, AGRIC. DEPT, 
 
OF THE 
 
 OLLEGE OF 
 
 OLEOMARGARINE 
 
 AND 
 
 BDTTERINE. 
 
 >4 />/?/>? presentation of the most gigantic swindle 
 of modern times. 
 
 PRICE, 25 CENTS. 
 
 PUBLISHED BY 
 
 T. L. MCALPINE, 142 MADISON STREET, 
 
 NBW 
 
 THE JUD80N PRINTING COR., 16 BEEKMAN ST., N. Y. 
 
 [Copyright 1886, by TT. 1^. IMcA.lpixie.1 
 

 TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGE. 
 
 INTRODUCTION 
 
 HISTORY OF OLEOMARGARINE - - - - - -- - --3 
 
 MOVEMENTS AGAINST OLEOMARGARINE - 4 
 
 INGREDIENTS USED IN ITS MANUFACTURE - 10 
 
 EFFECTS OF NITRIC ACID 
 
 THE EVASIONS OF THE LAW - J 3 
 
 DAMAGE TO THE DAIRY INTEREST - J 4 
 
 DECLINE IN THE PRICE OF BUTTER 17 
 
 PATENTS AND METHODS OF MANUFACTURE 20 
 
 OLEOMARGARINE NOT WHOLESOME ...... 22 
 
 RUINING THE EXPORT TRADE 24 
 
 WHAT REPUTABLE RETAILERS SAY 26 
 How THE EXECUTION OF THE LAW Is OBSTRUCTED - 
 
 CONGRESSIONAL ACTION - 3 2 
 
 THE LAWS OF THE DIFFERENT STATES 34 
 
 ITS DEMORALIZING EFFECT UPON TRADE 36 
 
 THURBER, WHYLAND & Co. ON BOGUS BUTTER 37 
 
 CONVICTIONS IN NEW YORK AND BROOKLYN 38 
 
 WORK OF' THE DAIRY DEPARTMENT - 39 
 
 IMPORTANT DECISIONS - 39 
 
 EDITORIAL COMMENTS - 4 
 
 320940 
 
INTRODUCTORY, 
 
 " There never was, nor can there ever be, a more deliberate, outrageous 
 swindle than this bogus butter business. The whole scheme was conceived in 
 iniquity, is nurtured by commercial moonshiners, and carried into execution by 
 desperate men who are careful to appeal to that protection which our laws 
 wisely throw about those charged with crime, in order that the innocent may 
 not unjustly suffer, while they are deliberately, persistently, and willfully violating 
 the law and profiting by the perpetration of a base fraud upon the people." 
 
 These words were used by State Dairy Commissioner Brown, of New York, 
 and none could have been chosen to express more succinctly and more 
 pointedly the opinion entertained by all honest citizens on the dishonest traffic 
 in oleomargarine and other imitation butter by unscrupulous men who throw 
 honesty to tne winds and glory in the wealth obtained through fraud, deceit, 
 and misrepresentation. 
 
 This little book is designed to set before the people the enormity of this 
 abominable traffic ; the laws that have been passed or are in contemplation for 
 its prohibition or regulation; the decisions of the courts of law; the movements 
 that have been set on foot against it in the various States of the Union ; the 
 injury that is being done to one of our most important agricultural interests ; 
 and such other facts as may fully open the eyes of the public to the importance 
 of procuring legislation for the protection of honest dairymen, dealers in dairy 
 products, and above a41, of the consumers. It is made up from a series of 
 articles printed in January last in the New York Star, and takes in all important 
 movements for the much-needed reform throughout the country. These articles 
 met with the approval of many of the leading merchants of this city, and, as was 
 evidenced by the favorable notice taken of them by the press in other States and 
 cities, were well received everywhere by those interested in this important 
 question. 
 
 Inasmuch as the fight against this gigantic swindle is only now assuming 
 national importance, it is hoped that this book may be of service to those who 
 are interested in procuring legislation for the protection not only of their own 
 interests but of the public health. The manufacture of this imitation butter and 
 its sales to consumers are increasing daily (except in the State of New York, 
 where the strict enforcement of the law has brought about a reduction of about 
 fifty per cent, in the number of violations), and the manufacturers, grown arrogant 
 with their ill-gotten wealth, now demand that the product of their factories shall be 
 declared a legitimate article of human food. Backed by unbounded wealth and 
 aided by the best legal talent that money can procure, they assail all our legis- 
 latures, and, if not strenuously resisted by the people themselves, will eventually 
 succeed in effecting their desires. They claim that they want the people edu- 
 cated so that they will appreciate the blessings of the cheap butter they afford 
 them, but they have no desire that that education shall extend to an exposure 
 of the vile materials they use and the injurious processes they employ. So far 
 as it has been possible to obtain them for the manufacture of oleomargarine is 
 a valuable trade secret they are given in this book, and if consumers, after 
 reading it, are content to spread the stuff upon their bread, they may consider 
 themselves educated up to the manufacturers' point. 
 
Oleomargarine and Butterine. 
 
 A PLAIN PKESENTATION OF THE MOST GIGANTIC SWINDLE 
 
 OF MODEEN TIMES. ' 
 
 HISTORY OF OLEOMARGARINE. 
 
 OLEOMARGARINE, the basis of all the frauds in butter, is the outcome of an ingenious 
 Frenchman's notion that the butter diffused through the milk of the cow is due to the absorp- 
 tion of the animal's fat. Taking some minced beef suet, a few fresh sheeps' stomachs cut 
 into small pieces, a little carbonate of potash and some water, this Frenchman Hippolyte 
 Mege by name subjected the mixture to a heat of 113 degrees Fahrenheit; and so, by the 
 action of pepsin in the sheeps' stomachs, separated the fat from the other tissues. By 
 hydraulic pressure this fat was again separated into stearine and margarine ; and putting ten 
 pounds of the latter into a churn with four pints of milk, three pints of water, a little annoto, 
 Mege succeeded in turning out a compound sufficiently like butter to pass for that article, its 
 only lack being the golden yellow color that characterizes all good butter. 
 
 Whether he had produced a deleterious stuff containing the germs of disease and of all 
 manner of loathsome parasites, as one set of scientific experts pronounced, or something far 
 more wholesome than half the butter in the market, as another set emphatically declared, was 
 of little moment to the discoverer, so long as the thing was likely to prove profitable. He 
 patented his process, and found no difficulty in selling rights to handle it in France, England, 
 Holland, Germany, and the United States. 
 
 The sole right to issue license for the making of oleomargarine under this patent now lies, 
 it is said, with the American Dairy Company (whose dairies are all fat-boiling factories), 
 which has issued licenses to factories in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Baltimore, Cincinnati, New 
 York, New Haven, and other cities. Several parties embarked in the business without troub- 
 ling themselves about paying for the right to do so, but the bulk of the trade is in the hands 
 of licensed firms. The Commercial Manufacturing Company of New York had the lead in 
 this business for several years, but when the new patents, under which animal fat of all de- 
 scriptions could be used, began to come into operation, it was found that material more fit for 
 the soap boiler than for human consumption was being extensively manufactured into butter, 
 and in 1882 the company abandoned this branch of their business. 
 
 The Commercial Manufacturing Company began operations in 1876, and their trade soon 
 attained considerable proportions, as much as 500,000 pounds of fat per week having been con. 
 verted by them into oleomargarine in a single week, which, at the rate of 2^ pounds of fat to 
 i pound of oil, would yield 200,000 pounds of oil or butter. This rate of production was 
 maintained up to the middle of 1882, when it fell off, owing to two causes, one the passage of 
 an act by the Legislature of New York directing that all oleomargarine should be branded 
 with its true name and forbidding its being colored to resemble butter, and the other the gen- 
 erally prevailing low prices for dairy butter at that time. These low prices rendered the 
 manufacture of sham butter unremunerative. When the retail price of genuine butter falls be- 
 low twenty-three cents a pound it does not pay to make the imitation product. The average 
 wholesale price for oleomargarine up to the time of the passage of the act was thirteen 
 
4 OLEOMARGARINE AND BUTTERINE. 
 
 cents a pound for the oil and fifteen cents for the butter. Since that time it has sold 
 as low as eleven cents, and now rules at about eleven and one-half cents. Last summer it 
 sold as low as ten cents per pound. 
 
 In a report prepared in 1880 by Mr. Archibald, British Consul at this port, that gentleman 
 furnished the following particulars to the British Board of Trade, at whose request the report 
 was made : 
 
 "During the past two years the quantity of fat manufactured into oleomargarine oil and 
 butter by the Commercial Manufacturing Company of New York has been about 200,000 
 pounds a week, yielding 80,000 pounds of oil and butter. Of this about 75 per cent., or 60,- 
 ooo pounds, was the oil product, oleomargarine, all of which was exported in barrels or 
 tierces, for the most part under the name of oleomargarine, but sometimes as butter fat, 01 
 simply as oil. This would give a yearly exportation by this company alone of about 3,000,- 
 ooo pounds. But it is estimated that nearly an equal quantity is being made by the manufac- 
 turers outside of New York, so that the total quantity of oleomargarine exported from this 
 port may be stated at about 6,000,000 pounds annually." 
 
 Besides this quantity of oil for making sham butter, a large quantity of the butter itself 
 was and is exported, Great Britain coming in for the lion's share of it. Sometimes it is 
 shipped as butter fat, oleomargarine, or butterine, but nearly always as butter, pure and sim- 
 ple. An effort was made by the dealers in legitimate dairy products to prevail upon the cus- 
 toms' authorities to require that nothing but natural butter should be exported; but as it was 
 impossible to inspect and test all the shipments, and as the oleomargarine interest was fully 
 able to look after itself, this proved unavailing, and from that time to this the compounds 
 turned out by the oleomargarine factories have found their way in ever-increasing quantities. 
 to England and the Continent. All of the export bogus butter is put up in half butts or fir- 
 kins in precisely the same way as the genuine article, or made up into pound pots, covered 
 with muslin wrappers, stamped like pure butter and packed in boxes. It is sold every day in 
 London shops at from ninepence to a shilling a pound. 
 
 The great bulk of the oil finds its way to Germany and Holland, enabling the latter coun- 
 try to keep up its reputation as a butter market, without the trouble and expense of keeping 
 up its stock of cows. The heaviest shipments are to Rotterdam, whence the oil is sent to a 
 place called Oes, where it is mixed with a certain proportion of milk, to give it a suspicion of 
 the real butter taste, then colored to make the outward resemblance perfect, aad then churned 
 into butterine. This the thrifty Hollanders ship to France and England to be sold as best 
 Dutch butter, although a proportion of what goes to France finds its way to England under 
 the guise of the product of the dairies of Normandy and Brittany, side by side with tubs of 
 " real Irish butter " hailing from the self-same factory on the American side of the Atlantic* 
 
 No wonder that the reputation of genuine American butter than which the world pro- 
 duces no superior should suffer in foreign lands when practices like these prevail. Every 
 pound of the sham butter that is sold takes the place of a pound of the genuine product of the 
 dairy, and thus the dairy products of the United States are brought into disrepute, and the 
 foreign demand, instead of increasing rapidly, as it naturally should, is daily becoming 
 smaller and smaller. The crime of the traditional Connecticut Yankee who gloried in selling 
 the Britishers wooden nutmegs, sinks into utter insignificance as compared with this monster 
 swindle. 
 
 MOVEMENTS AGAINST OLEOMARGARINE. 
 
