, the president of the Woman’s Labor: League, asks me to inquire of you whether any women are employed in the creameries in making butter, and if so, what proportion are women. Mr. TRUESDELL. Well, the number is not very large. In a great many of the creameries no women are employed. The CHAIRMAN. How many people are usually employed in a cream: ery ? Mr. TRUESDELL. From two to five men, depending upon its pro- ductive capacity. A small creamery can be run by two butter-makers. and a helper; a large one employs five. The CHAIRMAN. Are some women employed as butter-makers in the creameries ? Mr. TRUESDELL. Yes, but very few. Some employ women as help- ers. Where a man is married, his wife is employed as a helper; but men are usually employed as butter-makers, while women are employed advantageously in the dairy, milking the vows and caring for the milk. We still employ women. but instead of putting her at the hard labor of- handling the dasher of the churn we simply ask her to milk the gentle and docile cow and relieve her of the more burdensome part of the work. The CHAIRMAN. The machinery does the work ? Mr. TRUESDELL. Yes, the machinery does the work which women had to do in years gone by. STATEMENT OF GEORGE M. HARRIS. Mr. GEORGE M. HARRIS, of Salem, Mass., then addressed the com- mittee: 1 have heard a good deal said in the past two days about the retail dealer, to the effect that the manufacturer of oleomargarine sells it hon- estly to the jobber and the jobber sells it honestly to the retailer, but that the retailer sells it dishonestly to the consumer. Iam, gentlemen, one of those retailers. Until within the last fifteen months I was very much prejndiced against this article, but I found that I was losing trade, and it seemed that the demand of the people was for this fresh-made and fresh-flavored article. Accordingly I put it on my counter, and I ae IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. am selling it strictly in conformity with the Massachusetts State law, which requires that the wrapper shall be stamped like this [exhibiting a piece of paper with the word “ butterine” printed on it], and I have here some photographs of my ice chest, which show you how the article is displayed there and just how it is sold. The CHAIRMAN. How mueh of it do you sell? Mr. HARRIS. I suppose from twenty to twenty-five packages a week, varying from 10 to 30 pounds each. The CHAIRMAN. Do you sell creamery butter also? Mr. HARRIS Yes, sir, a great deal more of that. The CHAIRMAN. How much more of it ? Mr. HARRIS. I suppose we sell half again as much perhaps. The CHAIRMAN. What price do you get tor the butterine ? Mr. HARRIS. Where we cut it out we get 17 cents, and 15 cents by the package. The CHAIRMAN. What do you pay for it at wholesale ? Mr. HARRIS. From 104 to 11 cents—less than I have been paying. The CHAIRMAN. What do you get for butter? Mr. HARRIS. We are getting now from 22 to 32 cents a pound. I have one class of butter made at a little creamery at Ipswich a dozen miles from my city which the farmers have contributed to and built. I buy butter from them during the months of June, July, and August, at 28 cents a pound and I retail at 32 cents. The CHAIRMAN. An increase in price of 4 cents a pound ? Mr. HARRIS. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. You make a larger profit than that on your oleo- margarine ? Mr. HARRIS. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Why not sell the oleomargarine for an advance of 145 cents a pound, and give the poor man the benefit of the difference ? Mr. HARRIS. I could not afford to do that. There is at least a loss of a cent a pound in cutting out the butter and the butterine. It is my belief, based upon the figures from my own books, that dairy products have suffered less in the reduction of price in the last five years than almost any other prominent article of food we handle. I have a few figures here, retail prices taken from my books in 1881 and in 1836, each at about the middle of May, I think. We were retailing the best grade of flour at $9 a barrel five years ago; in 1886 it was $6 a barrel. Five years ago potatoes sold at $1.20 a bushel; this year at 90 cents a bushel. Pork lard was selling at 13 or 14 cents five years ago; now it is 9 to 10 cents. Granulated sugar was selling then for 10 and 11 cents a pound; this year it is 7 cents. Pea beans per peck, 70 cents, five years ago; now they are 50-cents. Diamond creamery butter sold then for 33 cents; now it is 30 cents, or was when these figures were taken. Five years ago cheese was selling for 17 cents; this year it sells for 14 cents. And it seems to me that butter has suffered less really than many of these other articles, and that the depreciation is due, not to the competition of oleo, but to the natural shrinkage of value that has come to almost every article of merchandise. The CHAIRMAN. What is the necessity of the retailer charging twice as much for the products ; what makes the difference in the wholesale and the retail price; you say you sell cheese at 14 cents? Mr. HARRIS. Yes, sir; when I left home it was 12 cents; it was then 14 cents. The CHAIRMAN. The wholesale price for fine cheese has been at 6 to 7 cents a pound. IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. 235 Mr. HARRIS. I have been able to buy nothing that is good, nothing that would suit my trade, at less than 9 cents. The CHAIRMAN. The best cheese madein America has been sol: at from 63 to7 cents at Utica aud Little Falis in boxes. Mr. HARRTS. | have to buy for my retail trade in small quantities, and have to pay 9 cents in Boston. The CHAIRMAN. Do yon think all the retail dealers in your vicinity sell oleomargarine for what it is? Mr. HARRIS. No, sir, I do oe within the past six weeks there have been two prosecutions ; one of the parties was fined $100 for selling butterine as butter, and the other one the same amount, because he did not stamp the wrapper in which he put his butterine as it should have been stamped, but wrote on it with a pencil. The CHAIRMAN. Do youn believe it is generally sold for what it is throughout the State; lave you any knowledge on that subject ? Mr. HARRIS. J have no knowledge on that subject. The CHAIRMAN. These cases you speak of you knew about ? Mr. Harris. I knew of them through the papers. Senator JonuS. According to your observation is the law of Massa- chusetts successfully enforced by the inspector ? Mr. Harris. I think so. I have great confidence in the inspector at our place. [recollect one instance where a lady who had traded with me for many years returned some butter to me that she had paid 25 cents a pound for and said she could not use it. I asked her if she had ever tried butterine. She said no; that she was prejudiced against it; but she bought 2 pounds of it and took it home to try it. Since that time I have svld her every two weeks a 20-pound package of it. She uses it for cooking, but not on the table. Senator BLatR. You have shown us a photograph of your refrigerator. Ts that a glass inclosure at the front of it? Mr. HARRIS. Yes, sir. Senator BLAirR. If I should go there and look at the different articles of butterine and good butter through that glass inclosure could I tell the difference between the articles ? Mr. HaRRIs. I think not. Senator BLAIR. If by any chance it should so happen that the von- tents of the butterine inclosure should get into the dairy inclosure, and the markings should remain the same, if you should reverse the con- tents, I would buy my butterine at 25 cents a pound and my good dairy butter at 17 cents a pound? Mr. Harris. If such an accident should happen you would be likely to. Senator BLair. That is so far as my observation or capacity to de- tect the butter is concerned ? Mr. HARRIS. Yes, sir. Senator BLAIR. In other words, I could not tell the difference between the products ? Mr. Harris. I dowt know how your taste may be. Senator BLAIR. Suppose that both inclosures contained butter, and that I was dealing with a dishonest man, is there any way in which I could protect myself, in the effort to get the good dairy butter, from an actual purchase of butterine? Mr. Harris. I think not if you were dealing with dishonest men. Senator BLAIR. Then all these contrivances which the law has pro- ‘vided thus far in the way of labeling goods of that character are really no protection to the purchaser as against a dishonest dealer ? Mr. Harris. | think not, sir. 236 IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. Senator BLAIR. Butif butter was one color and butterine another color, I could tell them apart just as well as you could ? Mr. HARRIS. Yes, sir; very well indeed. But no man would buy that article, if it was some foreign color, toputon his table. Would not that discriminate unjustly against the poor man, who would otherwise buy thix article at a low price, but who would not buy it if it was colored? Senator BLATR. That is a matter of argument. I should not think it would be any injury to the poor man; both products are healthful, as the evidence proves. There was some question raised upon that point, but we will assume they are both healthful, one as much so as the other, the one costing 30 cents and the other 15 cents. We eat articles of food of different hues; we eat pink ice cream and other substances. I imagine in time the prejudice would disappear. Mr. Harris. I think not against the color. Senator BLATR. You think that would remain a permanent objection ? Mr. HARrRIs. It seems to me it would. Why, they object to pale butter; unless the butter is properly colored to come up to their idea, they object to it. The CHAIRMAN. The consumer, then, under your law has not much protection against the dishonesty of the retail dealer ? Mr. HArRxts. I do not know that there is. The CHAIRMAN. Thereis nothing in the world to prevent you, if you are so disposed, between the visits of the inspector, from taking the good dairy butter out of the butter tub and putting it in the place of the butterine, and the reverse, without anybody’s knowing it except yourself ? Mr. HARRIS. No, sir; I think not. But there is nothing to prevent a dealer from adulterating his coffee if he chooses to, except as a matter of conscience. Senator BLAIR. There are laws against obtaining money by false pre- tenses, and there is no doubt a performance of this kind could be pun- ished criminally. But the evil seems to be one of the incapacity of the consumer to know what he is buying, and if anything could be done to enlighten him upon that point, it might he worthy of consideration. Mr. HARRIS. Butif there is an article that a poor man wishes to buy— and they do come to my place and call tor it—it does not seem fair for the law to say that it shall be colored, so that when he puts it on his table everybody who sees it there will say it is butterine or oleomar- garine. Senator BLAIR. Perhaps it is unfair to legislate at all upon the sub- ject. The following letter from Mr. Harris is explanatory of his testimony : | Office of I. P. Harris & Co., wholesale and retail grocers. ] SALEM, Mass., June 19, 186. Dwar Srr: With your kind permission, I desire to correct an impression which J fear the committee received from my statement before them on the 18th instant (at the hearing on the oleo bill), in regard to the amount of butterine which we are handling. I stated that we were selling from twenty to twenty-five packages of butterine weekly, and about half as many again of genuine butter. These figures are substantially correct in regard to the number of packages, but the butterine is chiefly in 10-pound tubs, while the real butter is chiefly in 50-pound tubs. This, of course, would show that oursales of genuine butter are \ery largely in excess of our sales of butterine. Hoping that this may be added to or included in my statement, I am, very respectfully, yours, GEO. M. HARRIS, Hon. WARNER MILLER, Of I. P. Harri Co, Chairman Senate Committee on Agriculture. IMITATION DAIRX PRODUCTS. Paps 7 STATEMENT OF F. K. MORELAND. Mr. F. K. MORELAND, of Ogdensburg, N. Y., counsel of the Ameri- ean Agricultural and Dairy Association, then addressed the committee : Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee: I just wish to take a few moments to answer an objection which has been urged against this measure that it is unconstitutional. I have prepared a paper which I will leave with the committee, in which I have cited some authorities, and I wish to take the position that the national Government has the power to regulate interstate commerce, foreign commerce, and that the State cannot; that they have the power to tax an objectionable manu- facture in order to regulate it and give other industries a fair chance. In my prepared argument I take the following ground : It is rare in the history of this or any other country that there has been such a demand for any particular legislation as the demand dur- ing the present Congress for legislation to prevent the total destruction of the dairy industry. This demand at first but a * still, small voice,” has grown to a clarion tone—at first, but like the murmuring of a sum- mer breeze, has become the irresisteble power of the tempest. This de- mand from the people of the country, the whole country, to their rep- resentatives in Congress assembled has been most emphatically mani- fested, and has found expression in divers ways, and Congress has done well indeed to take heed and devote to this matter the consideration it deserves. It was thought at one time, and this belief held sway for many years, that the different Siates had ample power in the premises. It was be- lieved that the States had ample power to legislate satisfactorily on all questions pertaining to the interests of the farmers. The farmers have hitherto manifested an agreeable quiescence equaled only by the ready willingness of the different States to furnish any legislation that might be required. I do not believe that the dairymen of the country have any rights which the different States are unable to protect, but the protection of the dairymen of the country in the enjoyment of the rights and privi- leges they are in justice and gcod government and under the Consti- tution of the country entitled to, is one thing, and the prevention of a great national calamity is quite another matter. The protection of a languishing industry is one thing, the protection of the health of the entire people is quite another matter, and yet they are very closely re- lated. The dairy industry of the country is seeking relief and the health of the people demanding protection both in the same way and through the same medium, viz, the passage of a law regulating and restricting the sale of an imitation article made and sold fraudulently as and for butter. The dairymen of the country have suffered from a diminishing foreign trade, due to the well-grounded suspicion existing in the countries to which we have exported our dairy products that our butter was not an honest article; that it was guiltless of the refining associations of the churn, the dairymaid, the cow, and sweet-scented pastures, nay, more, that it was the product of offal fat purified by nameless chemicals—a patented poison. The exports of butter and imitations of butter do not to-day equal the amount of butter which we should export had it not been for the fact, well kuown in all our foreign markets, that we are making and export- ing vast quantities of oleomargarine. 238 IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. The home consumption of butter has also suffered to an alarming ex- tent from the knowledge that much of the butter retailed over counters is not an honest article, and is an undesirable article of food. The States may be able to secure to the dairymen within the States the rights they are entitled to, although they have hitherto failed to do so; but they certainly are unable to protect the health of the entire people and the honor of our commerce abroad. So far as the States have power, within the limits of their State constitutions, to legislate for the rights of dairymen, no State has yet gone too far to suit me. Let not the jealous defenders of State rights confound the protection of the dairy industry with the regulating of a great and wide-spread evil. The States have a perfect right to legislate for the protection of their own citizens; but when the different States attempt in different ways to regulate or control a thoroughly organized piracy, then the ineftect- ive legislation we have had in a dozen different States is the only nat- ural result. When the black flag of organized piracy floating in the breeze above soap factories that manufacture au article to be used as food, and which is so manufactured that it cannot be distinguished from butter, and is liable to be insidious poison, bears upon its sable folds the legend * legitimate industry,” the evil becomes too much for any State legislation. It is in proof on the statute books of all the States which bave med- dled with this growing evil, in the decisions of courts which have been compelled to declare such laws in many cases unconstitutional, in flourishing oleomargarine factories, a depressed dairy industry, and im- poverished farmers, that no State legislation has as yet been able to meet this great question. At the national convention of the Amer- ican Agricultural and Dairy Association, held in New York City Febs ruary 16,17, and 18, 1886, the one all-absorbing topic for discussion was the possibility of protecting the consumers of butter from the fraud practiced upon them by manufacturers of and dealers in imitations of butter. At this convention every State in the Union to any extent in- terested in dairying was represented by accredited delegates. The gen- tlemen who had come from distant States to take part in the delibera- tions of the convention which was destined to formulate a policy which would redeem the country from the citizens within the country were men not only largely acquainted with public affairs, but also intimate with the interest and welfare of their several States. Strong resolu- tions were adopted urging immediate effective action by Congress as the only possible means of protecting consumers in their right to pure food and rescuing an imperiled industry. Of all the delegates at this couvention no delegate from the oldest dairy State in the Union was more emphatic in condemning in unmeas- ured terms the gross injustice to honest industry, in selling oleomarga- rine for what it is not, than the delegates from the South. None of the delegates at this convention were more emphatic in their condemnation of the detestable, iniquitous crime of tampering with human food than the delegates from the Southern States, and this is not to be wondered at, for when it comes to a question of pure food we areall human. The argument has been made against this measure that it seeks to destroy one industry and thus protect another industry. This is not the fact. This measure seeks only to prevent one industry—if the manufacture of oleomagarine is an industry —trom destroying another. It only seeks to lay the restraining hand of the law upon a business which is attempting to destroy a long established and important in- dustry. IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. 