 Among the recent movements against the shameful traffic in this city the action taken by 
 the New York Retail Grocers' Union was most significant. This body, which includes among 
 its members most of the respectable grocers of New York, has definitely put itself on record 
 as encouraging the sale of all pure goods, and discouraging and endeavoring in all legal 
 ways to prevent all deceptions that are or may be practiced on customers by the sale of imita- 
 
OLEOMARGARINE AND BUTTERINE. 5 
 
 tion or impure goods. The preamble and resolutions passed by the union are worthy of pub- 
 lication in full, expressing as they do the abhorence by honest tradesmen of the vile practices 
 now in vogue by certain retailers. They read as follows : 
 
 "Whereas, We are informed that the laws of the State of New York prohibit the sale of all 
 imitations of butter in the way they are at present manufactured .and offered for sale, and 
 
 "Whereas, The sale of all imitation butter has been a detriment to the legitimate business 
 of the retail dealer, inasmuch as that it has been a constant temptation to the dealers therein 
 to sell it for butter; and that such fraudulent sales have created a prejudice and fear among the 
 consumers in regard to the purchase of all butter, therefore be it 
 
 "Resolved, That we discourage the sale of all imitations of butter and urge all our members 
 and the trade in general not to handle in any manner or form, until such a time as the manu- 
 facturers thereof produce and offer for sale to us an article that will be distinct in appearance 
 and different in color to that of genuine butter ; that will be free from all temptation to fraud, 
 and that will be manufactured and sold to us in strict accordance with the laws of this State. 
 And be it further 
 
 "Resolved, That we most respectfully petition the State Dairy Commission to use all power 
 that is conferred upon them to stop the fraudulent sales of all imitation of butter." 
 
 The war against oleomargarine and other counterfeits of butter is spreading rapidly in 
 nearly all the States of the Union, and everywhere the newspapers teem with attacks upon the 
 traffic. In those States which are provided with laws prohibiting or regulating the sale of the 
 product the officers entrusted with their enforcement are acting with increased vigor ; and in 
 the States which are not so blessed combined movements among dairymen and honest dealers 
 are in progress to secure the passage of necessary legislation. This movement has become 
 actually national in its importance, for no less than three measures are now pending in Con- 
 gress looking to a suppression of the fraud. One of these is the bill introduced by Congress- 
 man A. J. Hopkins of Illinois, which puts the manufacture of oleomargarine and kindred 
 products under the charge of the Internal Revenue Department and imposes a tax of ten cents 
 upon every pound manufactured. The others are somewhat similar in character, but differ 
 from the Hopkins bill in the amount of penalties imposed for violation of their provisions. 
 
 There can be no question that the passage of any of these acts will be bitterly opposed by 
 the oleomargarine lobby in Washington, which is by no means a weak one, but as the subject 
 is one of the most vital importance to an agricultural interest that is second to none in the 
 United States, and as their passage will be almost universally demanded by the constituencies 
 of representatives who come from what are known as the butter-producing States, the issue is 
 not doubtful. The recent decisions in this State and in Pennsylvania as to the constitutional 
 right of the Legislature to enact laws which, like this, are designed to protect public health, 
 Avill no doubt have great influence upon the minds of Congressmen, as they have already had 
 upon the judges of minor courts. 
 
 In speaking of the operations of his department, recently, State Dairy Commissioner 
 Brown, of New York, said : " The venders and dealers in bogus butter have deliberately and 
 persistently represented in every possible way that there is now no law in our State to prevent 
 the open manufacture and sale of these adulterated goods, in face of the fact set forth in the 
 opinion of the Court of Appeals in the Marx case, that there are several unrepealed statutes 
 relating to this subject, beside our present law, which the court more than intimates is opera- 
 tive and constitutional. This, it is claimed by them, is legitimate and honorable, while our 
 efforts to prevent such open and flagrant violation of the laws of the State are characterized as 
 oppressive, and the officers and agents of this department are charged with the grave offense 
 of maliciously persecuting enterprising people engaged in legitimate business. This sort of 
 ^enterprise loads down the United States mails with circulars addressed to the citizens of States 
 
OLEOMARGARINE AND BUTTERINE. 
 
 whose laws forbid the' sale of these bogus goods, urging them to buy and deal in them, and 
 tempting them by the promise of abnormally large profits to violate the laws of their own 
 States and to commit a crime for which they may be punished by fine and imprisonment. The 
 manufacturers of these adulterated goods purposely make them a close imitation of butter in 
 order to facilitate gross deception ; and while it is true that the manufacturers and wholesalers 
 generally sell the goods for imitation of pure dairy butter, they know perfectly well that the 
 retailers are going to sell them for genuine, and they know also that were it not for the fact 
 that the retailer can and will sell them for butter these goods could not be sold at all. < 
 
 "So rapidly has this deplorable disposition to defy law in order to make money been 
 developed and strengthened by the friends of this slaughter-house butter, in order to hinder 
 us in our work and prevent, if possible, the enforcement of our present statute, that a large 
 number of grocers in New York City have perfected an organization to resist the execution of 
 these laws, and have raised a fund and employed attorneys with that unworthy object in view. 
 Every one of these dealers, when he leaves the store at the close of the day, goes home for 
 the night well knowing that his property is quite secure because he is protected by the laws of 
 this great State, and that the whole power of the commonwealth is pledged to protect him 
 and his property against all who would do him harm. And yet we witness to-day the startling 
 and shameful spectacle of a number of business men, so called, banding themselves together 
 to resist the laws of their own State, upon whose protecting care they so confidently and com- 
 pletely rely for all that makes them secure in their property and safe in their persons and 
 homes." 
 
 In Ohio a strong movement is under way to procure the passage of a statute by which a 
 dairy commission shall be constituted for the purpose of enforcing laws already in 
 existence against the manufacture and sale of fraudulent dairy products. Last autumn the 
 Ohio Dairymen's Protective Association, a recently formed organization, took a hand in the 
 election, and in several counties their interest was sufficient to elect members of the Legisla- 
 ture who were pledged to use their best efforts against bogus butter and its allies. 
 
 In August last the National Dairymen's Protective Association, formed for the purpose of de- 
 vising means to guard the agricultural interest against the frauds that bid fair, if continued, to 
 ruin them, adopted a resolution instructing their officers to issue an address to the dairy farmers 
 of America, and this has recently been published. Its terse and epigrammatic statement of the 
 evils growing out of the nefarious traffic in counterfeit butter are well worthy of reproduction 
 here, and will be read with interest not only by the farmers to whom the address is made, 
 but by the merchants whose interests are jeoparded and the public whose health is endangered. 
 The address says : 
 
 " For ten years an enemy to the interests of butter producers has been steadily gaining 
 strength by fraud and deception, until the natural product of the dairy has become profitless 
 and ruin threatens an industry second to none other in agriculture and the equal of any in our 
 national economy. Oleomargarine, butterine, suine, and other compounds fraudulently sold 
 under the name of butter have made an investment in land and cattle of over $200,000,000 
 devoted to dairy purposes and an annual production of $500,000,000 per year almost value- 
 less, not by honest competition, but by deception of the most criminal kind, while the con- 
 sumer has been swindled correspondingly. 
 
 " Our export trade in butter has been almost ruined by the prejudice created against our 
 product in the foreign markets of the world. Values of dairy products have declined more 
 than 50 per cent., and what would be a profitable industry under natural conditions has become 
 a losing trade. Through the paralyzation of this great industry, all others in America suffer 
 in sympathy. 
 
 " Those who are the cause of this loss and injury to the farmers of America and the com- 
 merce of the country are enemies of the public weal. They not only wrong the producer of 
 legitimate butter, but impose upon the consumer. Were their products sold honestly for 
 what they are the wrong would be great enough, but marketed under the name of butter, at 
 prices far below what a genuine article can be procured for, consumers are hoodwinked into- 
 
OLEOMARGARINE AND BUTTERINE. 7 
 
 buying it, and the genuine article suffers. The consumer gets an inferior article and the 
 farmer has his product on his hands; it is counterfeiting of the most damnable kind, and with 
 the sa m disastrous results as circulating imitations of money entail, only in this case capital 
 and respectability, and want of proper laws, enable the fraudulent butter manufacturer and 
 dealer to ply their vocation unmolested. 
 
 "State legislation has failed, laws badly framed have been passed only to be declared un- 
 constitutional in the- end, while not capable if valid to accomplish the end; for if driven out 
 of one store the enemy only moves into another to ply his vocation. 
 
 " National legislation is necessary, and can alone be effective, or the dairy industry will be 
 completely ruined. Congress must be appealed to and men elected to Congress who will 
 vote for such laws as may be necessary. It is therefore recommended that the dairy farmers 
 in every district in the United States meet and organize on this movement; this the greatest 
 of all others now. 
 
 "The tariff, civil service reform, and all other questions sink into insignificance as com- 
 pared with this, for it concerns the pockets of every man owning any part of the 18,000,000 milk 
 cows in the United States. Organize, then, and elect men to Congress the coming year who will 
 represent your interests, and let the agitation be carried on until every counterfeit butter estar- 
 jishment in the country is closed. In the mean time agitate the question among your friends 
 and neighbors. Not a moment is to be lost. Encouraged by their success your enemies grow 
 bolder and increase their wrong- doing. 
 
 "Factories for the manufacture of the bogus article are springing up daily. It will take 
 the most strenuous efforts to hold out against them until relief can be had. The imposition is 
 the grossest ever practiced against a people; 7,000,000 farmers are left to suffer from the dis- 
 honesty of a few manufacturers. The Revolution was fought for less cause when the popula- 
 tion was less than half that number. Rouse, then, and demand by the majesty of right the 
 suppression of this wrong, and your voice will be heard and heeded. Organize to do it, and 
 when, as farmers of America, you have taught one band of robbers that you can protect your- 
 selves, others who would rob you of your rights and property will begin to fear your ven- 
 geance, and cease their robbery. 
 
 " Already the cause for which our association was organized has spread and gained strength. 
 The agricultural press in different parts of the country has taken up the fight, and speakers 
 and writers in all sections have begun to agitate in your behalf since our movement began. 
 Let the work continue until every pen and every press and every platform sounds the note of 
 warning and comes to your aid. A convention for the discussion of means and measures will be 
 held at the Grand Central Hotel, New York, Friday, February 16-18, 1886, in connection 
 with the American Agricultural Association. Every one interested in the subject and every 
 producer and dealer in butter is requested to attend." 
 
 While dairymen and lovers of legitimate trade are moving for reform the oleomargarine 
 men are not backward in urging their claims. The following from The New York Star of 
 January 3, 1886, will prove of interest in this connection: 
 
 "The recent agitation of the bogus butter swindle by The Star has had the double effect 
 of awaking the public to a realization of the importance of the interests involved, and of 
 prompting the oleomargarine manufacturers to renew their efforts to have their product recog- 
 nized by the State Legislature as a legitimate article of food. Backed by practically unlimited 
 capital and advised by the best legal talent obtainable, they are prepared to enter upon a new 
 campaign in Albany this winter which bids fair to be the most active on record. It is learned 
 from a trustworthy source that they will endeavor by every means in their power to engraft a 
 provision upon the present law removing the prohibition to the use of coloring matter in 
 oleomargarine and butterine. They will urge that this prohibition is unconstitutional, for the 
 reason that many legitimate dairymen use annoto and other materials to color their butter at 
 certain seasons of the year, and that it is manifestly an injustice to prohibit their use by others. 
 These gentlemen forget that, even if they procure the desired change in this law, there will 
 still exist to their detriment certain sections of the Criminal Code, one of which makes it a 
 
8 OLEOMARGARINE AND BUTTERINE. 
 
 misdemeanor to manufacture or to offer for sale for human food any snbstaitces in imitation ol 
 such food products, while the other prohibits the sale of diluted or adulterated foods, unless 
 the seller shall first inform the buyer of the bogus nature of the articles. They will hardly go 
 so far, unbounded as their audacity is, as to demand the abolition of the State Dairy Depart- 
 ment, for that has become a fixture; and as long as this exists, and is managed as honestly 
 and efficiently as at present, the dairy interest will be guarded as well as the limited funds 
 allowed the department will permit." 
 
 i Mr. William H. Coughtry, president of the Albany Merchants' Association, which includes 
 most of the grocers and other business men of that city, called upon President C. F. Bussing, 
 of the Retail Grocers' Union, of New York, recently, and suggested the expediency of an or- 
 ganized movement on the part of the combined retail grocers, butter dealers, and dairymen of 
 the State to oppose the machinations of the oleomargarine interest in Albany. Mr. Coughtry 
 declared that the bogus butter lobby in the Legislature would be stronger this session than 
 ever before, and that strenuous efforts would be made to so amend the laws in force as to make 
 them, to all intents and purposes, inoperative. He said he thought it would be well to issue 
 an address to the various associations of grocers throughout the State, as well as to other 
 traders interested in the suppression of the vile traffic, urging them to send representatives to 
 Albany to protest against any change in the law designed to favor the moonshine butter. The 
 address will probably appear in the next issue of the Advocate^ the organ of the retail grocers 
 of this city, and President Bussing says that he has no doubt prompt action will be taken by 
 retailers all over the State. This movement, in conjunction with the convention which is to be 
 held in this city Feb. 16, of the National Dairymen's Protective Association, will serve to warn 
 the legislators of the State that this vital and important question is not to be trifled with. 
 