239 The opponents of this bill have treated the country to a dissertation upon the rank injustice of legislation against the poor man. Oleomar- garine, they say, is ‘‘the poor man’s butter.” If this is the case it is either better or inferior to natural butter. If it is better than butrer then it is a luxury, and the appetite of the rich crave it; if oleomarga- rine is inferior in quality to natural butter why should it be foisted on the poor man, for there is n0 maa so poor in this country earning daily wages and supporting a family but who desires to provide good, whole- some food for his table. If there is one thing more than another which the poor man is jealous of, it is the butter he eats, and why should this not be so; he has the same faculties of taste and smell as his richer neighbor and the same good common sense, and I insist it is an insult to every laboring man in the country to say that oleomargarine is a poor man’s food, when no poor man would purchase it if he knew it. If oleo- margarine is the poor man’s food, why all this care to make it resemble butter and sell it under the name of butter. To the delegates of the Southern States at the national dairy convention, much credit is due for shaping the policy of that convention and inaugurating the memo- rable contest which resulted so successfully in the House of Represen- tatives. The opponents of this measure have occupied many untenable positions. They have argued strenuously that the bill seeks to protect one industry at the expense of another. That it protects the dairyman against the manufacturer of oleomargarine; that by burdening with taxation the legitimate industry of making oleomargarine the dairyman is unduly protected. This is necessary not for the purpose of destroy- ing the manufacture of oleomargarine, but to prevent it destroying the manufacture of pure butter. Another untenable position was the benefit to the poor man, the labor- ing class, from the manufacture of cheap butter. This claimis an out- rage on common decency, for the product is never sold for what it is, and if it were sold under its proper name the laboring man is the last one who would buy it for tood. It is true that the manufacture of oleomar- garine has cheapened butter, but by indirection, by foisting upon the market 200,000,000 pounds a year of their products sold as butter, and. thus creating an apparent overproduction, and an overproduction al- ways reduces the market, no matter the means by which it has been brought about. All these objections to the bill and many other equally untenable have been answered, and our opponents hurl at us the Consti- tution of the United States, not by sections, but the entire Constitution, and expect to crush at one fell blow the bill and its friends. The Con- stitution is a terrible weapon to invoke against a popular measure. A weapon to be handled with care. I havea high regard for the Constitu- tion of the United States, but a much higher regard for my own, and the Constitution will not suffer one-tenth as much by the passage of this bill as the public health will suffer if it is not passed. This bill does not propose to tax one industry to protect another; it merely proposes to tax a fraud and swindle, that honest industry may survive unjust competition ; and this taxation is not alone in the inter: est of the dairy farmer, but in the interest of the entire people of the country, in the interest of all consumers of butter. It is an insult to the framers of our glorious Constitution to say that the Constitution shall not be read in the light of reason, interpreted by the aid of common sense, and invoked by even-handed justice. I am, | confess, utterly unable to read the Constitution as it is read by the able opponents of this bill, who have invoked the Constitution to perpetuate a fraud. 240 IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. The bill is constitutional for several reasons; it is unconstitutional for no reason whatever. First. It is argued that this is a tax measure, and therefore unecon- stitutional. This argument of our opponents is opposed to an unbroken line of decisions. Justice Story, who was one of our ablest expounders of the much- abused Constitution, says in his work on the Constitution, Book 1, pages 677-78: It will not do to assume that the clause was intended solely for the purpose of rais- ing revenue, and then argue that, being so, the power cannot be constitutionally ap- plied to any other purposes. The very point in coutroversy is whether it isrestricted to purposes of revenue. That must be proved and cannot be assumed as the basis of reasoning. The language of the Constitution is, ‘‘ Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises.” If the clause had stopped here and remained in this absolute form, there could not have been the slightest doubt on the subject. The absolute power to lay taxes includes the power in every form in which it may be used, and for every purpose to which the legislature may choose to apply it. This results from the very nature of such an unrestricted power. 4 fortiori, it might be applied by Congress to purposes for which nations have been accustomed to apply it. Now, nothing is more clear, from the history of commercial nations, than the fact that the taxing power is often, very often, applied for other purposes than revenue. It is often applied as a regulation of commerce. It is often applied as a virtual pro- hibition upon the importation of particular articles, for the encouragement and pro- tection of domestic products and industry ; for the suppoit of agriculture, commerce, and manufactures ; for retaliation upon foreign monopolies and injurious restrictions ; for mere purposes of state policy and domestic economy ; sometimes to banish a nox- ious article of consumption ; sometimes as a bounty upon an infant manufacture or agricultural product ; sometimes as a temporary restraint of trade; sometimes as a suppression of particular employments ; sometimes as a prerogative power to destroy competition and secure a monopoly to the Government. It, then, the power to lay taxes, being general, may embrace and in the practice of nations does embrace all these objects, either separately or in combination, upon what foundation does the argument rest which assumes one object only, to the exclusion of all the rest; which insists, in effect, that because revenues may be one object, there- fore it is the sole object of the power; which assumes its own construction to be cor- rect because it suits its own theory, and denies the same right to others entertaining ‘a different theory ? Is not oleomargarine a noxious article of consumption? The original process of M. Mege was harmless indeed in the light of modern science. He simply discovered the fact that the fat of dogs, horses, and cattle could be used as a substitute for butter. The great American nation, ever in advance, has done much better or worse—invented the science of ‘ mak- ing butter,” and out of what? Go search the records of the Patent Office and learn the extent of American criminality, patented crime, for there are upwards of fifty different patents issued to make this stuff, and as usual in such patents the ingredients which enter into the arti- cles are given. Here is the list,and although all these articles may not be in asingle sample of oleomargarine, the fact that any such articles are used for the purpose is quite apt to make people of sensitive taste ac- quire a distaste for an article which may or may not be imitation butter. Nitric acid (commonly known as aquafortis), acetate of lead (better J q ) known as sugar of lead), sulphate of lime, benzoic acid, butyric acid, glycerine, capsic acid, commercial sulphuric acid, tallow, butyric ether, castor oil, caul, gastric juice, curcurium, chlorate of potash, peroxide of magnesia, nitrate of soda, dry blood, albumen, saltpeter, borax, orris root, bicarbonate of soda, capric acid, sulphite of soda, pepsin lard, caustic potash, chalk, oil of sesame or benne, turnip-seed oil, oil of sweet almonds, stomach of pigs, sheep, or calves, mustard-seed oil, bicarbonate of potash, boracic acid, cotton-seed oil, alum, cows’ udders, sal-soda, farinaceous flour, carbolic acid, slippery elm bark, olive oil, IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS, 241 bromo-choralum, oil of peanuts, sugar, caustic soda, and sea salt. Can any who reads this list of drug which enters into the composition, with sufficient intelligence to recognize the fact that some of them are deadly poisons, doubt for a moment that tbis is a noxious article of consump- tion ? Mr. Michaels, of New York City, a microscopist, ane once, if not now, editor of a scientific journal, testifies that oleomargarine is simply un- cooked raw fat, never subjected to sufficient heat to kill parasites that are liable to be in it. He states that he has found in it tissue and mus- cle and cells of a suspicious nature, and that Mr. Sayler has also found in it positively identified germs of disease. The Rev. EK. Huber, microscopist, of Richmond, Va., writes in the Southern Clinic of May, 1880, that oleomargarine differs in its micro- scopical appearance as well as in its nutritive and dietetic qualities from true butter; that the fats in it are not snbjected to a heat suffi- cient to destroy the germs of septic and putrefactive organisms, and that there may also be introduced into the system by its means the eggs which develop tape-worms; and he states that he has frequently found in oleomargarine eggs resembling tape-worms. Dr. George B. Harrison, a microscopist, of Boston, Mass., in the Bos- ton Herald of January 8, 1881, says he has recently examined some twenty specimens of oleomargarine obtained from different dealers, and has found in every specimen more or less of foreign substances, a va- riety of animal and vegetable life; the blood corpuscles of sheep; the egg of a tape-worm; yeast was found spronting in considerable quanti- ties, and spores of fangi were very prevalent. He found a portion of a worm, dead hydra varidis, portions of muscular fibers, fatty cells, and eggs from some small parasites. The English microscopist, W. H. Dallinger, said to be the greatest living authority on this subject, in a letter to the American Journal of Microscopy of October, 1878, shows that oleomargarine is not subjected to a heat sufficient to kill the living organisms which refuse fats are liable to contain. Chiet-Justice Marshall, of the United States Supreme Court (MeCul- loch vs. Maryland, reported in 4 Wheat., 428), says: It is admitted that the power of taxing the people and their property is essential to the very existence of the Government, and may legitimately be exercised to the utmost extent to which the Government may choose to carry it. The people give to their Government the rig t of taxing themselves and their property, and as the exigencies of the Government cannot be limited, they prescribe no limits to the exercise of this right, resting confidently on the interest of the leg- islators, and of the influence of the constituents over their representatives to guard them against abuse. And again: That the power to tax involves the power to destroy is a proposition not to be denied. Is it not a case where it is perfectly safe to tax? Hilliard on Taxation says: SECTION 85. The taxing power is an essential attribute of sovereignty, and can only be abridged by positive enactment (State vs. Newark, 2 Dutcher, N.J., 519; Debolt vs. Ohio, Ohio St., 563). And again, Justice Story, sec. 922, says: A power to lay taxes for any purposes whatsoever is a general power; a power to lay taxes for certain specified purposes is a limited power; a power to lay taxes for the common defense and general welfare of the United States is not in common sense a general power. It is limited to those objects. It cannot constitutionally transcend 17007 OL 16 vaAD IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. them. If the defense propesed by a tax be not the com on Gefense of the United States, if the welfare be not general, but special or local, as contradistinguished from national, it is not within the scope of the Constitution. If the tax be not pro- posed for the common defense or general welfare, but for other objects, wholly ex- traneous (as, for instance. for propagating M Mahoimetism among the Turks or giving aids and subsidies to a foreign nation to build palaces for its “kings, or erect monu- ments to its heroes), it would be wholly indefensible upon constitutional principles. Desty on Taxation says: One purpose of taxation sometimes is to discourage a business and perhaps to put it out of existence, and it is taxed without any idea of protection attending the burden. This has been avowedly the case in some Federal taxes. (Veazie Bank vs. Fenno, 8 Wall., 533.) The taxes have neveribeless beeu sustained. Suppose the friends of the dairy interest had manifested a desire to tax the manufacture of oleomargarine out of existence, which is not what they really wish, but rather to impose such a tax upon the imitation product as will make the competition of the cheaper pioduct fair to dairy products, does any one doubt the constitutional power of Con- egress to legislate to that extent. Congress has an unlimited power to tax, and could tax, an undesirable industry out of existence ; nay, more, it can so burden a desirable industry with unjust taxes so that such industry cannot survive the burden. Second. Another reason to uphold the constitutionality of the meas- ure now before the Senate. The National Government has ample and complete police powers on all matters of foreign or interstate commerce. The court, in Pierce et al. vs. New Hampshire (5 Wheat., 608), per Woodbury, justice, says: The police power of the States was reserved to the States, but such police power extends to articles only which do not belong to foreign commerce or commerce be- tween the States. Does not the honor of our foreign commerce demand that the police power of the National Government be exercised to the fullest extent? What right has Iowa to eel in reference to oleomargarine ex- ported from the port of New York? None whatever, but Congress has power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the dif- ferent States.” No State has this power. It is true a State may pro- tect its own citizens by prohibiting the importation of undesirable arti- cles of commerce, as, for instance, articles that are deleterious to health. This is too sacred a right of the State itself to be taken away by the United States. The different States have an undoubted right to pre- vent the importation of oleomargarine on the ground that it is deleteri- ousto public health. But tothe National Government belongs the right to prohibit commerce in oleomargarine between the States and the ex- porting of it to a foreign country, for this comes so clearly within the purview of that clause of the Constitution, worded so plainly that it can mean nothing else than that Congress shall have power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several States. The police power of the National Government sought to be embodied in this law is not unconstitutional, because it may perchance impair the prop- erty of manufactures, invested in a business they have hitherto been allowed to carry on without hindrance, for persons and property are subject to all kind of restraint and burdens in order to secure the gen- eral comfort, health, and prosperity of the State. Laws relating to the comfort, health, convenieuces, and general welfare of the people are complehensively styled police laws, and it is well settled that laws of this character, though they may disturb the enjoyment of individual rights, are not unconstitutional. Private interest must yield to public advantages. IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. 