 In the meantime the movement in other States is growing stronger and more widespread 
 every day. Robert M. Littler, the secretary of the National Butter, Cheese, and Egg Asso- 
 ciation, has issued an address to producers and consumers of dairy products, in which he takes 
 the ground that was taken last year' in Ohio, and brings the bogus butter question into the 
 field of politics. The address says : 
 
 " Chemical analysis as well as common sense shears that many of these counterfeits are and 
 must be unwholesome. In some instances the process and material for deodorizing the lards 
 and fats render the product deadly poison, and if no apparent injury arises from taking these 
 poisons into the system it is because they are so small that their effects are not immediately 
 observable. But it is certain their continued use must undermine the health of the consumer 
 and result in fatal disease. 
 
 " Further, in addition to the amount of dairy gtxds displaced by the counterfeit, the suspi- 
 cion cast upon all dairy goods by the knowledge of the existence of these frauds has sickened 
 the public stomach and discouraged consumption to an extent which we have no means of esti- 
 mating. To these facts we have the right to largely attribute the depressed condition of the 
 dairy interest of this country during the past year, and reason to fear the great injury if not 
 utter destruction of the dairy interest, which has hitherto been so remunerative, and which is 
 second to no other national industry in point of public importance and financial investment. 
 
 " In view of these facts and this threatening danger, what are the farmers, dairymen, 
 creamerymen, and consumers prepared to do ? Will they adopt measures to protect them- 
 selves against fraud, robbery, and imposition, or will they let these counterfeiters have full 
 sway and ruin a leading industry, bringing upon the community at large all the dire conse- 
 quences of such ruin ? 
 
 "It is already demonstrated that imitations, Counterfeits, arid frauds can be legally sup- 
 pressed by appropriate legislation, provided people will rise in their might and demand the 
 necessary measures. All that is needed is a healthy public sentiment manifested through the 
 ballot box, to afford an effectual remedy and future preventive of the evils which now con- 
 front us. The laws of the land punish the counterfeiter of money with State prison. Why not 
 the counterfeiter of butter or other food ? To counterfeit criminally is to make something seein 
 
OLEOMARGARINE AND BUTTERINE. 9 
 
 to be what it is not for pecuniary gain. ' The difference is in the degree and not in the essence of 
 the crime. Both are crimes crimes against the community. Both make something seem to 
 be what it is not for gain. 
 
 "The challenge is defiantly thrown down by organized capital against unorganized 
 labor. The only way to effectually meet it is by State, county, and town organizations, for the 
 purpose of electing State legislators and Congressmen who are in sympathy with the people, 
 ;and willing in their behalf to confront the mercenary hosts of the counterfeiters. Interrogate 
 every candidate of whatever party, and of all parties, and cast your votes for none who are 
 not willing to squarely pledge themselves to vote for the necessary measures to suppress and 
 prevent all frauds on the dairy. Act at once. If your State Legislature is in session, circu- 
 late a petition among your fellow-citizens, and have these frauds upon the dairy interest at- 
 tended to by State legislation." 
 
 Attached to the address is a form of petition asking tbr Legislature, first, to prohibit by 
 law the sale of butter or cheese of any substance not the unadulterated product of pure milk ; 
 second, to enact suitable penalties for the violation thereof; third, to appoint a Dairy Com- 
 missioner for Iowa charged with the enforcement of the law, and appropriate ample funds for 
 this purpose. This petition has already been numerously signed, and will be presented at the 
 next session of the Legislature. 
 
 Among the States in which the movement against oleomargarine is daily gaining strength, 
 is Minnesota, where the sale of the article is altogether prohibited, and a fine ranging from 
 $100 to $500 is the penalty for violating the law. Here the manufacturers are making persis- 
 tent efforts to make the trade and the public believe that the State anti-butterine kxw is uncon- 
 stitutional, and that oleomargarine is a healthful food and product. In a recent communication 
 to the Minneapolis Evening Journal, Assistant State Dairy Commissioner H. C. Howard 
 says, over his own signature : 
 
 " It is not necessary to enumerate any of the names of the countless numbers of living or- 
 ganisms found in butterine to prove its deleterious effects on health. Last spring Mr. Lambert, 
 of stall 20, St. Paul city market, used a large carving knife for three weeks to cut butterine 
 from the tub as he sold it, and the acids not only destroyed the silver plating, but actually ate 
 into the steel blade of the knife and turned it black. The knife can be seen any day at stall 
 60, city market. The eating of butterine made of the above-named materials will destroy the 
 digestive organs of the stomach and cause the early decay of the teeth." 
 
 A letter received recently by a dealer in legitimate dairy products from a correspondent in 
 Cincinnati contains some interesting facts with regard to oleomargarine and its allied com- 
 pounds, and the legislation demanded in Ohio and Iowa, both large butter-producing States. 
 This letter gives the Cleveland Leader as authority for the assertion that a phosphate factory 
 located near a stock yard buys animals that die in transit. The bodies, it says, are placed in 
 ovens and the fat extracted. The first grade of the fat thus extracted is sold to the makers of 
 bogus butter. So much for the product itself. 
 
 As to the legislation in Ohio, the letter says that the Ohio Dairymen's Protective Associa- 
 tion, formed expressly to counteract the machinations of the oleomargarine men, has rapidly 
 grown in numbers, and is now an acknowledged political power. Through the influence and 
 labors of this association several members of the Legislature were elected last fall on pledges 
 that they would use their best efforts to suppress the traffic in bogus butter. Encouraged by 
 their success last year, the dairymen, who feel assured of the support of all lovers of fair trade, 
 will redouble their efforts in this direction next year, and have hopes of electing representatives 
 who will see that their interests are not ruined by the manufacture and sale of sham butter. 
 The oleomargarine interest in the Ohio Legislature is a powerful one, so powerful indeed, that 
 dt succeeded last year in procuring an amendment to the law providing that butter made of 
 "-pure suet or oleomargarine, oils and milk, " could be made and sold. This effectually de- 
 
IO OLEOMARGARINE AND BUTTERINE. 
 
 stroyed the effect of previous legislation, and it is the design of the association this winter to 
 frame a law modeled after that of New York (carefully avoiding those features whose constitu- 
 tionality has been contested) and appointing a commissioner to enforce its provisions. 
 
 In Iowa, the letter says, a similar movement is on foot, and petitions praying for the ap- 
 pointment of a dairy commissioner are being largely signed throughout the State. In other 
 States which have no laws bearing particularly upon this traffic, an effort is being made to 
 press their passage, and the dairymen are appealed to to do their utmost to prevail upon their 
 representatives to take prompt action. 
 
 INGREDIENTS USED IN OLEOMARGARINE. 
 
 The following is a list, taken from the patents recorded in the Patent Office at Wash- 
 ington, of the ingredients claimed to be used in the manufacture of this article. Manufac- 
 turers deny that they use all the ingredients named in these patents, but it is certainly not 
 unfair to assume that when they mention a certain ingredient in their application for a patent, 
 as necessary for its making, they actually use it. This list was obtained officially from 
 the Patent Office by Assistant State Dairy Commissioner Van Valkenburgh of New York. 
 
 NITRIC ACID, DRY BLOOD ALBUMEN, MUSTARD SEED OIL, 
 
 SUGAR OF LEAD, SALTPETRE, BICARBONATE OF POTASH, 
 
 SULPHATE OF LIME, BORAX, BORACIC ACID, 
 
 BENZOIC ACID, ORRIS ROOT, SALICYLIC ACID, 
 
 BUTYRIC ACID, BE-CARBONATE OF SODA, COTTON SEED OIL, 
 
 GLYCERINE, CAPARIC ACID, ALUM, 
 
 CAPSIC ACID, SULPHITE OF SODA, Cows' UDDERS, 
 
 COMMERCIAL SULPHURICACID, PEPSIN, SAL SODA, 
 
 TALLOW, LARD, FARINACEOUS FLOUR, 
 
 BUTYRIC ETHER, CAUSTIC POTASH, CARBOLIC ACID, 
 
 CASTOR OIL, CHALK, SLIPPERY ELM BARK, 
 
 CAUL, OIL OF SESAME (or benne) OLIVE OIL, 
 
 GASTRIC JUICE, TURNIP SEED OIL, BROMA CHLORALUM, 
 
 CURCUMINE, OIL OF SWEET ALMONDS, OlL OF PEANUTS, 
 
 CHLORATE OF POTASH, STOMACH OF PIGS, SHEEP, SUGAR, 
 
 PEROXIDE OF MAGNESIA, OR CALVES, CAUSTIC SODA. 
 
 NITRATE OF SODA, 
 
 It is not sought to show that all these ingredients are used in any single process, but the 
 fact is established that nitric acid is used in all, and it is probable that the other acids named 
 are employed when the most powerful agents are necessary for deodorizing putrid or diseased 
 fats. 
 
 Speaking of the materials used under these processes, State Dairy Commissioner Brown 
 said : 
 
 " Our hearts grow warm with gratitude deeply stirred, and our appreciation of virtue is 
 most delicately touched as we contemplate with much relief and great comfort the consoling 
 fact that some of these patentees, these alleged promoters of digestion and benefactors of our 
 race, have considerately determined that if this compound of acids and alkalies, animal facts 
 and other stuff must be pitched into the human stomach as an article of food, provision shall 
 be made against the danger of an utter collapse of all the vital iorces of the victim by the 
 introduction of such comparatively wholesome ingredients as gastric juice and slippery elm 
 bark." 
 
 The publication of a list of sixty ingredients named in the various patents covering the 
 
OLEOMARGARINE AND BUTTERINE. II 
 
 manufacture of oleomargarine and other bogus butter raised a storm of indignation among 
 those engaged in the making of the nefarious compounds ; and the organ of that interest, an, 
 obscure journal that has little patronage save among the manufacturers of an article that is 
 legally excluded from the markets of the State, indulges in gross abuse of Assistant State 
 Dairy Commissioner Van Valkenburgh. That gentleman, in speaking of the article said : 
 
 " The list was prepaicd in my office, and under my personal supervision. It was made 
 up from the records of the Patent Office in Washington, copies of which were forwarded at 
 my request, and every article mentioned in that list appears in those patents. It is fair to- 
 presume that when certain articles are named in an application for a patent as essential for its 
 perfection, those articles will be used. I took it for granted that all the drugs, chemicals, and 
 foreign substances mentioned in these patents were used. If not, what was the necessity for 
 mentioning them? In preparing my list, I used the names of no articles that did not appear 
 on the Patent Office records. In sending it to members of the trade, I took care to use 
 the words : ' And claimed by them (the manufacturers of oleomargarine) to be used in the 
 manufacture of oleomargarine and butterine.' The writer of the article in the organ of the 
 bogus butter trade goes into an analysis of the articles mentioned in my list, and essays to 
 prove that none of them is injurious to public health, but fails to deny specifically the use of 
 any of the articles used. Some he sets down as practically useless, and others as too expen- 
 sive, but he does not say that they are not used. Still, he does make use of one significant 
 remark that is worthy of mention. He says : * The seventeen patentees, if a number of the 
 sixty articles mentioned by Mr. Van Valkenburgh can be taken as evidence, show more wis- 
 dom than he, for they take care that many of the constituents or articles used cannot be recog- 
 nized from the names given in the above enumerated list.' 
 
 " To be sure they do, and perhaps it was just as well for them that the articles constituting 
 their product could not be recognized. The fact is that these people see that their counterfeit 
 butter is doomed, and are ready to resort to any expedient to postpone the inevitable. The 
 writer of that article shows that some of the drugs mentioned in my list are largely and bene- 
 ficially used as curatives. So they are. I am ready to admit that ; but then the question is, 
 Do we want medicine spread upon our bread and served at every meal we eat ? Salicylic acid, , 
 I am told, is good for the rheumatism, but when I suffer from that disease do I need to go to 
 a butter tub for treatment ? I should add that on my list I was careful not to mention any 
 names, and also to explain that the sixty articles covered all the patents and were not to be. 
 considered as> being conjointly used in any one process." 
 
 THE EFFECT OF NITRIC ACID. 
 
 The following from The New York Star of January 25th, 1886, is worthy of presentation.' 
 here in full : 
 
 It is authoritatively said that another effort is to be made this winter by the oleomargarine 
 men to prove to the satisfaction of the Legislature of this State that the butterine and other 
 oleaginous compounds that are furnished by them to retailers, who sell them as butter to con- 
 sumers, in violation of the law, are wholesome. In view of the digestive and microscopical' 
 experiments made for the Dairy Commissioner by Prof. Clark, of Albany, and detailed in his 
 report, this is likely to prove an uphill task. Prof. Clark made a specialty of the physiological: 
 features of his subject, making experiments in digestion and microscopical investigations, and* 
 in other ways showing the importance of public health of a thorough knowledge of what enters- 
 into any food product. As a result of his researches he arrived at the conclusion that oleo- 
 margarine is unwholesome and dangerous to health for four reasons. First, because it is in- 
 digestible ; second, because it is insoluble when made from animal fats ; third, that it is liable- 
 to carry the germs of disease into the human system ; and fourth, that in the eagerness oT 
 manufacturers to produce their spurious compounds cheaply they are temp ted. to use ingredi- 
 ents which are detrimental to the health of the consumer. 
 
72 OLEOMARGARINE AND BUTTERINE. 
 
 In connection with this subject the evidence given before 'the Senate committee, upon 
 whose report the law of 1885 was drafted, is interesting. When Dr. H. A. Pooler, president 
 of the Board of Health in Goshen, Orange County, was examined, he was asked what nitric 
 acid was, and how it affected the human system. This question was suggested by previous 
 testimony as to the use of nitric acid in the manufacture of oleomargarine. Dr. Pooler 
 ireplied: 
 
 " Nitric acid is produced by the action of sulphuric acid upon nitrate of potassa, aoout 
 equal parts ; it is a powerful caustic ; it destroys animal tissue rapidly and almost irreparably 
 'when it comes in contact with it ; upon animal fat it destroys the tissue, and deodorizes it by 
 'destroying its smell. It is also a preservative, in a measure. Undoubtedly substances sub- 
 mitted to the action of nitric acid would not be decomposed so rapidly as those which had not 
 been submitted to it ; but the acid would affect the digestive organs very seriously. Upon 
 the human stomach it is a deadly poison when taken in overdoses. When taken in a diluted 
 form not sufficient to cause death, and, taken for any length of time, it produces similar effects 
 to that of mercury. The teeth at first become whiter, afterwards decay, aud then become 
 loose ; it stimulates the excessive flow of secretion and poisons the system generally. Its 
 "caustic properties are so great, that it destroys the tissue and impairs the circulation. Where 
 a person loses a nail from it, it is generally because of the accumulation of the acid around the 
 root of the nail ; it cuts off the circulation which 'supplies the nail, consequently the nail will 
 slough off for want of proper nourishment. The acid has to be diluted in order to be safe in 
 any degree as a remedy. In its pure form it is deadly." 
 
 This testimony was given subsequent to that of Charles Moses, a laborer employed in a 
 Grove street butterine factory, whose duty it was to pack the finished product in the tubs. He 
 swore that in the performance of that duty one of his finger nails was eaten off, and that the 
 stuff eat through his clothing and into his boots. 
 
 "Would it be wholesome or unwholesome to treat any dairy product with nitric acid ?" 
 Dr. Pooler was asked. 
 
 " No, sir." he replied. " I think it would be injurious, especially so if applied by a person 
 who was not acquainted with the acid ; in fact, I think it would be very dangerous. No matter 
 how minute the quantity is, continued for any length of time it produces an irritation of the 
 mucous membrane of the stomach, which is only alleviated by stopping the use of it, and then 
 sometimes the recovery is very slow. I do not think this man Moses will ever entirely re- 
 cover from the effects of it. It will be years, in any event, before he gets it out of his 
 .system." 
 
 Dr. Elias H. Bailley, inspector and chemist of the Brooklyn Board of Health, being asked 
 whether manufacturers were liable to get impure fat or lard, replied : 
 
 " Yes, especially as it seems to me one great danger of this whole manufacture lies in the 
 fact that I have known farmers having the hog cholera in a flock of hogs, and the moment a 
 hog is attacked with the cholera the farmer kills it, or if it dies, he tries out the fat and sends 
 the lard to market. I have seen that done myself. Of course, to all appearance, the lard 
 is just as good as fresh lard, and if deodorized could be used without detection. The pro- 
 cess of deodorizing would not kill the disease. 
 
 "The principal reason why nitric acid is used by the manufacturers," this witness said, 
 " was to remove the peculiar odor of the lard, which distinguishes one fat from another, that 
 is decomposed by the nitric acid, which also bleaches the article to a certain extent. I hold 
 hat nitric acid is a powerful poison. Used in the most minute quantities, I believe it will 
 produce serious irritation." 
 
 Inasmuch as prominent manufacturers of oleomargarine admitted before the committee that 
 they used nitric acid in the processes employed by them, and as nitric acid appears in most 
 of the formulas for manufacture filed in the Patent Office at Washington, it is fair to assume 
 (that this deadly poison enters, at least in some instances, into the composition of counterfeit 
 butter. There can be no question that the decision of the Senate committee was influenced to 
 
OLEOMARGARINE AND BUTTERINE. . TJ 
 
 a considerable extent by this consideration, and in the Albany campaign against the machina^ 
 tions of the bogus butter lobby this weapon will be effectively used. 
 
 THE EVASIONS OF THE LAW. 
 
 The troubles experienced by the Dairy Commissioners of the States having laws for the 
 prohibition or regulation of the traffic in oleomargarine, or what the outspoken Western men 
 denominate "bull butter," in enforcing those laws, have been more than doubled by the hesi- 
 tancy of some of the minor courts while awaiting decisions from higher authorities. This has 
 been more marked in New York, perhaps, than- in any other State, the decision in the Marx 
 case by the Court of Appeals having been held by those interested in bogus butter enterprises 
 as a declaration that the statute was unconstitutional. They forgot that there were provisions 
 in the Penal Code covering their illegal acts, entirely independent of what is known as the 
 oleomargarine law, and it was not until several convictions had been obtained through the 
 prompt action of the Dairy Commissioners for violations of the law in the lower courts, and 
 sustained by the Supreme Court, that these nefarious traffickers in unwholesome food began 
 to fully appreciate the dangers of their position. In speaking of these frequent evasions of 
 the law, Mr. J. H. Seymour, said: 
 
 ' ' This question of bogus butter is one that involves not only our national commercial 
 honor, but the health of our people. The manufacturers of olemargarine, butterine, and other 
 mock butters are possessed of immense capital, and leave no stone unturned to advance their 
 own interests. My belief is that Congress has the power to pass an act to preserve the public 
 health, and it is probably on this ground that the enactment of a law relative to the manufac- 
 ture and sale of oleomargarine will be asked. The trouble about the State laws hitherto 
 enacted was that they could be easily evaded. Thus, when the law directing manufacturers 
 to stamp each package with the name of the product it contained was passed, they obeyed it, 
 of course, but at the same time managed to practically evade it by stamping the word " oleo- 
 margarine " in diminutive letters on some part of the package where it could be less 
 readily seen. It took a good pair of eyes to read this inscription, and for some time the traffic 
 went on uninterruptedly, and the markets were flooded with cheap bogus butter. The next 
 enactment provided that each package should be branded " oleomargarine " in Roman letter's 
 at least one inch long, and this, and the public agitation as to the wholesomeness of the stuff, 
 made oleomargarine very unpopular for a time. Seeing that their trade was being injured, the 
 shrewd manufacturers changed their tactics and simultaneously changed the name of their 
 product, dubbing it this time "butterine." In spite of the new name it was the same old 
 compound, made of animal fat and treated with strong acids and coloring ingredients that are 
 dangerous to public health. 
 
 " If you will read the testimony taken belore the Legislative Committee you will see that in no 
 case would the makers of oleomargarine admit that in the processes of manufacture the fat was 
 subjected to a temperature of over 120 degrees. It is known that some of these factories use the 
 fat of diseased animals, and chemists hold that it takes 212 degrees Fahrenheit to destroy the 
 germs of disease in animal matter. Is it not fair to conclude, then, that where the fat of dis- 
 eased animals is used and submitted to a heat of 120 degrees or less that the germs still live ? 
 I forgot to mention, when speaking of evasions of the law, one interesting fact, and that was 
 the practice that was adopted by the ingenious manufacturers after changing the name of their 
 product to butterine. They complied with the law in stamping the packages, but the word 
 "butter" was in big letters and the terminal "ine" in little ones. You see there is practi- 
 cally no end to their ingenious devices. And yet they claim that their trade is legitimate, and 
 that they sell their wares for what they are. If this is true, why do they pack their bogus 
 stuff like reputable dairy butter, and why is it that pots of oleomargarine stamped like the 
 best brands of Philadelphia butter are offered for sale ? 
 
14 OLEOMARGARINE AND BUTTERINE. 
 
 " Not long ago I attended a convention of the National Butter, Cheese, and Egg Associa- 
 tion in Chicago, at which Mr. Stern, who represents Armour & Co., of that city, admitted 
 before a committee that his firm sold neutral lard to creameries in the West. When he was 
 asked whether the firm bought butter for manufacturing purposes from those creameries, he 
 replied naively; ' No, indeed; we buy pure butter, as we prefer to do our own mixing.' He 
 said also that the firm colored their product so as to make it look like June butter. Now, 
 neutral lard is simply lard deodorized so that it has neither taste nor smell. Take 5 or 10 per 
 cent, of dairy butter and mix it with this substance, and you can produce a butter that only an 
 expert can distinguish from the genuine dairy product. This neutral lard is heavily shipped 
 throughout the West, and there can be no question that much bogus butter comes into the 
 market under the guise of the genuine article. 
 
 " The injury done to our export trade and to our reputation abroad as an honest-dealing 
 nation cannot be estimated. The frands in the trade have become so glaring that the German 
 Government has taken measures to prevent them, and now every shipment of butter to Ger- 
 many must be guaranteed. In other words, upon its arrival it is subjected to analysis, and if 
 not found pure, it is rejected." 
 
 DAMAGE TO THE DAIRY INTERESTS. 
 
 With regard to the injury done to the dairy interests of the State by the traffic in oleomar- 
 garine, Commissioner Brown says : 
 
 " There is invested in the dairy business of this State more than $300, 000,000, and the annual 
 product of the dairy amounts to more than $600,000,000. That an industry of such magnitude 
 as this, and contributing so much to the material interests of our State, is well worthy a full, 
 fair share of the care and attention of our Legislature cannot be gainsaid, and that the pro- 
 ducts of the dairy being consumed by the people to so great an extent as an article of food 
 should be kept pure and free from adulterations of all sorts will not be disputed by any one, 
 saving only those who would get gain by imposing a fraud upon their customers. I am a 
 resident of the county of Oneida, and know that it requires a much larger sum to maintain 
 police establishments and to enforce the criminal statutes in that county alone than was appro- 
 priated by the Legislature to carry on the work of this department. It will be readily seen 
 that to cover the entire State with our work, and to give to each dairy county and to every 
 .section of the State that care and attention which its importance demands is impossible, and 
 we are obliged to prosecute our work at such points within the State as will result in the ac- 
 complishment of that which promises to best serve the interest of the whole. Our appropria- 
 tion is $50,000. This, to the average farmer, seems to be a large sum of money, and so it is, 
 but if, for instance, we had at our disposal $120,000, which would enable us to accomplish 
 very much more than we can now, the tax would amount to about four cents on every $1,000 
 of valuation. To raise such a sum, the farmer whose farm is assessed at $5,000, would pay a 
 tax of twenty cents. Two pounds of cheese at ten cents per pound, a single pound of fine, 
 pure creamery cheese, or even the price of two ten-cent cigars would pay his tax." 
 