243 The National Government is not sovereign without the power to regu- late interstate and foreign commerce, and | Congress can wield this soy- ereigu power as it nay deem best for the public weal; and it is indeed a bold and reckless assertion at this late day that there is any clause, section, or provision in the Constitution prescribing the limits of legis- lative discretion in directing how, when, or where a trade shatl be con- ducted in articles intimately connected with public morals, public safety, or public welfare, or, indeed, to prohibit or suppress such traffic altogether if deemed essential to effect those great ends of good gov- ernment. What are the reasons why the police power of the State should be exercised in the manner asked for? It is not often that agriculture has knocked at the doors of Congress. Why is it doing so to-day? It it is not because the prosperity of those engaged in “this pursuit is threatened. It is more than this. It is a question of actual existence, and the existence of an industry as important as that of dairying in this country is no unimportant matter. This threatened destruction brought to bear upon this measure the support of 7,500,000 of farmers, and their support was sufficient to carry the measure through the House of Representativ es. ‘What a keen sat- isfaction belongs to each one of the 177 who supported this measure in the House of Representativ es. With the example of the lower House for a precedent 1 do not believe the farmers of the country will be dis- appointed in the deliberations of the Senate upon this measure. There are potent reasons for the passage of this bill, and serious evils will re- sult to the country should it not pass. It is no infant industry that is asking for the nursing mother of protection. It is or has been the great industry of the country and it is on the point of destruction. ‘* Comparisons are odious,” but it is only by com- parisons that we can ascertain the enormous magnitude of dairying in this country. There are to-day in the United States about 16,000,000 cows, worth $600,000,000, and the annual amount of butter product amounts to about 1,000,000,000 pounds, worth about $250,000,000. The annual value of the dairy products each year equals $500,000,000. There are to-day 7,000,000 of our population engaged in dairying. There are 65,000,000 acres ot land devoted to dairy farms, and this land with the plant used in the dairy, including implements, machinery, and buildings, especially devoted to this purpose, are worth, at a low esti- mate, $20,000,000,000. Now to compare this industry with others that are well known to be important: By the census of 1880 there was invested in manufactures -.. ...--. $2, 790, 272, 609 Valietorinanutachural products sess sees seeeteseis ce leeia-) -festee oe 5, 369, 579, 191 Rroduchoneoiscoldiand) silver! seers es) see chose) a2, =19) =) ae ats = 774, 4¢ 10, 620 Carita ESted im) PATUTO MS sooo aint seek e 9 co info srmiereiciel ja) 3/n wi sje)e fares wil c/s dD, 425, 722, 560 13, 660, 064, 977 This is less than the capital actually invested in agriculture. The prosperity of our country is largely due to our agricultural prosperity. If agriculture is profitable and our farmers prosperous, the entire coun- try feels the beneficent effect of this prosperity. But agriculture is ro longer profitable and our farmers are not prosperous. Many thousands of farmers are comparatively poor. The millions of dollars I have stated to be invested in agriculture is divided among a large portion of our population, and the farm with no source of income save that derived from the dairy must still support the farmer and his family, provide 244 IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. many daily necessaries with no hope or expectation of luxury, educate the sons and daughters, a pardonable ambition with every American citizen, and provide ap insurance against want and penury for the farmer’s declining years. The individual farmer is no longer prosperous. The farmer who incurred a debt in order to procure a farm cannot meet his obligations and is forced into bankruptcy, which means much suffer- ing to himself and family and a loss to the State. If by unremitting toil aud the deprivation of many of the actual necessaries of life the farmer is able to struggle against the tide and meet his obligations, he only accomplishes this much of a barren success at a cost which should not be necessary in any industry in this country. Let us look at the causes which have wrought this disaster. We have for years had an enormous export trade in the dairy products, which means a considerable increase in the wealth of the country ; it means that dairy products, under the influence of this export trade, commanded a higher price than would be the case were there no export trade, and consequently more wealth and prosperity to individual farmers. In 1875 we exported butter to the amount of $1,506,696, and this export trade rapidly increased, until 1880 we exported butter to the amount of $6,690,687, and had this export trade continued to increase as it should have done for the next five years the export trade in but- ter in 1885 would at least have equaled $10,000,000. In order to meet the export trade which we should have had in 1885, more farms would have been devoted to this industry, more of the national wealth would have been invested in the apphances of dairying, in buildings and dairy stocks, and individual farmers would have been at least prosperous. This is not the suecess which has attended this industry. In 1885 we exported butter to the amount of only $3,643,646, and it is doubtful if the export trade during the present year ‘will equal $2,000, 000. It is not hard to find the cause of the alarming depression in a leading in- dustry. In 1876 anew so-called industry was added to our national resources— the exportation of oleomargarine. That year we exported oleomarga- rine to the value of $70,483. This industry, with so small «a beginning, founded in fraud and nurtured in deceit, has attained a marvelous success. In 1885 there was exported from this country oleomargarine to the value of $4,451,632. Compare the value of butter exported in 1885 with the value of the oleomargarine exported during the same time and the comparison is indeed a startling one—$807,986 in favor of the fraud against the legitimate industry. The dairy has been worsted in competition with the oleomargarine factory, and when we consider that oleomargarine is a source of immense profit to a few capitalists, while the dairy is a source of small profit to an immense number of our citizens, the question becomes of the greatest importance to our leading statesmen. The decline in our export trade in dairy products produces afar reaching and inevitable result, and this result is fraught with serious disaster. The decline in the value of dairy products means a decline in the value of dairy farms, a reduction in the number and value of dairy cows, and a reduction in the value of labor on the farm. During the three months ending March 51, 1886, we exported oleomar- garine, including imitation butter and the oil, to the amount of $618,622, and during the same three months we exported butter to the amount of only $451,114. These are figures well worthy of examination; they can mean but one thing, that the dairy industry is imperiled; that if the dairy industry suffers loss, the loss is an important source of wealth, that dairy farms will have to be devoted to other branches of agriculture, which IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. 245 mean an injury to those engaged in those industries ; that dairy farms may yet be devoted to the rearing of live stock to the great detri- ment of those engaged in the production of beef. But thereis no room in any other agricultural industry, and all classes of agricultural indus- try are interested in the preservation of the dairy industry. It has be- come no doubtful question that the method in which we are seeking to regulate this evil isthe only method which promises success, is, indeed, the last resort. For ten years the different States have tried to regulate, So far as they have had jurisdiction, this fraud. They have made strenuous legislative efforts to have imitations of dairy produets sold for what they are. Branding has been tried in some States and coloring in others, but with the lack of uniformity in the laws of the different “States, and some States with no laws whatever, with oleomargarine manufacturers and venders with no decent regard for such State laws as we have, tempted by a love of gain to encourage the fraud, it seems to be the last resort to invoke the aid of the national Gov ernment. It seems unfortunate that the United States, the one nation whose citizens bave suffered from the manufacture, should be behind England, Holland, Denmark, and Germany in this matter. None of these coun- tries are to the same extent dairy countries as the United States. None of these countries have suffered as has this country; and, indeed, if oleomargarine is the cheap and satisfactory substitute for butter that it is represented to be, the interest of England, a large importer of but- ter, would be against anti-oleomargarine legislation. We should pro- tect our dairy farmers, interstate and foreign commerce, and consum- ers, both at home and abroad, who purchase our dairy products, from the further perpetuation of this gross swindle. ADDITIONAL STATEMENT OF GARDINER B. CHAPIN. Mr. CHAPIN said: I want to say one word more in regard to the pro- cesses of butter-making. The manner of doing these things has not been explained here. There is no reason to- day, if if was not for the cold storage places, why butter should not beselling at 10 cents a pound. The manner of doing business is that the dealers to- day are now buying their butter for next winter’s stock ; the farmers cannot keep it them. selves. It must change hands at this time of the vear when the prod- uct is manufactured and the dealers put it in cold storage for winter use. I want to explain to you how we were served in 1883. These manu- facturers of oleomargarine oil, as I understand, can continue manutact- uring their oil all the summer when they cannot successfully make a good butterine or oleomargarine. Consequently we go and putin our stock for next winter’s use. We help the farmer by paying him 5 or 6 cents a pound more for the butter than if he was obliged to put it on the market and have it consumed to-day. In 1883 the dealers of Boston made their estimate in regard to the stock, &e, and about the first of January the oleomargarine manufacturers went to work aud loaded the market with their butterine and oleomargarine and the price of butter immediately fell so that there was but a short time for the consumer t) be benefited, and it produced a loss to the butter dealers in Boston, according to my estimate, $300,000. One of the Saint Albans papers, right in the butter district, estimated it at $750,000. My brother Simpson, from Boston, gave certain figures, but he did not tell what figures. He evades the question, and telis only his part of the story, for he was just as much in favor of having such a law 2AG IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. passed, or something similar to it, up to the time he became a manu- facturer or was interested in the manufacture of oleomargarine. I say this law is not only to protect the farmer, but also the dealer. Mr. Simpson states that he thinks the manufacturer of oleomargarine has compelled the dairy sections of Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine to go into the creamery business. This is not so. The demand is for creamery or uniform butter, and that is the cause of it. He refers to the low prices of 1879. At that time the indusiries of our country were at a standstill. and half the manufacturing establishments in New England were closed, thousands of men were out of employment, and the number of milech cows was larger per capita than now. The popu- lation since 1879 has increased much faster than the capacity of pro- ducing dairy products, and be knows and has always admitted the reason why this is so, which is that the farmers could not compete with this great fraud. Professors Morton, Chandler, and Babcock have stated that stale or tainted lard could not be used in this manufacture, but that it must be used within twenty-four hours after the animal is slaughtered. Testi- mony, however, has been given that kidney fat was used from ten to twenty days after the animal was killed. They meet that argument by saying that the animal heat must be taken out during that time. Pro- fessor Salmon, the physiologist of the Agricultural Department, who comes before you unpledged to either side, states the facts pro and con, and does not support them altogether in their statements. The very fact that oleomargarine will keep longer is proof that it lacks the rich or volatile oils of butter, which make it delicious and wholesome and at the same time easily digested. The opponents of this bill claim that their product should be sold on its merits, but they fail to suggest any plan which will compel this to be done. They object to coloring it any other than the butter color, and yet admit that they aid the dealer in every way they can to deceive the public in color, flavor, style of packages, and brands, or the absence of brands, as the dealer may require, and even brand it ‘‘ creamery” or “dairy,” with any prefix that is desired. ADDITIONAL STATEMENT OF J. H. CRANE. Mr. JOHN H. CRANE, of Washington, said: Two of the gentlemen who have appeared before this committee have read tabular statements in reference to the average cost of articles of produce in different years. J am a wholesale produce dealer in this city, and all wholesale dealers in produce and persons at all connected with these articles know that these statements have no reference whatever to the price of butter. The potato crop is planted now and we do not know whether potatoes will be worth $2 next fall or 50 cents; thatis determined by the season. It is the same with flour and other articles. To bring in those articles as an excuse for this decline in butter is very unfair. 1 wish to say a word in regard to the operation of the law in this Dis- trict. Gentlemen have come all the way from Boston to tell you how the law is enforced there. I have been a resident here in Washington for twenty-five years, and am perfectly familiar with the workings of our government here under different systems. This oleomargarine law in the District of Columbia was passed seven years ago last January, and up to the present time there has never been one cent collected in the way of penalties for the violation of the law, although it imposes IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS 2AT a fine of $100 for its violation, one-half to be given to the informer. The law requires all packages of imitation butter, or anything made in the semblance of butter, to be branded with the word *‘oleomargarine,” in letters not less than half an inch square. Up to one year ago there was never a tub of imitation butter which came here that I ever heard of that had that brand upon it. For six years these men conducted this business and sent these goods here in violation of the laws of the District. Last year, after going to the police and health authorities, and calling the attention of members of the press to this matter, [ finally wrote an article for the Evening Star setting forth the facts and quoting the Jaw, which created quite a sensation. There were tons of this imitation butter arriving here every day previous to that time. After that article appeared not a package of it arrived here that I could learn of for two weeks. Why did they stop it? Because they knew they were violating the law. Gradually they began sending it here again. I have made diligent inquiry and I cannot find any dealer in butter here who had any knowledge of these goods being marked until about one year ago last November, and then they commenced to mark them “butterine.” But that does not conform to the law at all. I wish to show why this word butterine has been coined. There is the word [ex- hibiting|, and you have only to erase the last three letters, and it reads “butter.” ‘*Oleomargarine” is an honest word. You may erase all the letters you please and you cannot make it resemble the word butter. But it is not so with the word butterine. This is the way they brand the article butterine [exhibiting an almost illegible inscription]. That is the brand sold by my next door neighbor. Oan anybody make any- thing out of it? Is that an honest way of branding it?) My next door neighbor told me this morning that his last lot of butterine came in marked in that way and that stands for butterine. About six weeks ago the retail dealers in honest butter in the market went to the city authorities and asked if something could not be done to enforce thislaw. The matter was referred to the detectives, and they introduced a gentleman by the name of Sellhausen, a detective, who told them that if they would each contribute a dollar a week he would work up some of the cases of violations of this law. They contributed that amount for five or six weeks, and he would tell them from time to time that he had got so many samples of bogus butter and had sent them to Professor Taylor for analysis, but that Professor Taylor had no time to attend to them. He said that he had sent nine samples over there, but Professor Taylor tells me that he has never received a single sample; that the butter never came there. It looks suspicious. These men paid their money for six weeks to this man and then he skipped the town. The CHAIRMAN. What are the provisions of the law in the District? Mr. CRANE. It was passed January 25, 1879. [t requires that the word oleomargarine shall be branded in plain Roman letters of not less than half an inch square to be placed in proper order, and in case the retail dealers in such articles or substances, or anybody else, sells them, they shall in all cases deliver to the purchaser a written or printed label bearing the plainly written or printed word “ oleomargarine” in type letters, and every sale of such articles not marked or branded or labeled shall be void, and no cause of action shall be maintained for the price thereof. You may walk down among the dealers of Washington to-day and you will have hard work to find one tub of butterine or imitation butter marked with the word *‘oleomargarine,” as the law requires, al- 248 IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. though you will find plenty of it marked “ butterine,” and all the dealer has to do is to erase the last three letters and it reads ‘ butter.” The CHAIRMAN. You state it is your understanding that the law is not enforced in the District? ) Mr. (RANE. No, sir; it is not. Senator BLAIR. I want to get at the facts. Mrs. Smith says that the Womans’ League agitated the subject, and that one woman was arrested and fined for selling bogus butter. Mr. CRANE. Yes, that is the fact; Mrs. Margaret Riley. I will state the facts. After 1 had published these articles the Market Company took hold of the matter, and determined to drive out all the dealers in imitation butter standing on the south side of the market, and their in- spector found this unfortunate woman, Margaret Riley, selling bogus butter, and also an itinerant preacher from Virginia selling it They swore out warrants against them, and they were arrested, taken to the police court, fined, and held for the grand jury. They have never paid their fines, and Margaret told me the day before yesterday that she never intended to pay a cent. There has never been one cent of fine col- lected in the District of Columbia under that law, and never las been one conviction made which was due to the efforts of the District au- thorities. Senator JONES. You say large quantities of this article were brought here for the first six years without being branded ? Mr. CRANE. Yes; I made diligent search among the dealers, and watched it as it landed, and have seen it branded “creamery” and “extra dairy ” and so forth, but never saw the word oleomargarinue or butterine upon it. Senator JONES. These packages that you saw branded “creamery ” and so on, What did they have in them ? Mr. CRANE. Nothing but bogus butter. Senator JONES. How do you know that? Mr. CRANE. Because J examived them, and I know by what people tell me who deal in them. Senator JONES. Did you report them to the authorities ? Mr. CRANE. I reported it through the press. I do not consider it my duty toact as a detective for the District of Columbia when Congress has taken the right of suffrage away and placed Commissioners Over us. It is not my place to execute the law or see that it is executed. Senator JONES. In the article which you wrote for the newspaper did you make the statement that oleomargarine and butterine were manu- factured of carrion ? Mr. CRANE. No, sir; I did not. Senator JONES. You never printed any such statement ? Mr. CRANE. No, sir; I made this statement in regard to the fat of animals: that formerly they buried their animals and now they paid money to get them. There are two boiling establishments, one on each side of the Potomac, about 3 miles down theriver, where these animals are taken and boiled, the bones used for fertilizing, the skius sent away, and the fat sold and shipped away. I had a conversation with one of those gentlemen, Mr. P. Mann, and he informed me that be sold it for soap grease. He isavery honorable gentleman, and would not sell it for anything else. But what becomes of it afterwards? He says he cannot tell. He says in the winter time it smells well and looks well. He ships it to New York and selis it to a Jew. Senator JONES. You did not intend to have it understood that it was used for butterine ? IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. 249 Mr. CRANE. I do not mean to say that the gentlemen here would use it; I do not believe they would. I do not think the firm of Armour & Co. have occasion to use anything of the kind; but I do say that there is great danger of its being used by men of no character or principle whatever. They get hold of some process of making butterine, and want to sell a cheap article, and may be tempted to buy this. Senator JONES. You stated in regard to these packages branded but- terine that there was no difficulty in scratching off the last letters so as to make it read butter. Did you ever know of any case where it was done? Mr. CrANE. I do not see why it could not be done. Senator JoNES. But you never caught a man making that erasure? Mr. CRANE. I never did. Senator JoNES. And never knew of its being done? Mr. CRANE. But I have no doubt it would be; it has been done. I want to say a word in regard to the enforcement of the law. There is a gentleman in this room who tried for ten days to have something done about the enforcement of the law. He went from one official to another, and finally gave up the whole thing in disgust. I listened with great attention to the chemists from New York who addressed this committee, and was astonished to hear them say that this was butter. . If it is butter, it will digest like butter. But what does the other chemist from Boston say who came here? He stated yesterday that it would not digest as well as butter. I care not what they say or what investigations they make, they cannot prove that im- itation butter, made of hog’s lard, is like the butter that comes from the milk of the cow. It is an entirely different thing. I would give more for one fact and a little common sense than for the theories of all the chemists in the world. Senator Buatr. You deal in butter, I understand. Mr. CRANE. Yes, sir. Senator BLarr. And this other article is sold in the District largely, not sold under its true name, but sold as butter, Lunderstand you. Do you uot find yourself obliged to sell it? Mr. CRANE. I refuse to sell it, and I wish to say Senator BLAIR. How does the honest dealer get along and do busi- ness by the side of men who are not so honest ? Mr. CRANE. He has to let his customers go. I have a notice put up in my store which says, ‘No oleomargarine or butterine sold here; all goods warranted pure.” TI decline to sell any goods, vinegar, butter, or anything else, unless they are what I represent them to be. I have lost thousands of dollars in trade because [ will not sell that article. I have had some of the most tempting offers made to me which I have declined, because I consider that a great crime lias been perpetrated on the American people for the last ten or twelve years in the way of palming off on the country this bogus product and having it sold for genuine. It is bringing the farme:s to the verge of rain while these men are putting millions in their own pockets. Senator BLAIR. You said you had the most tempting offers made to you to get you to deal in oleomargarine. I would like to get some of those facts. Mr. CRANE. Well, I have had an oleomargarine house in Baltimore send to me several times and want me to take the agency—the house of Richards & Kennard. It is a very good business house, but I de- clined to have anything to do with it. Senator BLAIR. You say this firm in Baltimore is a respectable firm? 250 IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. Mr. CRANE. Yes, sir; it is a very respectable firm, doing a large business. Senator BLAIR. They wanted you to become their agent ? Mr. CRANE. Yes, sir. Senator BLAIR. There could be nothing improper in that, so far as you have stated it. Mr. CRANE. I have a principle against selling if; I do not believe in selling adulterated goods. I would just as soon engage in selling counterfeit money. Senator BLATR. Do you mean to say that you would not sell oleo- margarine if you told people what it was; or do you mean it was an offer to you to sell oleomargarine as butter? Mr. CRANE. They did not say anything about that. Senator BLAtr. Then, so far as it goes, it was a proposition made by a respectable firm to you to sell oleomargarine as oleomargarine ? Mr. CRANE. And the agent of another respectable firm in Baltimore wrote to me and urged me to take some of it, and said he would put on any faney name I desired. He said I was very foolish to have it marked. He said they were selling it every day without having it marked. Senator BLAIR. What firm was that? Mr. CRANE. [t was the agent of a business house in Baltimore. Senator BLArR. What was the name? Mr. CRANE. The name of the house he represents was Oudesluys & Richardson. I do not know that they had any arrangement with him ; this was a drummer who was very anxious to sell goods. I do not wish to injure the house by my statement. Senator Barr. As you left it, if would leave the dealers of the whole country—those who deal in oleomargarine—under the suspicion that they were parties to a fraud and an imposition, and were trying to put their product on the country as a fraud. Mr. CRANE. Well, I think they are. Senator BLAIR. But when I ask you minutely about it, if seems some irresponsible drummer made the proposition, and you do not care your- self to charge it to the firm. Mr. CRANE. I do not wish to do anything to injure any man’s busi- ness; I have no right to doit. I wish to be square, honorable, and aboveboard in all this business. J have nothing to do with oleomar- garine. I do not know all the gentlemen making it personally. I know nothing against them, and wish to have no trouble with them. But I think the business, in the way it is carried on here,should be stopped, and that the dealers should be made to put a mark on the goods and pay some respect to the law. There would be no other way for them but to respect the law if the United States would take the matter into its hands, as this bill provides. STATEMENT OF L. M. OHLY. Mr. L. M. OnLy, of New York City, then addressed the committee : I used to deal in oleomargarine, but have not sold any for several years. Within two or three days I have eaten oleomargarine in a res- taurant, and the woman told me it was sold to her for butter, and the tub was branded in such a manner that you could not tell what the let- ters were. The letters were probably an inch and a half long, but they were only a quarter of an inch wide, and it is almost impossible to tell IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. 251 what they are. I know, also, that stores buy it and sell it for butter My wife has bought it and L have taken it back to them. I know that manufacturers for whom I have worked have asked me to scrape off the brand “ oleomargarine” after the customers bought it, and to be sure and wait until the customer had made the purchase, so that the law could not affect him. The CHAIRMAN. You were instructed to scratch off the brand if the customer wanted it off? Mr. OHLY. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Did you ever do it; did any of the customers ever ask you to have it taken off? Mr. OuLy. Yes, but I didn’t do it myself; I] have seen our men doing it. Senator BLAIR. Who do you mean by “our men?” Mr. OHLY. The other employés of the particular manufacturer. The CHAIRMAN. Do you say that you dealt in oleomargarine ? Mr. OHLY. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. When was that? Mr. OHLY. Two years ago the first of May. The CHAIRMAN. What did you sell it for, oleomargarine or butter ? Mr. OHLY. I sold it for oleomargarine; I never sold it for anything else but oleomargarine. The CHAIRMAN. The customers knew what they were getting then? Mr. OHLY. Yes, sir, Senator BLAIR. Where do you live? Mr. OHLY. In Brooklyn. Iam a produce commission merchant. The CHAIRMAN. You are not a retailer ? Mir ORLY. NO; Sir. Senator BLarr. Your customers are retailers, as a rule? Mr. OHLY. Yes, sir. Senator BLAIR. You sell to the retailer oleomargarine ? Mr. OHLY. No, sir; we have not for over two years. Senator BLATR. When you did dealin it you sold it as oleomargar- ine? Mr OLY. Yes, sir: Senator BLATR. You said “ our men” scraped off the last letters ? Mr. OHLY. By that I meant the employés. Senator BLArr. Of your firm ? Mr. OLY. Yes, sir. Senator BLAIR. Of your own commission house ? Mr. OHLY. No, sir ; the employés of the manufacturers. I was not then a commission merchant, or employed by a commission merchant. Senator BLAIR. How long ago was that, and in whose employ were you then? Mr. OHLY. I would not like to mix in the names. Senator BLArR. You ought to anderstand that you are not at liberty to come here and tell a thing and stop just where you want to. You come and make a charge here. Mr. OLY. It was Mr. Schwarzschild, of the firm of Schwarzschild & Sulzberger. Senator BLAIR. Were they dealers or manufacturers ? Mr. OHLY. Large manufacturers. Senator BLAIR. How long ago was that? Mr. OHLY. Two or three years ago. Senator BLAIR. How long did you work for them? Mr. OHLY. I do not know exactly; a few months. 252 IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. Senator BLAIR. Five or six months? Mr. OHLY. Probably. Senator BLAIR. In what capacity? Mr. OHLY. Asassistant to my brother, who was their representative. Senator BLAIR. As their general manager ? Mr. OHLY. Yes, sir. Senator BLAiR. Was he a member of the firm? Mr. OHLY. No, sir. Senator BLAIR. He was working upon a salary? Mr. ONLY. Upon commission. Senator BLAIR. You said they were very large dealers. Have you any idea of the amount they produced annually ? Mr. OHLY. No, sir; I have not, but itis very large. They have gone out of the business. Senator BLAIR. One of the largest firms of manufacturers ? Mr. OHLY. Yes, sir. Senator BLAIR. You say they have gone out of the business? Mr. OHLY. They have gone out of the business of making eae rine butter, but they are still making oleomargarine oil. Senator BLArR. You cannot give an idea of the extent of their man- ufacture ? Mr. OHLY. I think 300 or 400 pounds a day, sometimes more. Senator BLAIR. And tubs contain 50 pounds ? Mr. OHLY. They contain 28, 40, and 56 pounds. Senator BLAIR. Where did they sell their manufacture ? Mr. OHLY. Allover the country, as far west as Michigan, and through New York State, Connecticut, and Rhode Island. Senator BLATR. What did they sell it as being ? Mr. OHLY. They sold it for oleomargarine. Senator BLAIR. Were their tubs labeled in the way required by law, as a rule? Mr. OHLY. I believe they were. Senator BLarr. They sold it then as oleomargarine ? Mr. OHLY. They did. Senator BLAIR. It was never marked as butterine ? Mr. OHLY. Yes, sir; some. Senator BLAtR. What proportion of butterine did they manufacture of the entire manufacture ? Mr. Onty. They made oleomargarine first, and then the Chicago firms began to make butterine, and butterine being made from lard was more soft and pliable than the oleomargarine, which, in cold weather, was brittle, and people began to ask for butterine, and consequently they manufactured after that mostly butterine. Senator BLAIR. I understand you that in some cases customers, that is, commission men or retail dealers, came to that establishment and de- sired that the mark on the tub, * butterine,” should be erased ? Mr. OHLY. Yes, sir. Senator BLarr. And that was done, under the direction of the firm, by the workmen of the firm? Mr. OHLY. Yes, sir. Senator BLatrR. That was for the immediate consumption of that vicinity, or was it to be sent off to a distance ? Mr. OHLY. That was more for immediate consumption in that vicinity. Many ordered their packages put up in bags—out of town parties. Senator BLAIR. How would those be marked? IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. 253 Mr. OHLY. The tubs inside would probably be marked all right, but the coverings would not be marked, except with some stencil probably. Senator BLAIR. Would that cover necessarily be removed in the retailer’s shop? Mr. OHLY. Yes, sir. Senator BLAIR. So that in the retailer’s shop the mark would be visible ? Mr. OnLy. Yes, unless they took some measure to remove it. The CHAIRMAN. What is your business now ? Mr. OHLY. I am in the butter business. The CHAIRMAN. What is the name of the firm? Mr. OHLY. Ohly Brothers with Henry Hanson & Company. STATEMENT OF GEORGE M. STERNE. Mr. GEoRGH M. STERNE, of Chicago, Ill., then addressed the com- mittee. The CHAIRMAN. What is your business ? Mr. STERNE. [ am a manufacturer of oleomargarine and butterine and have been connected with the details of the production of those articles since 1879. [I have been closely connected with the manutacture of lard, lard oil, and the cooking of animal fats for nineteen years, and have expert knowledge as to their characteristics. The CHAIRMAN. What is this neutral that we hear about ? Mr. STERNE. Neutral is made of the leaf lard of the hog. The CHAIRMAN. The proper title would be neutral lard ? Mr. STERNE. Yes, it is used that way. In speaking of it commer- cially we call oleomargarine oleo, but it has come to be a commercial term to speak of the manufactured product or oil as oleo. Neutral lard is an article of commerce and is known now as such. The CHAIRMAN. Are you familiar with the details of the manufacture, the actual process ? Mr. STERNE. Yes. sir; entirely. The CHAIRMAN. Describe briefly the process of making neutral. Mr. SYERNE. I have prepared a paper which describes the process used in the manufacture of oleomargarine and butterine, which I will read. In this paper I say that 1 know that the following is the universal process used in the manufacture of oleomargarine and butterine, and that no fats of a deleterious or uncleanly character can be used or are used, and that any poor fats would make the product unsalable. The fat for the manufacture of oleomargarine is taken from the animal during the slaughtering process to vats of running water and thor- oughly washed, and thence to vats of ice water and immersed, remain- ing several hours, thus removing all animal heat. It is then hung up in the refrigerating-room until taken to the grinding-room or basher. This time is usually not greater than twenty-four or thirty-six hours from the time of slaughter. The hasher is located above the cooking vats, into which it falls, and they are so constructed that the cooking is uniform, and all of the fat is melted trom the fiber and tissue, and when this is accomplished the fiber and tissue are carried to the bottom by the liberal use of salt, to which these particles attach themselves as it falls through the liquid fat. When well settled the clear liquid fat-is drawn into another vat and the heat again applied and raised to a much higher temperature 254 IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. than that at which the first melting was done. We cook it the second time because the