 " The dairymen of New York are not the only ones who suffer fro'm this nefarious traffic," 
 said Assistant State Dairy Commissioner Van Valkenburgh. "In all parts of the country 
 oleomargarine factories are in full blast, and the annual product of the United States must be 
 at least 50,000,000 pounds. I cannot give you the exact figures of the butter trade in this city, 
 but it will sufficiently show the break in the price to mention that while we have handled 13,- 
 000,000 more pounds of butter in 1885 than we did in 1882, we have received less for it by 
 $3,500,000 than we did in that year. " 
 
 New York, which leads all the States in the matter of dairy production, is, of course, the 
 chief sufferer ; but there are other sections where the abuses of the nefarious traffic are se- 
 verely felt. Hon. W. D. Hoard, President of the Northwestern Dairymen's Association, said 
 recently : 
 
OLEOMARGARINE AND BUTTERINE. 15 
 
 "The batter production of the State of Wisconsin for 1884 was 38,000,000 pounds. This 
 would amount to 73,000 pounds a week. We have lately learned, upon what we deem relia- 
 ble authority, that a certain butter color manufacturer in the West has a standing order from a 
 single butterine factory in Chicago for three barrels of color a week. A barrel of color will color 
 75,000 pounds. This proves that the single factory referred to is making each week three times 
 as many pounds of buttedne as the State of Wisconsin produces of butter per week. We have 
 no doubt of the facts of the case. In addition let it be remembered that this is only one fac- 
 tory, while there are sixteen more in active operation in Chicago. Then remember that in all 
 the other cities of the Union the same iniquity is going on, and ask yourself, brother farmer, 
 if it is not about time to stir yourself and let your influence be felt. Haven't you sat in dumb 
 silence, like ' a sheep before her shearer,' about long enough ? Look at the capital you have 
 involved. The production of milk alone in the United States amounts annually to $900,- 
 000,000, and the milch cows saying nothing of the beef interest are valued at $700,000,000. 
 All the banking capital of the United States amounts to $656,000,000, or $44,000,000 less 
 than the capital invested in the dairy cows. 
 
 "The silver production is only $40,000,000. Yet the farmers will sit down as quiet as 
 mice, while the silver men are hounding Congress day and night. The remedy is a simple 
 one. Write to your Congressman, and ask him to support the enactment of a law taxing the 
 counterfeit stuff, say fifteen cents a pound." 
 
 " There is great elation among the oleomargarine men of Chicago," said a leading butter 
 merchant of that city, " over the decision of the State Board of Agriculture early in this 
 month, that oleomargarine and butterine, when cleanly and properly made, and properly 
 labeled and sold under their true names, are wholesome and cheap substitutes for butter, 
 and they frankly admitted that they had obtained a greater concession from that body than 
 they had ever hoped for. But while the manufacturers are elated, the legitimate dealers, who 
 see their business falling off day by day, are correspondingly depressed. One of these told 
 me the other day, that although he had contributed liberally to the fund raised to defray the 
 expenses of a vigorous campaign against it, he had about given up the fight. He declared 
 that although he did not want to do it, the time might come when he would be forced to han- 
 dle the sham butter or quit the trade altogether. The butterine men had the upper hand, he 
 said, and were making over 2,000 tubs a day, and before long would drive natural butter out 
 of the market. This is an utter despondent view to take of the position, and is not shared in, 
 I think, by the majority of the trade. That it is not the view taken by President H. B. 
 Curler, President of the Illinois State Dairymen's Association is evidenced by what he said 
 the other day : ' I expect Illinois will be the last State to get herself in line. The butterine 
 interest is heavy in Chicago, but we must do all we can. We shall win the battle if we per- 
 severe, for we have the people with us.' 
 
 " There is a phase of the oleomargarine fight in Chicago that has not reached New York 
 yet, but as its cleverness is apparent, and as the manufacturers are extremely anxious to push 
 the sales of their product in that greatest of American markets, I have no doubt it will be 
 adopted there. The New York law requires that oleomargarine shall be sold for what it is, 
 and the plan adopted by certain Chicago dealers might be adopted with profit in the metropolis. 
 They show their customers samples of low grade, rancid dairy butter, offensive both to taste 
 and smell, side by side with the bright-colored product of the factory, and say : ' Here is the 
 dairy butter, and there is the artificial take your choice.' Naturally, the consumer takes the 
 counterfeit rather than the genuine article, and the shrewd dealer pockets a clean profit of 
 fifteen cents for every pound he sells. 
 
 " One of the arguments used by the advocates of these bogus compounds is that their 
 manufacture has caused a marked advance in the price of prime dairy butter. That is so to a 
 certain extent, but do you know how the higher prices are maintained ? I can tell you. They 
 buy up the best brands themselves, and use them in infinitesimal doses for flavoring the stuff 
 they foist upon the public. Good butter, which not long ago sold for fifteen cents a pound is 
 
16 OLEOMARGARINE AND BUTTERINE. 
 
 now selling for forty-one cents, and the butterine men went out to Elgin, famous for its but- 
 ter, last week and boomed the price up to its present figure. Their object is as plain as the 
 nose on your face. They want to make the higher grades of butter so costly that those of 
 moderate means will be compelled to use their imitation, or eat their bread dry. 
 
 "Then, again, they decry the agitation of the butter question, and say that their object is 
 to educate the people up to the point at which they will fully appreciate the purity and whole- 
 someness of their filthy product. The people, they claim, would be glad to use cheap imita- 
 tion butter but for the outcry raised by sensational newspapers and jealous dairymen. At the 
 same time, they take good care to pack their butter in tubs and firkins modeled on those used 
 by legitimate dairymen, color it to imitate the real thing, and sell it to retailers who they 
 know will dispose of it as genuine butter. 
 
 " The depreciation in dairy products in the four Western States that are noted for their 
 butter, caused by the sales of this unwholesome stuff, has been enormous. In Illinois, Iowa, 
 Wisconsin, and Minnesota there are 4,000,000 cows. The value of each of these has been re- 
 duced at least $10 by butterine and kindred counterfeits. This alone represents a total depre- 
 ciation of $40,000,000. Throughout these States the rentals of dairy lands have fallen off 
 fully $i an acre from the same cause. Do you suppose that the farmer is recompensed for 
 these immense losses by the increased consumption of lard and tallow in the manufacture of 
 these imitations ? The fact is that, in spite of the great consumption of lard in making but- 
 terine, hogs are cheaper now in Chicago than they have ever been before." 
 
 Dealers in legitimate dairy butter claim that the manufacture and sale of the counterfeit 
 product is doing incalculable damage to the dairy interests of the country, and that not only 
 does it injure the domestic trade, but ruins the reputation of American dairy products abroad 
 and thus cuts off the United States from its legitimate share in the export trade. As an in- 
 stance of this, they point out the fact that England annually imports $50,000,000 worth of 
 butter, of which only ten per cent., or $5,000,000 worth, comes from America. Besides this 
 she imports $25,000,000 worth of cheese, seventy-five per cent, of which comes from coun- 
 tries other than the United States. The exports of butter from the United States, they say,, 
 amount annually to about 28,000,000 pounds, while of oleomargarine there are exported 250- 
 000,000 pounds. But for the exports of oleomargarine, they argue, the annual exports of 
 butter would be between 50,000,000 and 60,000,000 pounds, for American butter and cheese 
 are equal to any in the world. Inasmuch as the dairy interests of the country nearly equal 
 in value the other agricultural interests combined, these merchants hold that it behooves 
 our government to take such action as will effectually prevent injury to products which form 
 so large and so essential a factor in our national prosperity. 
 
 The State Legislature of 1884 passed an act to prevent deception in the sale of dairy pro- 
 ducts and to preserve the public health, one section of which prohibited the manufacture " out 
 of any oleaginous product, or any compound of the same, other than that produced from un- 
 adulterated milk, or of cream from the same, any article designed to take the place of butter 
 or cheese produced from pure unadulterated milk or cream of the same, or to sell, or offer 
 for sale, the same as an article of food." A violation of this section was declared a misde- 
 meanor, and was punishable by a fine of not less than $200 nor more than $500, or not less 
 than six months, nor more than one year's imprisonment. 
 
 A decision of the Court of Appeals declared this act unconstitutional, and there was much 
 jubilation and gun-firing indulged in by the oleomargarine manufacturers in celebration of the 
 event. But they counted without their host. The first law totally prohibited the sale of oleo 
 margarine as butter, but at the last session of the Legislature another act was passed, prohib- 
 iting the manufacture or sale of any oleaginous compound when made in imitation or sem- 
 blance of natural or dairy butter. This knocked their legs from under them, and it is not 
 deemed likely that any court in the land can be found to declare that this provision is uncon- 
 stitutional. Under this act the fine and the term of imprisonment were reduced. ' 
 
 There has been considerable bitterness between the dairymen of Illinois and the State 
 
OLEOMARGARINE AND BUTTERINE. I/ 
 
 Agricultural Board recently because the latter declined to join in the movement to abolish the 
 manufacture and sale of bogus butter, and because at a recent fat-stock show the butterine 
 men were permitted to exhibit their product. The Agricultural Board took the ground that 
 the manufacture of butterine is a legal business, and declared that they could not discrimi- 
 nate between two occupations, both being legitimate. It was in vain that the dairymen pro- 
 tested that the sales of the bogus butter were made in fraud and that their interests were 
 being ruined by dishonest means and not by honest competition ; the board still persisted 
 in holding to its views. It seems that the agitation of the bogus butter question has 
 had a good effect upon this body, for at a recent meeting they adopted the following reso- 
 lutions . 
 
 *' Whereas, The State Board of Agriculture is in sympathy with every effort to secure 
 pure and wholesome food for the human family : and, 
 
 " Whereas, There seems to be at present no adequate protection against unwholesome and 
 deleterious adulterations of dairy products afforded by law ; therefore, be it 
 
 " Resolved, That we respectfully request Congress to enact a law placing all dairy pro- 
 ducts and all imitations of or substitutes for the same under the control of a competent gov- 
 ernment inspector, to the end that such articles shall be branded and sold under their proper 
 names and on their own merits. 
 
 "Resolved, That we respectfully direct the attention of Congress to the unwholesome 
 adulteration of other food products, and pray for proper legislation for the adequate protec- 
 tion of the people from the 
 
 THE DECLINE IN THE PRICE OF BUTTER. 
 
 The following from The New York Star of January 28, 1886, is a lucid presentation of 
 the methods pursued by oleomargarine manufacturers in their desperate efforts to force their 
 vile compounds into universal use : 
 
 Of the many arguments used by the advqcates of oleomargarine, butterine. and other fraudu- 
 lent butter, one of the most potent has been that the introduction of the bogus in competition 
 with the genuine article has advanced the market price of the latter within the past five years. 
 While it is true that the finest 'grades of creamery butter, such as the Elgin and the Darlington, 
 sell at higher figures to-day than at any time within the period named, the product of the 
 ordinary dairy farmer has not maintained its standing in the market. It is true, too, that there 
 have been many improvements in the making of buttei in the past few years that have 
 enhanced the value of the higher grades, but to claim that the manufacture and sale of oleomar- 
 garine has increased the price of butter is absurd, since every pound of the bogus article sold 
 and consumed must take the place of a pound of the genuine. Hence the dairyman has been 
 defrauded out of his legitimate market, while the consumer has saved little or nothing by the 
 purchase of the counterfeit, for bogus butters are sold at about the same prices as natural dairy 
 butter, and he has eaten a substance that is neither pure nor wholesome. 
 