first process of cooking is for the distinct purpose of separating the fat from the fiber. If during the first cooking we were to raise the temperature we would roast the fiber, and thus give the fat a roasted flavor, while by first removing the fiber we can have nothing to impair the flavor by further cooking. Up to this point the work is identical in both lard and beet fat. From the cooking vat the lard goes into brine made of water, salt, ice, and nothing else, where it remains forty-eight to seventy-two hours, and is then ready for the churn. The beef fat without admixture of anything is drawn into graining vats and taken to a room where the temperature is between 90° and 100° and remains until the oil and stearine have in a measure separated; being then put in cloths and under heavy pressure the oil yields and flows readily, leaving the stearine in the cloth. From the press the oil flows into vats, from which it is drawn either into tierces for shipment or into the brine made of water, salt, and ice, and nothing else, to be cured for the churning. Taking the oleo oil to the churning-room the required proportion of milk and cream, and in extreme cold weather a proportion of cotton- seed oil or salad oil to soften, are added, and after churning the prod- uct is ready for working and packing as oleomargarine. Beside the oleomarge rine grade there is made a dairy grade butterine and a creamery grade butterine. These grades are made with a per- centage of finest dairy or creamery butter. In the dairy grade from 15 to 25 per cent. is used, and in the creamery or best grade 35 to 50, and sometimes as high as 65 per cent. of the choicest creamery butter is used. We use also the neutral lard in making the bigher grades to give greater smoothness or bread-spreading property to it. In coloring we use the same as that. universally employed by the butter-makers of the country. In and after the churning process the work is identical with butter-making. Supplementing the statements made to this committee by Professors Morton and Chandler that the fat must be used within twenty-four hours after beipg taken from the cattle, it is well to say that they meant that the animal heat must be removed within that time, and not that it must be made into the manufactured product, for it could be kept for several weeks if necessary in the refrigerator without its quality being affected. An exhibition by several manufacturers of oleomargarine was made at the fat stock and dairy show held under the auspices of the Illinois State board of agriculture at Chicago during the month of November, 1885, and the result of that exhibit was, that thousands of people visited it and expressed surprise at the quality of the product, as they had read and heard it was unfit for food; when in fact, it was superior to any butter they could buy at a reasonable price. Many members of the butter association stated they never had received cor- rect information concerning the product, and should not speak again of it in a derogatory manner. The Illinois State board of agriculture have placed oleomargarine and butterine in their catalogue of exhibits for the State fair to be held in September, 1886, and their fat stock show to be held in November, 1886, immediately following dairy products, and under the title of * but- ter substitutes,” recognizing the production of these articles as clearly and legirimately those of the farm as are butter or cheese. Now, gentlemen of the committee, I ask if these results of an exhibit of oleomargarine and butterine Go not mean that they can stand on their IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. 293 merits, and that they are unjustly assailed, through lack of knowledge on the one hand and malice on the other. It is clear that the intention of this bill is to injure, cripple, or destroy a legitimate industry, to prove which you need only 1efer to the manner in which the bill is worded, and tothe admissions of its friends that they think ‘it will have the ef. fect of curtailing its production.” The coloring of butter or Hepes garine is in itself harmless and done to meet the ‘desire of the consumer taste. But to pass a measure through Congress to suppress a tee mate industry, and to avoid suspicion that this is the object of the bill, colo: it with revenue, is a great injustice. The CHAIRMAN. wae use cotton-seed oil only in the winter time? Mr. STERNE. Yes; it is too soft to use in the summer time. The CHAIRMAN. When you do, what percentage do you use ? Mr. STERNE. Five or six per cent. sometimes ; it depends on whether it goes North or South. In the winter we use it always with the fat to get the right bread-spreading properties. The OMAIR MAN. Do you or does anybody make a product which is simply neutral and dairy butter mixed, or do you in all cases use the three compounds of neutral, oleo, and the creamery butter or milk ? Mr. STERNE. | think the compounds are universally used for making oleomargarine. In the butterine and creamery grades I think there is no cottou-seed oil used. The CHAIRMAN. Then the amount of cotton seed used would be very smail ? Mr. STERNE. Yes, sir. Lhe CHAIRMAN. How do you get entirely rid of the flavor or odor of the lard ? Mr. SYTERNE. It never has any. Leaf lard is perfectly and absolutely tasteless. The lard of commerce is frequently cut up into chunks, and each chunk must necessarily contain a great deal of fibrine, and in the cooking the outside will have melted away a long time before you get to the inside, and after the fat is melted off on the outside the tissue or fiber, or what is there, roasts with the heat and gives that roasted flavor acquired by all commercial lard from the kettle or steam. The CHAIRMAN. In the manufacture of ordinary lard for cooking pur- poses, do you in any way deodorize it to get rid of the peculiar flavor or odor? Mr. StERNE. No, sir. The CHAIRMAN. What is the process of deodorizing oils or fats? Mr. STERNE. There is none. The CHAIRMAN. How is cotton-seed oil purified and made tasteless? Mr. STERNE. I do not think it can be done; I never saw any cotton- seed oil that was tasteless. The CHAIRMAN. There is no way of purifying this oil, then ?, Mr. STERNE. I think not. The CHAIRMAN. A gentleman yesterday told us it was deodorized and rendered entirely tasteless, so as to avoid any smell or taste. I may be laboring under a misapprehension, but I think he said these oils were purified and rendered substantially tasteless and odorless. I supposed there was such a chemical process as that known. Mr. STERNE. No, sir; there isnot. It has been a study with a great many people to find out how an oil like lard oil could be made into a better grade by taking out the color and smell, but it never has been done. The CHAIRMAN. We are told that cotton-seed oil is purified and deo- dorized and then used as a substitute for olive oil. The natural flavor 256 IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. of cotton-seed oil would hardly be palatable as a table oil unless purified in some way, and [ suppose it is done. Mr. STERNE. I can explain that. The salad oil of commerce is made from cotton seed, and when first pressed from the crude seed it is a deep red color. That color is entirely formed by an inside fiber of the hull which attaches itself on the hull, and gives it acolor. That color is eliminated, and it leaves a bright yellow oil, and it is sold as salad oil. It must be made from prime seed, or it cannot be used for such a pur- pose. The CHAIRMAN. How is the color taken out, by filtering ? Mr. STERNE. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Is it filtered through charcoal ? Mr. STERNE. Through bone dust and charcoal. It is put at a very high heat, the presses are charged with superheated steam all the time, and the stearine from it is made into cakes and sold. The CHATRMAN. The common impression that fats can be deodorized is not correct, then, according to your statement ? Mr. STERNE. No, sir. I would say in regard to the oleo oil that there is a flavor in the beef suet which we take great care to preserve, and any one who has been able to get it in its perfection has the best market for his oleo oil. The CHAIRMAN. Mrs. Smith asked me to inquire whether you employ in this manufacture female labor. Mr. STERNE. We have none. STATEMENT OF H. W. HENSHAW. Mr. H. W. HENSHAW, of Chicago, then addressed the committee. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee: I am a member of the firm of Roos, Henshaw & Co., Chicago, exporters and wholesale dealers in butter and cheese; also manufacturers of butterine. I have been engaged in the butter trade since the year 1871, and commenced to manufacture butterine in the year 1882, In all our manufacture of butterine we have used only the finest grade of oleo oil, leaf lard, and butter to be found in the market. The process of manufacturing butterine is substantially the same in all the factories, and has been clearly described by Mr. George M. Sterne. It is simply impossible for any one to successfully make and get even cost out of it unless they use the utmost care and cleanliness and secure the most perfect materials to be had. Competition is so keen and the margin of profit so small that all manufacturers are forced to exercise this care. All our goods are plainly branded and sold for just what they are. I herewith attach copies of our invoices, letter heads, &c., for the com- mittee’s inspection. We color our goods to conform with what each market requires; some desire a light color, while others want the goods much higher in color. 1 deny that the butter men have or ever had the exclusive use of yellow color for their butter. A large proportion of butter comes to our western markets, even at the present time, uncolored and very white. Up to the year 1879 more than two-thirds of the butter came into the Chicago market in stone jars, soap and candle boxes, tobacco and candy pails, besides barrels of various sizes, and but very littie of it was colored. IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. 257 It is only since the manufacture of butterine commenced that the large color manufacturers have started in business throughout the West, and I claim that the makixvg of butterine of a good uniform color has forced the greater portion of butter -makers to follow us in using a color. We now find them going to State legislatures and asking them to pro- hibit us from using the very article that we have forced into such gen- eral use umong them. - The butterine manufacturers should, in all justice, be the ones who ought to ask for a law to prohibit the butter men from using any color, or if they did, it should be one different from what we have brought into general use. It is claimed by the butter men that the manufacture of butterine has not only reduced the price of butter to such an extent that many are already hopelessly bankrupt and driven out of butter-making, but that it has ruined our export trade to Great Britain and other countries. As they concede that all this great trouble has taken place with them in the last three years, I will submit figures taken from the Chicago Board of Trade annual reports and the United States statistics showing the receipts of butter in Chicago, as follows Pounils. HOTA MCAT SSD eas UM tees ode Meee, pee Ae Nw te SEM De 66, 954, 045 Oran Meme aime Samer tei Amato yt oli Aci S oooh ere ines eye abis b ae 75, 333, 012 Ieeap yokes \iGeye feted RES Eee ere As Saete ee ei ere ae ae eae a =e SENS: 83, 410, 144 HOIMmUn ey CarmlebOe. «sac eae oe ccice second come EO 2 gourd This shows an increase in the receipts of 25,520,739 pounds in three years, and it certainly does not look as if butter: making in the West was declining as rapidly as they claim. Although this increase has been so large the prices have ruled nearly the same. The average price for fine butter in Chicago was as follows: Cents per pound. PUSH ao ey SA ee a IE i AE a ee ie eh dn? 223 to 32 Tielso). eo nate eeeioe Bre aa came cobs aie bi Lia Gee 2 ie AUR hid OEE Yee Meee eee Oe ers arg 25 to 28 (iced! Se Reser aoe chs ocle BES Bera DBO tie aA eet ened Se eee ee Pe Eee ee 25 to 27 IS Se tates =f ths eto tetaes e rete Bye ad SSE seal gas 25 to 26 I herewith submit the annual report of the secretary of the Elgin Board of Trade for the years 1884 and 1885. The average prices received during the six summer and autumn months of 1884 was 254 cents per pound, and for the balance of the season 33 cents per pound. For the six summer and autumn months of 1885 the average price was 21 cents per pound, and 324 cents for the balance of the year. Certain it is that these figures do not lead us to believe that there is such a wonderful shrinkage in the prices of butter as the speakers for the butter men claim, nor would it appear that with these prices which they have been receiving they are compelled to put blanket-mortgages on their farms, as Mr. Hopkins, of the fifth Illinois district, which in- cludes the Elgin section, claimed in his speech delivered on this bill in the House of Representatives. . Pounds, During the year of 1882 the exports of butter to Great Britain and Ger- TURTON? SRE Soon o6 stg Seu edo Sl BoOp ea boen ON 6, cope ote seEerees Jos, soombebe 9, 947, 498 Seen ere aye EE TENS a ce 0) os Ly Memmi aielcie misters ots cla bese apt en ste 5, 687, 345 (SSL lobo oy ss o005 Sieg poneme eer eon cet Sega Gem amine meat pers Hest) omnes) ee 12, 438, 94 NGIEBY oot) a Specht cbaH Sees Eeoee alae Bosodea cota eoees wae so eDokdicddcoade 12, 297, 629 OOM Oi———— 1 258 IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. The total exportation of butter to all foreign countries from the United States was as follows: Pounds. Ot eye Sad Se ae AM AiR cael trad ORC eS ere TU Peete t apne Re fia ne Tee ee ey 14, 794, 305 tela Stes eee eae Me Paap ree See hee aa a oes Oe Like leks Ree EI eS ES ea a eb 12, 348, 641 TESA. the ibe woot Sys Bese Ee eC at a ee ee ee eee 20, 621, 010 1 clots Saree te Arne eee oe Ue en ere eee am Cee Sid SSS oe Soles oe EEE ea ee 21, 683, 148 Showing a gain in these three years of 6,888,843 pounds. While our exports of wheat fell off 50 per cent. from 1884 to 1885 and flour 25 per cent., we find the exports of butter increased 10 per cent. during the same period. In the Producers’ Price Current, of New York City, under date of June 12, 1886, we find that there had been received during the week in that city 51,782 packages of butter and 733 packages of butterine; for the corresponding week of 1885 the receipts of butter in that city were 41,348 packages, an increase of 10,434 packages in one week. We also find that the total receipts of butter in New York City from May 1, 1886, to June 12, 1886, was 246,907 packages, and for the same time in 1885 197,334 packages, an increase of 49,573 packages in a trifle more than six weeks of the present year. This certainly appears, and is, conclusive evidence that the dairymen are not being driven out of the making of butter by the manufacture of butterine and oleomargarine. The prices paid to the farmers for milk by the Chicago milk dealers -in the winter months of 1884 was $1.40 per can of 8 gallons ; during the summer months of the same year $1.10 percan. For the winter months of 1885 $1.25 per can, and $1 for the summer months. At the present time the New York milk dealers are paying the farmers. from $1.20 to $1.30 per can of 10 gallons each. The passage of the bill now before your honorable committee, or even ina modified : form, which would compel the manufacturers to stamp their goods with an internal-revenue stamp, be it great or small, would work serious injury to us. Strive as hard as we could to bring the merits of the goods before the people, there would yet remain in the minds of many the belief that if the Congress of the United States had placed a tax on it, it must cer- tainly be injurious or unhealthy in some manner. But why put a tax on an article which even the speakers in the dairy interest before your committee have so unanimously agreed was pure and healthy. There is not a manufacturer of butterine in this country who does not. sell the goods for just what they are, and if the men who for three years past have filled the press in both the city and country with abusive and outrageous falsehoods regarding butterine cease this mode of warfare, which has been carried to an extent far beyond the limit of patience, then and then only will the goods be in every case sold to the consumer for just what they are. I can safely say that all manufacturers of butterine will be glad to see that day come, for I am confident just so soon as this vile misrepresenta- tion and frightful stories of what is used in its manufacture is stopped, just so soon will the demand be greater than we have at the present time. From personal knowledge I know this has been the case in England, where to-day butterine is sold in large quantities entirely on its merits, coloring matter included. IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. 