 The Elgin creameries, which are located near Chicago, practically fix the prices for butter 
 throughout the country. The ruling power in the butter market is the Elgin Board of Trade. 
 The prices it quotes prevail wherever butter is sold, and hence its influence is not to be under- 
 estimated. The following letter, which appeared in a recent issue of the Elgin Courier, is 
 from Mr. L. M. Potter, a well-known creamery man, correctly sets forth the situation and 
 shows that, while the Elgin creameries fix the price for butter, the butterine men, backed by 
 tremendous capital, practically control them. Mr. Potter says : 
 
 " During the late discussion before the State Board of Agriculture at Springfield on the 
 butterine question, one of the advocates of the interest made the assertion that the manufac- 
 ture of oleomargarine and butterine enhanced the value of Elgin creamery butter, and was 
 therefore an advantage to the dairyman. While, as is well known, they do use a portion of 
 
1 8 OLEOMARGARINE AND BUTTERINE. 
 
 our best creamery butter in their manufacture, yet, when, as they claim, they do not use to 
 exceed 40 per cent of the same in manufacturing an article which they also claim to be nearly 
 equal to our best brands, all of which goes into consumption in competition with or as a sub- 
 stitute for our genuine goods, their arguments, to use the words of President Landrigan, are 
 simply non-debatable. We also admit that they do at .certain times and on special occasions 
 advance prices on the Elgin Board of Trade ; but as these advantages are only temporary, 
 they tend to demoralize our market, and are invariably followed by a reaction. We claim them 
 to be injurious instead of beneficial. 
 
 " In support of this, please allow us to cite you the effect at Elgin during the last few 
 weeks : Nov. 24 the board price was 27 cents ; Dec. I, 30 cents ; Dec. 8, 32 cents, with a 
 good healthy legitimate demand from the dealers in New York, New Orleans, St. Louis, and 
 other cities who buy our goods regularly for their trade. Dec. 15 there were orders from the 
 above dealers for all offerings at or about 35 cents. At this date one of the most prominent 
 butterine firms of Chicago, through their agents at Elgin, offered and bought every pound 
 they could get at 40 cents. This was fully 4 cents over and above the prices of any other 
 market, and they doubtless could have bought every ounce of butter not positively contracted 
 at 36 cents. The 22d the same parties took it again at 40 cents. In the meantime telegrams 
 and letters were being received by our factory men and local dealers as follows : * Extreme 
 high prices check demand. Ship half regular order.' ' If prices exceed cents ship only 
 tubs. Too high for our market.' ' Owing to the uncertainty of your board prices omit our 
 three. weeks' shipments.' 
 
 "December 29 the butterine men withdrew, and the demand being almost entirely cut off, 
 as above, it was at once evident there must be a decline; but our local dealers, hoping to pre- 
 vent a general break, purchased a few small lots, and established the price at 38 cents, al- 
 though it proved a losing speculation to them. January 4 butterine men not buying and 
 stocks accumulating, the market became lifeless, and fell back to 32^ cents, therefore not 
 only causing us to lose an apparent benefit we had derived, but also a stagnation from which it 
 will take weeks to recover, if at all. Neither is this the worst feature of these purchases. Dealers 
 in large cities, not knowing the cause of these large and unreasonable fluctuations, accuse us 
 of making fictitious prices, and threaten to withdraw their orders entirely from this market, and 
 some have already done so. As the Elgin Board of Trade prices govern largely during the 
 winter months those of all the leading markets, we claim the objects of the butterine men 
 were : First, to advance the price of our finest creamery butter so as to practically place it 
 above most of the consumers ; second, to increase the demand for their product, and enable 
 them to obtain better prices for the same." 
 
 In Colorado there is a law regulating the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine, and State 
 Dairy Commissioner Feldwisch is enforcing it vigorously. The penalty for a violation of the 
 law, which is not unlike that in this State, is a fine of not less than $50 nor more than $500, 
 and imprisonment for not more than one year, both at the discretion of the court. He has 
 recently brought about the trial of several dealers, and the question of the constitutionality of 
 the law will probably come before the highest court of the State within a short time. Dr. 
 Headden, the State chemist, has been following the method lately adopted by Dr. Taylor, the 
 microscopist of the Department of Agriculture at Washington, and recently exhibited the 
 results of his tests to the State Grange. His researches show that beef fat, hog fat, and but- 
 ter fat crystallize in different forms. When placed under the microscope the crystallization of 
 each fat gave views so uniform and distinct that there was no difficulty in deciding on the kind 
 of fat. The molecules of butter fat clearly showed the characteristic St. Andrew's cross, on 
 what looked as near as anything like a half blown rose in miniature, while those derived from 
 beef fat had a uniform flaky appearance, somewhat resembling crystals of snow, and those 
 derived from lard were more like stars with irregular and sharply defined spangles. The 
 tests made seem to be so certain that it would be hard to overturn them, even in this State, 
 which abounds in scientists of high and low degree. If the cases ever come to trial on the 
 
OLEOMARGARINE AND BUTTERINE. 19* 
 
 merits of the subject and the proof is contested, they will furnish matter of great interest ta 
 the scientific societies." 
 
 Speaking of the present cheapness of oleomargarine, Assistant Dairy Commissioner Van 
 Valkenburgh said : "I am informed that within the past ten days 200 tubs of the stuff have been 
 sold by one large manufacturer in this market at eight cents a pound. Inasmuch as the tubs 
 stand him in about one cent a pound, and good lard costs seven cents a pound, it is evident 
 either that he did not use a high-priced lard in making his oil, or contented himself with a 
 very small profit. 
 
 "A favorite argument used by the advocates of butter substitutes is that they have materially 
 increased the price of the higher grades of dairy and creamery butter, and the impression 
 sought to be conveyed is that consequently the traffic in these counterfeits has been a benefit,, 
 rather than an injury, to the dairy interest. That this is untrue is conclusively proved by the 
 following figures, which were obtained from the statistician of the National Butter, Cheese, 
 and Egg Association, and are made up from the annual reports at the conventions of that 
 body. 
 
 " For the year ending November 30, 1882, the sales of Eastern butter, made in this city at 
 an average of 29^ cents a pound, aggregated 44, 2 14, 900 pounds, the amount received being; 
 $13,043,617.05; the sales of Western butter, which averaged 28 cents a pound for that year, 
 aggregated 35,648,860, and brought $9,981,617. This made the grand total of sales for 1882 
 79,864,840 pounds, and the grand total receipts $23,025,234.05. 
 
 " In 1883 there were sold 44,804,060 pounds of Eastern, at an average of 26 cents a pound, 
 and 46,743,850 pounds of Western butter, at 24 cents a pound, the receipts for the former 
 aggregating $11,649,055.60, and those for the latter $10,978,524. This made the total sales 
 for the year 90,547,910 pounds, and the total receipts in money $22,627,579.60. 
 
 " In 1884, 38,263, 620 pounds of Eastern butter, at 24^ cents a pound, brought $9,374,635.90, 
 and 49,853,350 pounds of Western butter, at 22 cents a pound, $10,967,737, making the total, 
 sales 88,117,170, and the total receipts for the year $20,342,392.90. 
 
 "In 1885 Eastern butter averaged 22 cents a pound, and Western butter 20 cents a pound, 
 and 39,480,350 pounds of the former and 54,086,500 pounds of the latter were sold. Thiv 
 shows a total of sales of 93,566,850 pounds, and a total of receipts of $19,502,977 for the 
 year. 
 
 " By a careful comparison of these figures it can be easily seen that the price has been 
 steadily falling, Eastern butter declining from 29^ cents a pound in 1882 to 22 cents in 1885. 
 Thus, while the butter dealers in 1885 handled 13,702,000 more pounds of the product than 
 they did in 1882, they received in money $3,522,388.05 less. It should be remembered that 
 these statistics represent the trade of New York City alone, which is probably not more than 
 one-tenth of the trade of the United States. By comparing the receipts of 1882, when the 
 total sales aggregated 79,864,840 pounds, with those of 1883, when 90,547,910 pounds were 
 sold, there will be found a difference of $1,397,715.45. In other words, the dealers handled 
 10,683, 070 more pounds of butter in 1883 than they did in 1882, and received for it $1,397, 715. 45 
 less. In the succeeding year there was a further decline, and the total receipts fell off from. 
 $22,627,579.60 to $20,342,372.90 the amount handled in 1884 being 2,430,740 pounds less 
 than that handled in 1883." 
 
 "Is there any reason to doubt that these results have been brought about by the unholy 
 traffic in oleomargarine, butterine, and other bogus butters?" said a leading butter merchant. 
 " If you will inquire among reputable retail dealers, you will find that nine out of ten of the 
 consumers who visit their stores to purchase butter ask especially as to its genuineness. You 
 will also find that many dealers have lost a certain proportion of their customers through the 
 distrust that arises in the public mind as to the wholesomeness and genuineness of the article 
 offered for sale. I was told the other day that the butter trade of certain well known and long 
 established grocers, who are known to value their reputation too highly to risk it by dealing 
 in counterfeits of any kind, had nearly doubled since the agitation of the oleomarga-ine ques- 
 
20 OLEOMARGARINE AND BUTTERINE. 
 
 tion began, and I have no reason to doubt that it is true. The imitations are so cleverly dis- 
 guised, and come to the markets in tubs and firkins so exactly modeled after those used by 
 legitimate dairymen, that housekeepers are careful to deal only with establishments that are 
 above suspicion. 
 
 " I have seen an abstract of the Dairy Commissioner's report, in which he says that scien- 
 tific experiments have proved conclusively that oleomargarine is indigestible, and much less 
 soluble than natural butter. If this be true, it seems to me that future legislation on the sub- 
 ject can have but one object its entire prohibition. I do not think that any court has yet 
 decided upon the question as to whether oleomargarine is wholesome or not, and I hope that 
 this issue will be speedily raised. If the Legislature or Congress takes any action looking to a 
 thorough scientific test, I would suggest that care be taken, in procuring samples for the test, 
 that goods already on the market for sale should be selected. The manufacturers are shrewd 
 and wily, and would not hesitate, if the opportunity offered, to furnish specimens of their 
 product that would consist very largely of genuine butter. When the stuff first made its 
 appearance, there is good reason to believe that samples were sent to chemists for analysis 
 that had been especially prepared for their benefit. Let the new tests be made on the product 
 as actually sold." 
 
 PATENTS AND METHODS OF MANUFACTURE. 
 
 It is the claim of the manufacturers of sham butter that the product they foist upon a too 
 corrfiding public contains no ingredients calculated to injure the public health. That this 
 claim is unfounded may be plainly seen by reference to the appended list of patents for oleo- 
 margarine processes, which were first brought to the attention of the public by Commissioner 
 of Agriculture Colman. By a careful perusal of these it will be seen that in nearly all of 
 these patents the ingredients are animal fat, lactic acid, peanut oil, almond oil, olive oil, soda, 
 pepsin, cottonseed oil, slippery elm bark, saltpetre, borax, coloring matters of various kinds, 
 salicylic acid, benzoic acid, caustic soda, butyric ether, glycerine, annoto, orris root, sunflower 
 oil, and other equally inviting articles. No one of the processes contains all the articles 
 I have enumerated, of course; but I, for one, would not knowingly take the risk of eating 
 any one of them on my bread. If there is no other ground upon which restrictive legislation 
 could be based such is the damage done to one of our most important national industries, 
 and to our national reputation abroad the preservation of the public health from the 
 injurious effects of such articles as I have enumerated should be of itself quite sufficient. 
 
 Here are some of the patents that have been granted within the past ten years, as shown 
 "by a paper read by Commissioner Colman before the National Butter, Cheese, and Egg Asso- 
 ciation in Chicago recently : 
 
 In 1875 a patent was granted to Garrett Codine, of New York, for a method of making 
 artificial butter from sour milk, animal fat, lactic acid, peanut oil, almond oil, and olive oil ; 
 also to John P. Kinney, from animal fat, soda ash, and salt. 
 
 Patent to Hippolyto Mege, 1878. Fats of all animals reduced by novel methods ; oleo- 
 margarine mixed with milk, combined with bi-carbouate of soda and pepsin from prepared 
 cows' udders, coloring matter added and churned. 
 
 Patent to G. H. Webster, Chicago, 111., 1882. Lard, buttermilk, tallow, and pepsin, 
 mixed with half its weight of pure butter, then worked with the hands until attaining the con- 
 sistency of butter. 
 