259 The CHARMAN. If any other gentleman desires to be heard the com- mittee will give him an opportunity. If not, the committee will stand adjourned until called, and the record of the hearing will be prepared. I desire to say that papers have come in to me from various parties in the form of statements, and those I wiil have incorporated with the hear- ing and printed, so that the committee will have the use of them—let- ters from dairymen, &e. if gentlemen desire to make any other state- meuts which are material—we do not want to encumber the record—as to facts and figures, not arguments and theories, if they are sent in in time they will be printed. The following communications upon the subject under consideration were presented to the committee and are made part of the record: STATEMENT BY THOMAS TAYLOR, M. D. [Microscopist, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, D. C.] IS OLEOMARGARINE HEALTHFUL AS COMPARED WITH PURE BUTTER ? This question, involving the consideration of che liquefaction, saponi- fication, and absorption of the various fats used as food in the animal economy, can only be satisfactorily answered by the physiological chemist. In speaking of fats in general we are too apt to consider that the solid fats of all animals are alike, whereas it is well known that the composite fats of some animals differ very much from those of other animals, and in some cases fats of a different composition exist in the same animal, as in the oil of milk as compared with that of the solid fats of the tissues. The fats of milk consist of palmitine and oleine with a little stearine, while the fats of the adipose vesicles are composed of palmitine, oleine, and a large proportion of stearine. Beaumont does not say much with regard to the changes which fatty substances undergo in the stomach, except that they are “digested with great difficulty.” All the recent observations on this subject show that these principles, when taken in the condition of oil, pass out at the pylorus unchanged. Most of the fatty con- stituents of the food are liquefied at the temperature of the body; and when taken in the form of adipose tissue, the little vesicles in which the oleaginous matter is . contained are dissolved, the fat set free and melted, and floats in the form of great drops of oil on the alimentary mass. The action of the stomach, then, seems to be to prepare the fats for digestion, chiefly by dissolving the adipose vesicles for the com- plete digestion which takes place in the small intestine. (Flint.) The melting point of the solid fats is therefore all important in this inquiry, because a fat that melts at a temperature comparatively low in the human stomach is more quickly passed to the small intestine, where it is combined with the pancreatic juice and emulsified preparatory to its absorption by the tissues. The chemists of the United States who have indorsed the statement that oleomargarine when purely made is equal, if not superior, to butter as an article of diet, if we may judge from their indorsements, have given no consideration to its physiological relations. They say that oleomargarine cannot be harmful because no evil arises from the fat of an animal used as food, if slaughtered in a healthy condition. But this statement is not wholly correct, for it is well known that the fat of mut- 260 IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. ton, in whichstearine largely predominates, causes severe indigestion in some persons. It is further affirmed that oleomargarine will resist the high tempera- tures of the summer months better than will butter. This agrees with my own experience, and the fact demonstrates that eleomargarine is inferior to butter in point of digestibility, because its power to with- stand the higher temperature is owing to the large amount of stearine it contains; therefore, so far as the bigher melting point of oleomarga- rine is concerned, it is not a point in its favor since the easy solution of the solid fats at a comparatively low temperature in the animal economy is necessary to their speedy passage from the stomach as an oil to the small intestine where they are further prepared for absorption. This fact may be considered immaterial by some persons, and so it may be in the case of its use in robust health, butin cases of dyspepsia oleo- margarine cannot take the place of butter, which is essentially an oil, and melts at a lower temperature in the stomach than would any other compound of the solid fats. According to physiological chemists, butter is digested in three hours while the fat of beef fakes five hours, rane this is readily accounted for from the fact that palmititie, one of the fats of butter, melts at a tem- perature of 118° F., and oleine is liquid at 32° F. The oil in this case causes the combined fats of butter (palmitine and oleine) to melt ata still lower temperature than that of stearine, even when the latter is combined with cotton seed vil; because stearine requires a temperature of about 114 degrees to liquefy, while butter melts at about 90° F. Professor Morton, ot the School of Technology, New Jersey, is repre- sented as saying that “it (oleomargarine) contains nothing whatever which is injurious as au article of diet; but, on the contrary, is essen- tially identical with the best fresh butter.” This is cert ainly a strong statement from an able scientist. If strictly correct, no harm will result from a review of the methods employed in the manufacture of oleomar- garine. Several years ago, by invitation, I visited an oleomargarine factory on Cross street, Baltimore, Md. It presented every appearance of cleanliness. The leaf fat used seemed in perfect condition and in large quantity. The vessels used were bright and shining, and over the churn a large, cup-shaped disk of metal was placed to prevent so much as a drop of oil falling into the churn from the gearing. The workmen were cleanly and suitably clothed for their work. In a large vat the leaf fat was sliced up by means of revolving cutters. Water flowed in while the fat was being thus cut into small fragments, soon becoming red with blood from the vascular tissues which surround all fat cells, without which there could be no fat deposited in the adipose tissue. The cutters continued to slice up the fat, and fresh water was supplied until all color disappeared, when it is supposed that the fat has become per- fectly pure. This preliminary process of cleansing to the general observer would seem all that could be desired; it seemed so to me at the time, having been informed that the fat was that of healthy animals. But this is a superficial view of the case. Let us look deeper into the subject, as, for instance, were unwholesome beef fat subjected to the treatment. Caul and other fats in the crude state, as sold by the butcher, are combinations of fat and tissue. ‘The adipose vesicles are collected into little globules, from the one twenty-fifth to the one-fourth of aninch in diameter, which are surrounded by a rather wide net-work of capil- lary blood-vessels. Close examination of these vessels shows that they IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. 261 frequently surround individual fat-cells, in the form of single loops” (see Flint on Human Physiology), whence the blood that dyes the water that flows through the vats in the process of mincing and cleansing. With these facts in view, how is it possible, in the case of an animal that has died of a contagious disease, the fat coming in contact with the broken-down nitrogenous tissues, oxidized by high temperatures of fever, for any application of cold water to prevent the contamination consequent upon the impregnation of the mineed fat with the disease germs floating in the blood and water, as in the process of cleansing, and in which they cannot be destroy ed unless subjected to a higher temperature than is used in the manufacture of oleomargarine? ‘We read in Hassal, “Adulteration of Foods,” 1876, that butter may be adulterated with as much as from 15 to 50 per cent. of water. The absorption of water is readily effected by mechanical combination in the churn. Now, since the fat of beef will absorb and retain within its particles the same amount of water as will butter, more or less, it fol- lows that the very means employed for the purposes of cleansing may convey the poisonous germs to the fat. There is ample proof that large quantities of diseased fat and tissues are used in the manufacture of oleomargarine, independent of the proof derived from patents relating to the chemicals used in the purification. Within the last two months one of the Western agents of the sta- tistical division of the United States Department of Agriculture states by letter that he knew of $30,000 having been paid recently for a large number of hogs that had died of cholera. The fat was said to be the object of the purchase. I have further evidence that, within the past six weeks, the fat from the putrid carcasses of a large umber of sheep that had drowned in a river in the State of Missouri had been carted, in view of our corre- spondent, to an oleomargarine factory, doubtless to be converted into that ‘‘ boon for the poor,” pure oleomargarine. In pecans 84 patents issued by the United States Government, up to March 23, 1886, in the interest of butter substitutes, I find the fol- lowing substances used for purifying fats that have been purchased in a condition unfit for human food, viz: Nitric acid, sugar of lead, sulphate of lime, benzoic azid, butyric acid, glycerine, capsic acid, commercial sulphurie acid, tallow, butyric ether, castor oil, caul, gastric juice, curcumine, chlorate of potash, peroxide ‘of magnesia, nitrate of soda, dry- blood albumen, saltpeter, borax, orris root, bicarbonate of soda, caparic acid, sulphite of soda, pepsin, lard, caustic potash, chalk, oil of sesame (or benne), tarnip-seed oil, oil of sweet almonds, stomach of pigs, sheep, or calves, mustard-seed oil, bicarbona'e of potash, boracie acid, salievlic acid, cotton-seed oil, alum, cows’ udders, sal-soda, fari- naceous flour, carbolic acid, slippery-elm bark, olive oil, bromo-chloralum, oil of pea- nuts, sugar, caustic soda. The following extracts from patents issued by the United States Patent Office will serve to show the general character of oleomargarine as manu- factured in the United States: Letters patent to J. R. Brown, December 23, 1373, No. 145840, purifying and bleach- ing lard, tallow, and other fatty matter. Sulphuric acid, alum, and atmospheric air. Letters patent to F. J. Kraft, July 21, 1874, for separating the stearine from the oleine of fat by heating the rendered fat in au tub preferably lined with lead to about 135° F., and subjecting it successively to the action of solutions of sugar of lead, alum, bi-carbonate of potash, and nitrate of soda, and to mechanical pressure. Letters patent to John Hobbs, August 22, 1882, for the manufacture of artificial butter by mixing cotton-seed oil, benne oil, or mustard-seed oil, with animal oleomar- garine, and emulsionizing the mixture with milk, cream, or other watery fluid. Letters patent to Nathan I. Nathan, August 22, 1882, No. 263199. Artificial butter. Oleomargarine and leaf lard, the latter cleaned, fused, and strained and washed in a solution of water, borax, and nitric acid, and then churned with milk and dissolved sugar and coloring matter. 262 IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. Prof. W. H. Brewer, of Yale College, is represented as saying that “the idea that oleomargarine is more dangerous than butter because heated to only 120° is simply nonsense.” ‘There is no date to the cer- tificate and it may have been written ten years ago, when the life his- tory of bacteria was not as well understood as at the present time. Late experiments demonstrate that the spores of some species of bacil- lus are not destroyed by a temperature as high as; 212° F., and to make sure of their destruction, substances containing them are subjected to 230° F. for a period of thirty minutes. At a temperature of 130° F. some of the poison germs just begin to propagate in a lively manner. (Salmon.) Prof. J. S. Arnold, medical department, University of New York, is said to be the author of the statement that “ oleomar garine is a blessing to the poor, and in every way a perfectly pure, wholesome, and palata- ble article of food.” Iam certain that no reliance can be placed upon the statement that oleomargarine is made of pure fat. Tbe manufact- urer himself, however honest, cannot vouch for its purity. The fat is bought in open market, and may have passed through several hands before reaching his. The trader’s consideration is money, not purity. As for oleomargarine being palatable, that is a question of taste; my experience is that the butter substitute has neither the smell nor the taste of butter. Professor Averill, of Yale College, is made to say: Nor has trichinez been observed in the fat or flesh, except when embryos have been purposely fed to the animals before killing them for experiments. This the professor surely did not say, for he must be well aware of the history of the discovery of trichinz in swine and in the human body long before any experiments or investigations had been made relating to their propagation in living animals. There is no record that any one of the hundreds of human beings who have lost their lives by trichinosis had been the subject of experiment. P. H. Van der Weyde, M. D., editor Practical American, and pro- fessor of chemistry, United States Medical College, is quoted: Any injurious ingredients which the cow may eat or which may linger in thesys- tem, as the result of any ailment or disease, are thrown out by the secretory glands, of which the principal are the kidneys and the milk-secreting organs. Had this indorsement begun as follows: ‘Sometimes injurious in- gredients, &c.,” a person of “ordinary intellect would be able to com- prebend it; but to say that any injurious ingredients which a cow may eat are thrown out by the kidneys or the miik-seereting organs is eer- tainly not in accordance with any treatises on modern physiology. But itisimprobable that Professor Van der Weyde gave the indorsement in the precise language quoted. It is difficult to believe that the above and many other certificates given to the public of late, in this city, represent correctly the views of the scientific gentlemen whose names they bear, indorsing oleomargarine as manufactured at the present time. STATEMENT OF G. P. LORD. ‘ ELGIN, ILL., June 15, 1886. DEAR Sir: From a communication just at hand I learn that the ar- tificial butter interests are to be presented before your committee for its consideration and I am invited to visit Washington and present the in- terests of honesty in butter-making before your honorable committee. As it is impossible for me to visit Washington at this time, I may IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. 263 be permitted to present some points that should not be overlooked by your committee in considering this important question. In considering any question affecting our agricultural affairs we should not overlook the fact that agricultural pursuits are important factors in American affairs; that our financial, manufacturing, and commercial prosperity is dependent upon the prosperity and success of those en- gaged in cultivating our farms. I am aware that in England farmers have come to be considered as being of little or no account; that England wonld sacrifice her entire agricultural industry if therelry she could secure cheap food for her half- paid and half-starved employés. Thanks to a kind Providence our beloved America has not yet been brought down to that low level where the ‘ bloated” capitalists and their half. paid laborers are the only important factors that are worthy of the consideration of those charged with the responsibility of Gov- ernment. That the dairy industry is an important branch in our agricultural pursuits all will admit. That this department of agriculture has been greatly injured, if not brought to the verge of ruin, by the introduction of a counterfeit of its product i 1s too well, known to require any argument to prove it. And just here I want to cali the attention of your honorable commit- tee to the fact that the whole business of making counterfeit butter was inaugurated, and has been and is being carried ou under and by virtue of rights which have been granted, by the Government. The Patent Office has issued, as I am informed, about sixty different patents, and still the work goes on. The Government has no right to grant any person or persons rights (patent or others) for the counterfeiting of any agricultural product. Congress might as well pass a law granting to certain parties the right to make and vend counterfeit money as to allow the Patent Office to grant parties the right to counterfeit butter. If this be true, then it follows that the Government has been a party (inadvertently, I admit) to this gigantic fraud. I am aware that parties will try to break the force of this argument by claiming that theirs is not a patented process. These parties will tell you what ingredients they use, and how they treat their animal fats. They will probably say, at least they have so advertised, that they immerse their fats in clear, cold brine, &e. Now, if your honorable committee will look at patent 266,568, issued to George H. Webster, of Chicago, October 24, 1882, you will notice that he claims the “hereinbefore described process of making arti- ficial butter, which consists in minutely dividing leaf lard, rendering and straining it, mixing a butter coloring matter with it, and immersing it in cold brine for thirty-six hours.” John Hobbs, of Boston, obtained patent No. 280,822, July 10, 1883. He, too, claims the right to use the cold-brine bath in his process. Now, the point is this: that Government has given patentees the right to manufacture counterfeit butter by the (almost) indentical processes which these (Chicago) parties claim to use in making oleomargarine, and there is in the very nature of things prima facie evidence that their product is manufactured under and by virtue of rights which the Gov- ernment has granted to those who patented these processes. It is possible that manufacturers of counterfeit butter pay no more re- 264 IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. spect to patentees’ rights than they do to the rights of dairymen, but they will hardly claim that there is any special virtue in so doing. It is interesting to note the reasons why animal fats are rendered at a low temperature instead of rendering them by heat, as was formerly done. It seems to be conceded by all the patentees that the rendering of animal fats at a high temperature imparts to such fats animal odors, which it is impossible to extract, and, as Mr. Mége says, the rendering of such fats at a low temperature imparts to them the taste of molten butter. All patentees (and I think all who give this subject any consideration © will agree with them) regard it as of the highest importance to separate the animal tissue from the animal fat, and various devices and com- pounds are resorted to to accomplish that object, and yet no man of sense will claim that all of the tissue or membrane is or can be sepa- rated from the fat by any or all of the processes yet invented. And at this point I want to call atteution to some statements that have been made in regard to artificial butter being healthful. In a man- ifesto published in the Inter-Ocean May 19, 1886, by five of those who claim to manufacture oleomargarine, they state that physicians, chem- ists, and health officers have pronounced these compounds healthful. Now, I venture to say that there is not an intelligent physician in the United States of well-known reputation who will say that uncooked ani- mal food is a safe article of diet. I do not believe any intelligent man who has given this subject any proper attention will claim that uncooked animal flesh is safe food. Those who issued that manifesto would probably say that trichine and other parasites are not found in the fat, but in the tissue or mem- brane of the animal. This is granted; but we must bear in mind the fact that the fat does not hang down from the animal as apples hang from the trees, but that the fat is permeated through and through with the tissue or membrane, and that so long as any membrane remains and is incorporated in the artificial product that product is a danger- ous class of food. And here it should be stated that we are not dealing with the product of any one firm, but with this whole class of food as found in our markets. True, when one of the best samples of one of the best manufacturing companies was subjected to microscopic inves- tigation, it contained a whole menagerie of parasites. (See Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2.) : Dr. George B. Harrison, a microscopist, of Boston, procured twenty specimens of bogus butter, and subjected them to a microscopic investi- tion, and he states that in every specimen he found loathsome and dis- gusting objects and living parasites. These and other facts were brought out by the committee of the House on epidemic diseases, and incorporated in their Report 199, to accom- pany House bill 7005, submitted February 4, 1831, and in that report the committee say “that the adulteration of articles used in the every-day diet of vast numbers of people has grown to and is now practiced to such an extent as to endanger the public health.” In considering this question the public health is of first importance, nd is entitled to the benefit of any doubt that may be used against ny scientific or adulterated food. And here I desire to make two statements: (1) Butter made from milk or cream by churning is a healthful food, for “it is an easily-digested form of fat.” It is one thing to get an article of food into the stomach, but quite another thing to remove the effects of such food from the system. IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS 265 (2) Butter made from milk or cream by churning is the finest and cheapest extract for flavoring food that can be obtained in the market. I am aware that people talk about rancid butter, and sometimes people are inclined to think that rancid butter is a dairy product. To correct any such impression it is only necessary to say that rancid butter is butter that has been kept until it has spoiled. And at this point I want to answer an objection that has been raised by the manufacturers of artificial butter. They are reported to have stated that there were not cows enough in the United States to furnish the people with butter. If that were true there would be no such thing as rancid or spoiled butter in the market. When the demand equals the supply, butter will be consumed as fast as it is produced, and then rancid butter will disappear from our now overstocked markets. Nor should we overlook the fact that the day is passed when a dairy- man will make poor butter, not for the reason claimed by those engaged in making bogus butter—that they have compelled farmers to make good butter—but for the reason that the people are willing to pay a fair price for good butter. and farmers, like other men, desire to obtain a good price for their product. Tam aware that manufacturers of fraudulent butter have endeavored to divert public attention from the question at issue and to array one class of farmers against another by statements that if. dishonest butter is not sustained cattle will be reduced in price “ $3 per head.” In an- swer to such wild statements it is sufficient to say that dairy farmers depend largely upon stock-growers for their dairy stock, and that as a result stock-growers have received 25 to 50 per cent. more for their cows than they would have realized for them had they sent them to the shambles in like condition. Then, again, the question may be asked, where do you find these cat- tle and those cattle dealers for whom the bowels of sympathy of the fraudulent-butter men are so widely extended ? Tam not familiar with the statistics of other States, but in Illinois “which occupies a proud position in cattle breeding,” as will be seen from Exhibit No. 3, one will find the greater portion of the cattle in the dairy district. Nor are our grain-growers indifferent to the success of the dairymen. Not less than from $200,000 to $500,000 are annually paid out in Elgin by our dairy farmers for feed that is raised outside of the dairy region. What would hay, oats, corn, or bran be worth should dairying fail and our dairy farmers throw all the product of their farms and all the feed they buy upon an already overstocked market? This question has two sides to it, and it is possible that the recoil of this gun may lay all the bogus-butter makers in the ditch. Nor should we overlook the fact that the ‘labor question” is inti- mately connected with this subject. Cows cannot be milked with the most. improved harvesting ma- chines. Milking is hand work, and the care of a dairy farm requires intelli- gence. No other industry gives employment to so large a number of earnest, intelligent men (in proportion to its product) as the dairy industry, and every one of this mighty host of intelligent men is watching with in- tense earnestness to see if Congress will wash its hands and the Gov- ernment cease to be a party to the continuation of this wicked fraud. 266 IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. No honest industry can compete with legalized counterfeiting and legalized fraud. It requires no prophetic vision to see that this country cannot exist half butter and the other half grease. Very respectfully, your obedient servant, G. PP. LORD: The CHAIRMAN SENATE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE. STATEMENT OF HENRY E. ALVORD. HouGHTON FARM, Mountainville, Orange County, New York, June 7, 1886. Hon. WARNER MILLER, United States Senate : Str: In connection with “the oleomargarine bill,” about to be con- sidered in the Senate, permit me to ask your attention to the following statement. As senior vice-president of the New York State Dairymen’s Associ- ation, I feel at liberty to address the Senator from New York on this sub- ject, and I venture to refer to my long and active connection with the dairy interests of the country, my practical work in introducing the co-operative system of butter-making in Maine, Massachusetts, and Con- necticut, and my sharein the dairy statistics of the tenth census, as an ex- cuse and justification for addressing the Senate committee of which you are chairman. At present Iam a practical dairyman, largely interested in making dairy butter, in maintaining a high quality, and securing a good price. But I fail to see how any good can come to our dairy interests by unfair dealing and undue excitement in meeting a formidable competition in the general butter market. It is hardly necessary to observe that the present clamor and appar- ent excitement in connection with this proposed oleo legislation, and which now centers at Washington, is not spontaneous, but is manu- factured for the occasion, the result of laborious efforts by men who have personal and pecuniary interests involved. Aside from the gen- eral worthlessness of petitions secured by organization and solicita- tion, many of those you havein this instance received have been signed as the result of the most extravagant statements and actual misrepre- sentation. This same extravagance and disregard or ignorance of the facts has characterized the statements and arguments submitted to Congress in support of the proposed anti-cleo legislation. The double and contradictory assertion has been made, that there are 15,000,000 milch cows in the United States, producing 1,600,000,000 pounds of butter and 400,000,000 pounds of cheese, and that the num- ber of dairy cows is rapidly diminishing, with consequent reduced dairy production. Neither statement is correct. There have never been 13,000,000 dairy cows in the country, and the product of butter and cheese is little, if any, more than half what is claimed. (The milk of from five to six million cows is consumed as food, unmanufactured.) In fact, the num- ber, quality, and value of our dairy cows are steadily increasing. This increase has been as rapid since the advent of butter imitations and substitutes as ever before. In the United States as a whole more IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. 267 butter was made and more consumed per capita, and that of a higher quality, in the year 1885 than in any previous year. Moreover, prices have not declined materially, in spite of the oleo- margarine and butterine competition, substitution, and adulteration. Ihave compiled from standard sources a table of the quotations, weekly, in the New York market of Western creamery butter and New York dairy butter for the last ten years, and find that, on comparison, no food product has in the last few years better held its price. During the four years 1876—79, inclusive, the average price of creamery butter was 30 cents, and of "New York dairy, 26. 875 cents. During the four years 1882-85, inclusive, the same averages were 31 cents and 26.625 cents. These figures cannot be controverted. There never was a time when good butter was more in demand, at a comparatively good price, than this year 1886, and this fact is known to every good butter-maker who knows his own market. During the last two years I have taken much pains to obtain the can- did opinion of great numbers of fair-minded progressive dairymen, and find they substantially agree that the only annoyance and injury, if any, from imitation and adulterated butter is in its very general fraudulent substitution and sale, in the retail trade, as genuine “butter. Hence there is one thing, and one thing only, which the best butter- makers of the country desire, as an aid anid protection in their business, and that is identification of all butter substitutes and imitations, this to be secured, if possible, all the way from manufacture to actual con- sumption. Practical difficulties are here encountered which have led many people to approve the very questionable method of legislation under a@ mere pretense of a revenue measure to secure the identification de- sired. Adinitting that this is the easiest way of reaching the desired end, the amount of tax (or rate) is immaterial. Just enough to cover the cost of inspecting, Identifying, and stamping the eoods is better than more. Many honest and enterprising dairymen, including, to my own knowl- edge, several of the largest butter makers in the world, fail to see how their business can be possibly benefited by a direct onerous (if not pos- itively prohibitory) tax upon a competing but equally legitimate busi- ness. Yet they do desire freedom from the unfair advantage which dealers, and especially small dealers, are enabled to practice by fraud- wlent substitution and sale. This one point secured, identification, and no good butter-maker has any reason to fear serious competition from known substitutes and imi- tations of his pure butter. I find most good butter-makers agree that we can make an article at least fifty weeks in the year which will successfully compete on its merits with the best- Wien substitute, even although the latter be of- fered as butter. In spite of the many claims to the contrary, few good judges of butter fail to identify the spurious imitations by the ordinary methods of examination. Many consumers are, however, poor judges, and their servants or purchasing agents still poorer, so that the need of some characteristic feature or mark, which shall at once distinguish pure butter from any adulteration, imitation, or substitute, is mainly in the interest of the consumer. The competition of the so-called *‘ bogus butters ” is felt almest exclu- sively by butter of the lowest grades. 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 market. It is certainly true, however, that the average quality of American butter 268 IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. is fast improving, and if oleomargarine and butterine spur the poorer butter-makers to greater effort, better methods, and a product of higher grade, the inventions which so many regard as a calamity may prove to be blessings in disguise to the dairying and diarymen of the country. The best butter-makers are to-day not afraid of the competition as it stands. Secure identification and prevent frauds and consumers and producers alike will be safe. If a stamp-tax is the best method, one cent a pound, or even less, will be all sufficient. Very respectfully, your obedient servant, HENRY E. ALVORD. STATEMENT OF JAMES HEWES. BALTIMORE, June 18, 1886. Hon. WARNER MILLER, Chairman Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry: My DEAR Str: In reply to a telegram this day from Mr. J. H. Loh, requesting me to send my testimony to you, I ean but feebly respond, as I am suffering severe nervous headache, caused by being badgered in the criminal court for two days in my efforts to aid the State as ex- pert in oleomargarine cases; and I will here state that my experience for eight years in these prosecutions is that we witnesses suffer more than the prisoners, and endure the reproach of butter friend and oleo foe alike, because we have a hand and voice in the prosecutions. We are forever being told that we should attend to our own business and let the State attend to theirs. My dear sir, herein lies the inefficiency of State laws to cope with this oleo evil—not a single arrest bas ever been made here by the State officers unaided, or voluntarily, and they are incompetent to judge oleo- margarine. The laws would never have been enacted but for the zeal of a few individuals, and certainly no prosecutions would ever have occurred but for warrants sworn out upon my ‘“ipse dixit” that the suspected article was in point of fact oleomargarine. I have thus been the means of causing about fifty arrests during the last four or five years, and have been boycotted by the retailers in consequence of my acts in the interest of honest trade in pure butter. But, sir, sweet as life is, 1am wasting it rapidly, for the strain on my sensitive nerves is great, and is telling on my constitution; and though I once took up arms in defense of the lost cause when in the heyday of youth, now that I am a man of family, and a happy man, I cannot say ‘‘ dulce et de- corum est pro patria mort” and mean it to apply to my decease, and I pray a national law that will supersede our weak efforts to correct the morals of the people in this regard. As I mentioned briefly before your committee some time since, more stress should be laid upon the moral aspect of this momentous question. I cannot exaggerate the demoralization wrought by this one agent. Men who years back would have been accepted as credible witnesses, now to shield one another do not scruple to go upon the stand in court and prevaricate under oath, if not actually lie. Woman, lovely woman, is prostituted to the nefarious traffic, and innocent children are taught to cry out in the market-places, “‘ Here is your choice country primary butter,” when, from the very character of their instructors and instrue- tions, they know that the composition is as innocent of country and butter as they were once of crime. Man, woman, and child have heard the spe- cious arguments of oleo vendors so frequently that the fact of selling oleo y) IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. 