 Patent to S. F. Cochrane, Massachusetts, 1882. Compound to be used in place of butter 
 and lard for cooking purposes ; " gall and kidney beef suets," lard, cottonseed oil, and ground 
 slippery elm bark. 
 
 Patent to Alfred Springer, Cincinnati, O., for artificial batter, 1877. Method of treating 
 animal fats by mixing with salt, saltpetre, borax, boracic acid, salicylic acid, and benzoic < 
 
OLEOMARGARINE AND BUTTERINE. 21 
 
 Patent to Oscar H. Combe, Washington, D. C, 1882. Substitute for butter called 
 butteroid. Cottonseed oil reduced by caustic soda emulsified with corn starch, previously 
 cooked and seasoned with salt, colored and flavored with butyric ether. 
 
 Patent to Oscar H. Combe, Washington, D. C., for substitute for lard called oleoard. 
 This process is similar to the other, being a mixture of cottonseed oil with cooked farinaceous 
 flour. 
 
 Patent to Hugo Barthold, New York City, 1882, for artificial butter. Composed of oleo oil 
 and milk churned, sugar, glycerine and annoto added, also benne oil. 
 
 Patent to George S. Marshall, Everett, Mass., 1882, for a "compound for culinary use." 
 Composed of stearine, vegetable or cottonseed oil, and orris root. 
 
 Patent to Nathan I. Nathan, New York, 1882, for artificial butter. Made of leaf lard, 
 treated with a solution of nitric acid and borax, afterwards washed with cold water. The 
 product is then mixed with oleomargarine, heated to 95 degrees Fahrenheit. Milk and sugar 
 are then added, and the mass churned. It is then refrigerated, solidified, salted, and prepared 
 in rolls or blocks for market. 
 
 Patent to Otto Boyson, Buffalo, N. Y., 1881, for substitute for butter. Combination of 
 oleo oil, bi-carbonate of soda, and butyric acid ; uses no milk. 
 
 Patent to W. H. Burnet, Chicago, 111., 1882, relates to improvements in artificial products 
 resembling and intended to take the place of butter. Ingredients hogs' lard, beef suet, 
 cjeam, butter and glycerine, salt and coloring matter, glycerine being employed to give and 
 retain sweetness to the product, and at the same time giving greater coherence to the body 
 with which it is incorporated, and preventing adhesion to the knife, etc. 
 
 Patent to William Cooley, Waterbury, Vt., 1882, for artificial cream. This process is to 
 mix oleo oil, olive or other vegetable oils, with skim milk, one part of the former to three of 
 the latter, heating them separately to about 150 degrees Farhenheit, blending them when 
 heated. This enables each globule of the oil to become coated with the caseine in the milk, 
 hence, when treated with rennet, adapted for making cheese. When this artificial cream is 
 used for making butter it is allowed to stand a day or two to become acid before churning. 
 
 Patent to H. Laferty, New York city, 1882, for artificial butter. Milk is treated with sal- 
 soda, then mixed with oleo oil, coloring matter added, churned, salted, etc. 
 
 Patent to John Hobbs, Boston, Mass., 1882, for artificial butter. His method is to make 
 an emulsion of cottonseed oil, benne oil or mustard oil, and combine with oleomargarine and 
 milk. 
 
 Patent to H. R. Wright, Albany, N. Y., 1882, for artificial butter, styled creamine. A 
 combination of oleo oil, lard oil, butter oil and cream, mixed with oil of seasame, benne oil or 
 oil of sunflower seed, or cottonseed oil, colored with annoto, with the addition of sugar and 
 salt. 
 
 These processes and others that do not appear in this list are in use in factories all over 
 this country, and the compounds they produce are surreptitiously placed before the public by 
 conscienceless dealers, who crave sudden riches at the expense of honor, honesty, and the 
 health of their fellow beings. If this nefarious traffic is not checked by the strong hand of 
 the law the result will be ruin to the dairy interest. 
 
 From the discussions of chemists, experts, and others for from the mauufacturers of 
 these compounds little satisfactory information can be gained a prominent dairyman of Iowa, 
 one of the leading Western butter States, has found that five grades of butterine (the modem 
 name for Mege's product) are made. The first grade, or finest quality, contains 40 per cent, 
 of fine creamery butter, 50 per cent, deodorized lard, and the other 10 per cent, is made up of 
 stearine or tallow oil, with colorings and chemicals to give a fine butter taste and aroma to the 
 compound. The next grade to this contains about 30 per cent, fine butter, and the third grade 
 contains 20 per cent, fine butter. The fourth grade contains about 40 per cent, of ordinary 
 dairy butter, and the remainder lard and stearine, chemicals, and coloring. The fifth grade 
 contains about 25 per cent, of dairy butter, the remainder being lard, etc. The cost of the in- 
 
22 OLEOMARGARINE AND BUTTERINE. 
 
 gradients of this butterine may be reckoned about as follows : 40 pounds fine creamery butter, 
 25 cents per pound, $10 ; 50 pounds leaf lard, 6 cents per pound, $3 ; 5 pounds stearine, 8 
 cents per pound, 40 cents ; labor, salt, and sundries, $1.60. Total cost of 100 pounds, say 
 $15, or 15 cents per pound average cost. Sold by the manufacturer at 20 cents per pourid, it 
 gives him a profit of five cents on every pound made ; and retailed by the grocer at 25 cents 
 per pound it gives him a profit of $5 on every 100 pounds sold. The other grades are scaled 
 in about the same proportions, the lowest priced article of butter being 13 cents per pound. 
 All the processes under which the butterine is made are covered by United States patents. 
 
 " In one factory which I visited," said this gentleman, Hon. Joseph Sampson of Storm 
 Lake, Iowa, "I found that the owner had been obliged to change his engine three times 
 during the present year with a view to increasing the capacity for greater production of his 
 * fine creamery butter.' At first he only had a capacity of 10,000 pounds per day, he said, 
 'but now, he added, with a self-satisfied air, ' I can make 55,000 pounds per day ; and if I had 
 orders enough I could make more by running night and day.' I accompanied him into his 
 refrigerator and shipping room and saw the 'butter' ready for shipment in all sorts of pack- 
 ages, ranging from the five-pound box for select family use up to the fifty-six pound tub. 
 -designed for the pineries of Wisconsin and the mining camps of Colorado and Montana. 
 ' How do you brand it ?' I asked him. 'Oh,' was the reply, anything a man pleases. Any- 
 thing we are asked to put on we put on to suit the fancy of the customer.' When I wanted to 
 see the lard hashing machines in the upper rooms of his factory, he smiled and shrugged his 
 shoulders, and declined to accompany me to the place where the lard was getting its initiatory 
 'baptism of chemicals." 
 
 All the manufacturers he visited frankly admitted that when the butter left their factories it 
 lost its identity, and was sold by retailers everywhere for first-class creamery butter. In his 
 quest he learned also that many grocers engaged in the traffic made it a practice to keep low grade, 
 rancid dairy butter in stock, side by side with the oleomargarine product, and ask their cus- 
 tomers to try the samples and judge which was the best. This, he said, was a favorite trick 
 in the Chicago retail trade. 
 
 OLEOMARGARINE NOT WHOLESOME. 
 
 " Soon after I made my first annual report," said State Dairy Commissioner Brown, speak- 
 ing of his recent report, which is regarded as a very valuable contribution to what may be 
 termed the literature of oleomargarine, " and when I had become thoroughly awake to the 
 magnitude and the iniquity of the traffic in counterfeit butter, and the evils it gave rise to through- 
 out the State, I determined to institute a thorough investigation with a view of satisfying my- 
 self upon what I regard as the main question, Whether oleomargarine is \vholi$ome or not. 
 It was obvious to me that if it was wholesome as an article of food, the only legislation that 
 could long endure would doubtless be as to regulations for its sale ; but if unwholesome, that 
 its sale could be absolutely prohibited. When I began this investigation, I secured the ser- 
 vices of Drs. Elwyn Waller and Edward D. Martin, of the School of Mines, Columbia College, 
 tooth chemists of established reputation and acknowledged skill. Their labors, together with 
 those of other gentlemen, including Dr. R. D. Clark of Albany, who assisted them, have been 
 extended over a period of about eight months, and have resulted in proving, beyond the perad- 
 venture of a doubt, that the product so largely sold here and elsewhere for human food is un- 
 wholesome. They established, by a series of experiments on oleomargarine manufactured in 
 accordance with the formulas laid down in the patents, and with fresh beef fat as the chief con- 
 stituent, that these artificial butters are so decidedly insoluble and indigestible as to be utterly 
 unfit for human food. One of their experiments, which is described and illustrated in the re- 
 port, was in artificial digestion. I am not enough of a chemist to give you a technical descrip- 
 tion of the process, but I can tell you that samples of the counterfeit butter that were sub- 
 jected to the fluid representing the gastric juices, retained their consistency "and solidity for 
 
OLEOMARGARINE AND BUTTERINE. 23 
 
 hours longer than samples of pure dairy butter that were similarly treated. This is not the re- 
 sult of one experiment, but of many, and in some cases the sham butter retained its form and 
 consistency for two hours or more after the genuine article had dissolved. I must refer you 
 to the report for a more detailed description of these interesting experiments, and only desire 
 to say that as the result of our investigations we find that these artificial butters are unwhole- 
 some upon four different grounds : 
 
 4< First On account of their indigestibility. 
 
 " Second In insolubility when made of raw animal fats. 
 
 "Third On account of the strong probability, amounting to a moral certainty, that the 
 bacteria contained in the raw animal fat (where the fat comes from animals that have died 
 without the intervention of the butcher) are not destroyed by the processes of manufacture, 
 and that disease may ensue from its use as human food. 
 
 " Fourth The strong probability that these counterfeit butters, when manufactured by 
 unskilled and unscientific workmen, contain ingredients that are deleterious to public health." 
 
 "We show also in our report," continued the commissioner, "that oil made from the 
 bodies of horses, dogs, and other animals can be so deodorized as to remove all offensiveness, 
 and be made tasteless, and, thus disguised, the most expert chemist cannot tell whether it came 
 from an animal that died of disease or by the hands of the butcher. An eminent chemist who 
 experimented with lard made of fat taken by his own hands from the body of a hog that was 
 suffering from cholera, and with that of a healthy hog that was killed in his presence, officially 
 reported to the department : ' I am not able to distinguish the lard made from the healthy hog 
 from that made from the hog that was suffering with cholera.' It has been established by 
 the testimony given by oleomargarine manufacturers before the Senate committee that the 
 oleomargarine processes use no heat greater than 140 degrees the majority seldom use over 
 no degrees while chemists declare that bacteria existing in animal matter cannot be de- 
 stroyed by heat of less than 212 degrees. This I mention as a proof that where diseased fat 
 is used, as it undoubtedly is in some instances, there is imminent danger of disease. The 
 competition in the manufacture of these counterfeits, and the low price at which they are now 
 selling, are apt to prompt many unscrupulous manufacturers to make use of the fat of animals 
 who die in transit or of disease, and which are cheap ; and thus you see all who spread these 
 Counterfeits over their bread are endangering their health. 
 
 "One of the arguments used by the manufacturers to prove the wholesomeness of their 
 products was the approval they received when Mege's invention was first introduced from the 
 French health authorities. This shred of consolation has been recently withdrawn from them, 
 the French Government having lately revoked this approval and pronounced oleomargarine 
 indigestible." 
 
 "The manufacturers of oleomargarine," said a prominent member of the Butter and Cheese 
 Exchange, "claim that their product is wholesome, and that it is practically the same as nat- 
 ural butter. That claim was specifically made before the health committee of the Legislature 
 that investigated the subject in 1884, and I was present at some of the sittings at which the 
 the testimony proved that the claim was as fraudulent as oleomargarine itself. Here is the 
 testimony of Charles Moses, of No. 41 First Street this city, who was a laborer in an oleomar- 
 garine factory on Grove Street. His duty was to pack the product in tubs. This factory was 
 one of those in which imitation roll butter is made. The witness described the process of 
 packing, which had to be done by hand, and being asked what effect this had on his hands 
 replied : 
 
 " ' It made holes in them, and they began to get sorer and sorer, and I finally lost a nail. 
 The stuff" eat right through to the bone. My hands swelled up, and the stuff that dripped 
 through from the floor above that on which I was working wore holes in my clothes, and that 
 on the floor eat into my boots.' This witness said that in consequence of injuries received in 
 this way he had to go under treatment at Bellevue Hospital. He was severely cross-examined 
 
24 OLEOMARGARINE AND BUTTERINE. 
 
 by the shrewd lawyers employed by the oleomargarine interest, but I did not think that his 
 testimony was impaired. 
 