269 surreptitiously rises to heroism in their sight, ani they laugh to scorn the thought that there can be auy harm in resisting the encroachments of such an obviously unjust law by every force at their command, and a part of their creed is to damage any business the proprietor of which is engaged in bringing them to count. Sir, in this city they have a society organized to defend one another if arrested and to boycott me. Thank God, they lack the power or they would take the bread out of my mouth and the mouths of my wife and children and banish us the town, so splenetic and spiteful are they. You have doubtless many times heard persons, otherwise considered honest, say that they would “beat a railroad company out of a fare if they could. ” Ihave many and many atime. Well, sir, the defects in the morals there harmonize with the detective morals of the oleomarga- rine vendor. I will not sell oleo because I know that sooner or later, in the course of any I might sell, before it reached the stomachs of man- kind, a fraud would be perpetrated to which I would be accessory before the act; and I cannot account for any other view to be entertained ex- cept on the grounds of obliquity of vision. When the tiny influence of Mege’s invention commenced its work in this country, would to God that some prophet had arisen to have fore- . casted the dire events to befall the butter world. I thought it another wooden nutmeg joke! If any one with human foresight had told of the blows to be dealt by this hydra-headed enemy to the dairies through- out the land, he would have been ridiculed. The United States Govern- ment, instead of granting patents then and now to the issuers of coun- terfeit butter, should have granted freedom to any one and every where to counterfeit everything, including movey, or then and there the very law we beg for now, and which these dairy pirates have the audacity to oppose, should have been enacted to throw around the farmer that pro- tection which the general invitation to immigrants to till our broad lands has carried as a natural presumption would be afforded them. No parallel to the audacity of oleomargarine puddlers appears in the world’s history, makers of a counterfeit as cunning as ever appeared, openly fighting for protection in the manufacture and sale of the fraudulent article. When they read in the fair phraseology of the desired law that if they only manufacture the article and do not imitate butter in color, that no tax will be placed upon the stuff, they produce it as a confes- sion of guilty to the charge of knowing that none of it can be sold ex- cept to deceive. It would not please the eye, and the stomach would rebel, and every one of the unscrupulous fellows knows it. I know an oleo vendor who would have been an honest man but for the advent of oleo, and he used to taste the stuff to get customers to think that it wouldn’t ‘“ bite like an adder and sting like a serpent,” until about a week’s experience and the qualms of conscience combined to make him lose his breakfast after the fact one morning, and now he doesn’t eat it or taste it even toinduce customers to buy. The stuff is nauseating to the average man, and I contend cannot be wholesome. I every ounce was of the sweetest and cleanest the process of deodori- zation done by acids renders a suspicion reasonable that some free acid will remain imbedded in the fat. Chemists and microscopists can dis- agree in proportion to their fees, but when disinterested scientists tell you that field mice are full of trichina and hogs all delight in eating the mice and the trichina are found in all parts of the hog, it Opens ¢ wild field of speculation as to how broad an avenue oleo presents for an incursion of these parasites upon the human system. Cats have trichina 270 IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. in their meat from eating mice it is suspected. I have seen a large tri- china perfectly formed in a piece of a cat’s tongue. Now, sir, as all the fats used in the manufacture of oleomargarine (and by that generic term [ wish to be understood as embracing oleomar- garine, suine, butterine, ‘“‘bosh,” and every imitation of butter) are pressed out at a low temperature—108 to 110 the maximum—lI contend that the germs of disease remain as potent of evil as they were before the pressing and the animal life unharmed; thus myriads of trichina and miles of tapeworm are insinuated daily into unsuspecting human- ity, and for what ?—to enrich a few and to impoverish over 7,500,000 directly and the whole nation indirectly. I would like to continue this letter, but am admonished by my aching head that yours may ache too, reading all the scribbling directed to you in this fight. The subject is so serious that I conscientiously think it menaces thenation’s solvency ; if the farmer cannot live, who is the only producer of consequence, we all cannot live, because indirectly we all live on him. Stop the issue of the farmer’s currency, butter, and such a panic will ensue in 1887 that will dwarf into insignificance any pre- vious experience in our national life, if it does not lead to bloody and more serious consequences. -By what right, equitable or just, do a few men establish a crooked in- dustry, that with less than $2,000,000 capital will deal ruin to over 30,000,000 people, and depreciate over $1,000,000,000 worth of property directly ? Look to it, sir, that no further hurt shall result from this vilest of foreign inventions that has been sent to plague our people and disrupt our natural relations. I must stop, although I could find ma- terial in this subject with which to fill a book. Yours, truly, JAMES HEWES. STATEMENT OF JAMES H. LOH. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I am a farmer, and reside in Pennsylvania. In the winter of 1877—78 I went to Harrisburg, and after much labor succeeded in having a bill passed by the legislature to prevent the sale of oleomargarine as butter. That was one of the first State laws in regard to this matter which was enacted. Since the law was passed a few cases have been tested in our State, and in all those cases the claim has been made that the law was unconstitutional. There are at present, [ believe, such laws in twenty-one States of the Union, but in one respect or another they all seem to be defective. As a matter of fact cases under the laws are appealed from one court to another, and finally are allowed to expire for the want of time, and be- cause of the individual expense attending their prosecution, in this way leaving the dairy interests of the country without proper protection. There has been so much said in regard to this matter that I need only add that the farmers of the country are looking to the Senate for relief, and you have it in your power to frame a law. upon this subject to aid this great portion of our people. Ido not make this appeal in the interest of any association or corporation, but appeal to you as an individual farmer. Lengthy arguments have been submitted on the other side of the question, claiming that these artificial compounds are healthful. From an experience of thirty years, directly and indirectly engaged in the handling of pure butter, I cannot indorse any such state- ment. In my own town during the past winter oleomargarine first made IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. PATA its appearance and was sold for butter. The question is, What should be done to protect the consumer? I say, give us a tax, and place the matter under the control of the General Government. There have been arguments attempting to show the great loss that will be experienced if this law should be passed. All I can say is I re- side in the valley of the Cumberland; our section is growing rapidly, and we can buy milch cows there for $15 to $18 a head, and if this bill will so greatly affect the cattle industry, as they claim, people in our country would have to give their stock away. But this will not be the effect of it. 1 will simply say in conclusion that the farmers of the country are looking to you, gentlemen, for relief, and believe you will give it to them. STATEMENTS OF B. F. VAN VALKENBURGH. Hon. WARNER MILLER, Senate Chamber, Washington, D. C.: DEAR Sir: The arguments used by Messrs. Armour & Co. and other dealers in butterine and oleomargarin e butter, that the bill before the Senate to tax oleomar garine will, if passed, injure the stock-raising in- terests, have no foundation in fact, for the reason that the so-called oleo- margarine manufactured in the United States i is mostly composed of neutral lard, very little oleomargarine oil entering into the compound. During the winter months, when a very large share of the goods are _ made, only 5 to 10 per cent. is used, and during the summer season, when a very small quaiitity of the goods can be sold, from 10 to 20 per cent. The bill does not tax oleomargarine oil manufactured for export, and no doubt seven-eighths of the oil produced in the United States is ex- ported to other countries. It is estimated that there are 350,000 less cows in the United States, kept for dairy purposes, than there were five years ago, while the in- crease of popul: ition would have called for an increase of not less than 350,000 ; consequently the passage of this bill would give such an im- petus to the now nearly ruined dairy interests that there would be an immediate demand for 500,000 cows to make butter to take the place of the lard and other mixtures sold for butter, and there would be a de- mand every year for several hundred thousand cows to supply the in- creasing dairy interests. But if this bill is defeated the result will undoubtedly be to cause not less than 1,000,000 cows to be sold for beef within the next five years. Bor it isa settled fact that the dairy interests of the United States ean- not compete with the uncontrolled manutacture of lard, sesame oil, and. other oils into fraudulent butter. The cattlemen of the Great West, as well as the dairymen of the East- ern and Middle States, cannot allow this fraudulent butter to continue to be sold as and for butter. According to the opinion of those who have given the matter careful study, if the tax of 10 cents is restored and becomes law there will bea demand in the immediate future for 1,000,000 cows for dairy purposes ; if it is defeated there will be not less than 1,000,000 cows sold for beef within the next five years. It is for the Senators of the stock-raising and dairy States to decide which will be best for the country. I ear- nestly hope that you will favor the bill. Respectfull y, yours, B. F. VAN VALKENBURGH, Assistant New York State Dairy Commissioner. 272 IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. ADDITIONAL STATEMENT OF B. F. VAN VALKENBURGH. NEw York, June 21, 1886. Hon. WARNER MILLER, Chairman Senate Committee on Agriculture: DEAR Sir: In order to successfully enforce any State law regulating the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine, the article must be put un- der the control of the Internal Revenue Department of the United States, for the reason that these goods are manufactured in such close imitation of butter and packed in butter tubs, marked and shipped as butter, and so marketed that it cannot be detected while in transit from one State into another; but if it is put under the control of the Internal Revenue Department it will be marked and stamped in such manner that when shipped from the West into New York or any other city it will be recog- nized by the State officers, and can then be watched and kept under control, but when not marked it can be shipped and distributed in but- ter tubs as butter in all parts of the United States without detection. Armour & Co., of Chicago, ship their oleomargarine and butterine in refrigerator cars, with their beef, to a large number of the towns and cities in this State, and being butter tubs, no suspicion is aroused of it being anything except butter. I have positive information of it hav- ing been shipped in this manner into Utica, and other smailer cities in the western part of this State, by said firm during the past winter, and I am informed that they distribute it wherever they run their re- frigerator cars, which is into nearly every State in the Union. The assertion of the manufacturers and dealers in oleomargarine that they are furnishing a cheap substitute for butter to the laboring classes is not true, for the reason that the retailer invariably sells the goods for butter at the ruling prices for good, sound, sweet dairy and creamery butter, he making the enormous profit of 15 to 20 cents per pound on his sales, while the consumer is not only defrauded by getting what he does not want and would not knowingly use at any price, but is paying 10 to 15 cents per pound more than he would have to pay for oleomar- garine if he wanted it and bought it for what it is. By taxing these goods 10 cents per pound it will simply reduce the profit of the retailer to about what it would be on pure butter; then there would be no inducement for the grocer to commit a fraud on his cus- tomer by selling it for butter. The experts in the employ of the State dairy commission have pur- chased more than five hundred samples of these counterfeits as and for butter during the past eighteen months, and in not over five cases have they found the grocer selling it for what it was, and then only when they were suspicious that they were dealing with a State expert and liable to be arrested. The average price paid by the experts for five hun- dred samples was for oleomargarine twenty to twenty-five cents, an for butterine twenty-five to thirty-six cents per pound; the larger share of the samples were butterine. During the said period oleomargarine sold at wholesale from eight to thirteen cents per pound, and butterine at sixteen to twenty cents per pound. The present ruling price of oleomargarine is seven to nine cents and of butterine ten cents per pound at wholesale. Respectfully, yours, B. F. VAN VALKENBURGH, Assistant Dairy Commissioner. The committee then adjourned. St) IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. 27 STATEMENT OF J. H. CRANE. [ Office of J, H. Crane, wholesale produce commission merchant, 936 Louisiana ave- nue, south side. ] WASHINGTON, D. C., June 22, 1886. DEAR Str: Mr. Walter Brown, of 212 Center Market, this city, who addressed your committee last Friday, requests me to send to you the name of A. A. Kennard & Co., corner of South street and Exchange Place, Baltimore, as the parties to whom the suet of the butchers in the Center Market was sold four years ago, in the returned refuse of which he found, in the hashed and pressed Suet, pressed maggots, He also requests me to give you the name of Mr. P. H. Vanriper, of New York City, as the party to whom Messrs. Weaver & Klingly, of George- town, D. C., are now shipping their “ oleo oil,” this oil being extracted from suet bought of butchers in our Center Market. _ You will remember that this information was called for by Senator Jones. Yours, truly, J. H. CRANE. Hon. WARNER, MILLER, Chairman Committee Agriculture, de., U. 8. 8. ANALYSES OF SAMPLES OF OLEOMARGARINE. U. S. DEPARTMENT oF AGRICULTURE, . Washington, D. C., June 22, 1886. Hon. WARNER MILLER, Chairman Senate Committee on Agriculture: DEAR Stir: Herewith I respectfully submit an analysis of the ten samples of eleomargarine, so called. received June 12, 1386, from B. F. Van Valkenburgh, assistant New York State dairy commissioner, 350 Washington street, New York City, N. Y. Sample No. 1 is an oleomargarine. Viewed under the microscope as received, this sample exhibits crystals of lard. On boiling it gives off fumes of a very disagreeable acid odor and also that of decomposing cheese (caseine), showing the presence of butter. It is unfit for human food, being in a highly decomposed state. The sample is marked I; Aarensburg, N. Y. Sample No. 2.—This specimen is full of fungi, mycelium, and the Spores of the same. Dark bodies, foreign to pure butter or oleomarga- rine, are also observed. On boiling a very sour odor is given off, and also that of decomposing cheese (caseine), indicating the presence of butter, although no odor of butter was perceived. This sample was too much decayed to detect in it the crystals of beef fat. Has a slight taste of butter. Is unfit for human food, being in a state of fermenta- tion. The sample is marked H. & D., June 12, 1886. Probably Richards and Muny’s goods. Sample No. 3.—This sample is an oleomargarine. Viewed under the microscope, it exhibits crystals of lard. On boiling gives off a slight odor of butter; also a sour and cheesy odor. Is unfit for human food, being highly decomposed. This Sample is marked P. H. Riper, N. Mi: made by him in N. Y.; old goods. 17007 oL——18 274 IMITATION DAIRY PRODUCTS. {by Sample No. 4.—Viewed under the microscope, as received, no erystals~ of lard were observed. On boiling a slight odor of butter is pereeived, and a sour smell of decomposed or putrid cheese (caseine). This sam- ple is too highly decomposed to obtain definition of crystals, and is unfit for human food. It is marked N. Waterbury (probably Ham- mond’s goods), 115 Warren street. Sample No. 5.—This sample is an oleomargarine. Viewed under the microscope, crystals of lard are observed. On boiling, a strong odor of decomposing caseine and a strong acid odor is given off. The sample is ina state of fermentation. Is unfit for human food. Marked, P. McGaun; probably McGaun’s goods, Brooklyn, N. ‘ Sample No. 6.—Viewed under the microscope, no crystals of lard are observed. On boiling, it has a slight odor of butter and also a strong odor of decomposing cheese (caseine), showing the presence of butter. It is highly charged with water. This specimen is unfit for human food, being in a state of fermentation. Marked G. Sample No. 7.—This is an oleomargarine. Viewed under the micro- scrope as received, crystals of lard in great numbers are seen. On boiling, beef crystals are observed, and also dark bodies, never seen in pure butter or oleomargariné. This sample is in a highly decomposed state and would be unfit for human food. It is marked Millman, probably L. Mendell’s goods, New York. Sample No. 8.—This sample contains butter and lard, mycelium (roots) of fungi, and the spores of same. On boiling it gives off the odor of decomposing cheese (caseine of butter). Contains dark bodies foreign to butter or oleomargarine. No odor of butter is perceived when boil- ing. The sample is unfit for human food, being in a state of fermenta- tion. Marked G. H. Hammond, June 12 , 1886. From somewhere in Indiana it is supposed. Sample No. 9.—This sample, under the microscope, viewed in: the nat- ural state, shows erystals of lard. Itis an oleomargarine. The crystals of lard are well defined and in great numbers. On boiling gives off the odor of decomposed cheese (caseine of butter). The sample is highly charged with a blue mold, seen by the naked eye. It is in a high state of fermentation and is unfit for human food. Marked A. Manufact- urer unknown. Sample No. 10.—Few crystals of lard observed inthis sample. When boiled has a slight odor of butter, also an odor of decomposing caseine, showing the presence of butter. Is unfit for human food, being in a state of fermentation. Marked P. H. Van Riper, New York. SG | LE Ag '07 E Le 4 if @ iin 00008958476