 " I only quote this as proof that certain acids are used in the oleomargarine processes that 
 are injurious to health. If they were strong enough to ' eat through to the bone,' as this wit- 
 ness swore, and to eat into his boots, what must their effect be upon the human stomach ? 
 Mind you, this man was handling the product prepared for the market. It was in one-pound 
 and two-pound rolls (to imitate merchantable butter), each roll being wrapped in a cloth. He 
 packed the rolls in tubs, and the mere handling of them produced the results stated. 
 
 "There is plenty of such stuff as this coming to this market from the West every day, and 
 yet these manufacturers have the impudence to say that their product is wholesome. I tell 
 you that there is very little honest oleomargarine made in these days. I use the word ' hon- 
 est ' advisedly, for when the product first came into vogue it was honest, inasmuch as it was 
 sold for what it was, and not for natural butter. But of late years a class of unscrupulous men 
 have gone into the business, which realizes enormous profits, and by using cheaper processes 
 and material that is not fit for human food, have brought it into general disrepute." 
 
 With regard to the wholesomeness of butterine and other sham butters, an essential point, 
 there are wide differences of opinion. Leading chemists pronounced oleomargarine, when it 
 was first introduced, as wholesome, but it is a question whether they would commit themselves 
 to a similar opinion with regard to the product as at present sold, in view of the tremendous com- 
 petition among manufacturers and the temptation to use materials that are impure and cheap. 
 Col. Robert M. Littler, secretary of the National Butter, Cheese, and Egg Association, said 
 recently: "Anybody who says that butterine is healthful and wholesome either does not know 
 what he is talking about or else lies. Why are there so many tapeworms and so many cases of 
 Bright's disease since butterine came into use ? The embryo tapeworm exists very freely in leaf 
 lard. This lard must be cooked if you want to destroy the animalculae. It is not cooked ; it is 
 only warmed in the manufacture of butterine. I can show any one, by the use of the microscope, 
 the animalculae. When a hog has them bad it is called measly. No matter how carefully it 
 may be prepared, butterine contains acids that are not to be found in butter. There is a very 
 easy way of proving this. Put calomel into butterine and you have corrosive sublimate. The 
 Lord only knows how many people have been mysteriously poisoned by taking a dose of calo- 
 mel after they have eaten butterine. In many instances the process of deodorizing lard ren- 
 ders the product a deadly poison, and the only reason why fatal results do not immediately 
 follow is because it is taken in such small quantities. 
 
 RUINING THE EXPORT TRADE. 
 
 The following from The New York Star of January 5, 1886, comes from one of the leading 
 butter merchants of the country, and is the expression of the views of a practical man of busi- 
 ness who has been prominently identified with the anti-oleomargarine movement since its 
 inception : 
 
 "You can hardly mention an interest in onr country, " said ex-President James H. Seymour, 
 of the Mercantile Exchange, who is also well known in the butter trade, " that is not protected, 
 save that of the farmer. The only tariff protection that agriculture receives is the duty on 
 wool, and that applies to comparatively few farmers. Iron, silk, and dozens of other articles 
 that could be mentioned are protected by heavy impositions on foreign goods, but what the 
 farmer produces is unprotected. The dairy interest is one of the largest and most important 
 industries of our country, and represents a large portion of the income of a majority of our 
 farmers, especially in the State of New York, which cannot compete with the West in the pro- 
 duction of grain ; and yet our national rulers seem loath to take any action looking to its pro- 
 duction. It seems to me that if this traffic in counterfeit butter, not only at home but in 
 foreign lands, where it makes the name of America a byword and a reproach, were properly 
 
OLEOMARGARINE AND BUTTERINE. 25, 
 
 represented in Congress, prompt action for its suppression or regulation would speedily 
 follow. 
 
 " I believe that the consumption of butter to-day is 30 per cent, less than it would be but 
 for the almost universal sale of these counterfeit, deleterious products of the oleomargarine 
 factories. I believe also that large numbers of dwellers in cities abstain from the use of butter 
 entirely for fear of getting hold of the bogus stuff, and I know personally of several families 
 at whose table butter no longer appears. 
 
 " In years gone by American butter maintained a deservedly high reputation in Germany^ 
 and was largely exported to that country, but since the advent of oleomargarine (or butterine 
 as it is called now, since its original name has grown into well-deserved disrepute) the German 
 authorities, who keep a close watch on the food products sold to the people, and visit adultera- 
 tion with severe punishment, have issued orders that no American butter shall be received in 
 future until after it has undergone a thorough chemical test to establish its genuineness and 
 purity. This is in one sense a compliment to the skill and ingenuity of the oleomargarine 
 manufacturers, for it shows they turn out a product calculated to deceive even the best experts ; 
 but the mercantile community, the basis of whose foreign trade is their unblemished honor and 
 their reputation for fair dealing, view this new order with sorrow. They cannot blame the 
 German authorities, for their action was brought about by the importation of thousands of pounds 
 of sham butter or oleomargarine oil out of which to make it, and was taken purely in self-defense. 
 But they do blame their own government for failing to so regulate this nefarious traffic as to 
 prevent the possibility of such wholesale swindles. 
 
 " So long as this stuff, made of the refuse of the stables and the shambles and of other 
 materials that make one shudder to think of, is manufactured in the West and I believe that 
 the greater proportion of the most worthless grades of oleomargarine comes from that section 
 is shipped to this market as butter, I cannot see how the legitimate trade can be protected. 
 It comes in quantities over the railroads, paying freight as butter, and, in spite of the law pro- 
 hibiting its sale, gets into the hands of conscienceless retailers and then figures on the tables 
 of our citizens as dairy or creamery butter. The manufacturers shield themselves from the 
 penalties of the law by selling the product under its own name, but they know as well as I do 
 that it cannot be sold in this city except as natural butter. Is not this offering a premium 
 for crime ? The retailers, when arrested and arraigned in court, always deny that they rep- 
 resented the article as butter, but in nine cases out of ten the proof that they did is produced, 
 and this fact the manufacturers must know. 
 
 "What we need is a national law regulating this traffic, and if we get the law we want to 
 see it enforced. Prohibition of the manufacture of oleomargarine is, I think, out of the ques- 
 tion, but it is generally conceded that Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce^ 
 and an act of this nature would come within its province." 
 
 The exports of oleomargarine have increased rapidly since its introduction, so that where 
 they only reached one-half of the exports of the genuine dairy product in 1880 they now about 
 double them. The annual average of decrease in the exports of butter between 1880 and 1885 
 was 9,51 0,706 pounds, while those of oleomargarine have shown an annual average increase 
 of 2,647,000 pounds. The figures appended show the recorded exports of butter and oleomar- 
 garine for the years named, but there is reason to believe that a considerable amount of the 
 latter was exported as butter. 
 
 Butter. Oleo. Total. 
 
 1880..: 39,236,650 20,000,000 59,236,650 
 
 ^881 31,560,500 26,300,000 57,800,500 
 
 1882 14,794,300 22,000,000 3 6 >794,3 
 
 1883 12,348,640 23,400,000 35,748,640 
 
 1884 20,627,374 39,322,841 59>95* 2I 5 
 
 1885 21,683,148 37,882,155 59>5 6 5>33 
 
 By these figures it will be seen that while the exports of butter decreased 18,609,276 pounds- 
 
26 OLEOMARGARINE AND BUTTERINE. 
 
 in 1884 and 17,553,502 pounds in 1885 (as compared with the exports of 1880), the increase in 
 the exports of oleomargarine (comparing the years 1880 and 1885) was 17,882,155 pounds, 
 and in the last two years the exports of the bogus article have almost doubled those of the 
 genuine. The loss to the foreign trade of the United States by the substitution of oleomar- 
 garine for butter is not shown by quantities, but by values. In 1885 the aggregate value of 
 the exports of butter and oleomargarine was $8,095,278, that of butter being $3,643,646 and 
 oleomargarine $4,451,632. If butter had taken the place of oleomargarine in the exportation 
 the aggregate value would have been about $10,000,000. Upon the assumption that the ex- 
 ports of butter were decreased in proportion to the amount of oleomargarine exported, the loss 
 to the butter makers was $6,357,000 and to the foreign trade $1,915,000. 
 
 Mr. C. L. Smith, of Rice & Smith, well-known exporters of butter, called upon Assistant 
 Dairy Commissioner Van Valkenburgh early in January, and asked him for copies of the laws 
 of the State of New York covering the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine and its com- 
 pounds. He explained that he had been requested by a member of the English Parliament to for- 
 ward him these laws and such other information regarding counterfeit butter as he could obtain, 
 his object being to prepare an act prohibiting the importation of the product into Great Britain. 
 In connection with this, the following extract from the London Lancet, an eminent author- 
 ity on questions of public health, may not prove uninteresting : 
 
 "Owing to the large importation of butterine and the sale of this article as butter, it is im- 
 possible*to produce, import, and sell pure butter at a profit. Butterine can be sold at ,3 135 
 (about $17.50) per hundred weight (112 pounds), while imported butter sells at $ gs (about 
 $26.50) per hundred weight. There may not be much difference in the nutritive value of these 
 two fatty articles of food, if digested and assimilated, but there can be no doubt of the dietetic 
 value of the one over the other." 
 
 Commenting upon this, the Chicago Dairyman says: "There can be no doubt that the 
 large importations have depressed the market in England and Ireland to an extent that is seri- 
 ously oppressive to the dairy farmers, who find their receipts for October butter ruinously 
 small. The foreign market and the English dairymen are not the only parties suffering from 
 this product and its fraudulent sale; for on this side a similar decline has been experienced, 
 .and dairy products rule at prices that are very discouraging. There can be no doubt that, put 
 upon the market without disguise, in fair competition with honest goods, butterine would find 
 its level and straight butter prove remunerative. The consumer is also interested in obtaining 
 a pure article of butter, and none can be pure that is not the product of the dairy ; but it is a 
 serious question whether hog fat or beef fat made into butterine is a suitable substance for hu- 
 man food. It is also a question whether the process of manufacture, the treatment with acids, 
 while it renders the stuff pleasant to the sight and agreeable to the taste and smell, does not 
 ;also make it indigestible and unfit for human food." 
 
 WHAT REPUTABLE RETAILERS SAY. 
 
 The retail traffic in oleomargarine, so far as New York city is concerned, is confined mainly 
 to a class of cheap grocers, who are allured by the tempting profit in its sale to risk the pun- 
 ishment for violating the law. Appended are the views of a few well-known retailers : 
 
 " We have never sold oleomargarine in our store," said Mr. Callahan, of Callahan & Kerhp, 
 the Vesey street grocers, " although since the introduction of the article we have been almost 
 daily importuned to do so. When the counterfeit stuff first came into general use, several 
 years ago, an agent representing a certain manufacturer called upon us with samples of his 
 wares. We smelled and tasted them, and found them to be very clever imitations of butter, 
 but at the same time we declined to enter into the traffic, although at that period there was no 
 special law prohibiting it. Our position in the matter was that, as legitimate traders, we could 
 not afford to deal in imitations of any sort, knowing them to be imitations. The agent de- 
 clared that a majority of the leading dealers in our line of business were selling the article and 
 
OLEOMARGARINE AND BUTTERINE. 27 
 
 realizing handsome profits, but in spite of thij we persisted in refusing. Then he predicted 
 that in the course of time we would be forced, in self-protection, to do as others were doing. 
 That was more than five years ago, and we have never had occasion to change our course yet. 
 Sometimes we receive orders from country dealers for small lots of oleomargarine, and these 
 \ve fill, but we buy it from the factory and send it directly away, so that we may truly say that 
 no bogus butter ever enters our store. I believe that oleomargarine, as it was originally made, 
 and as it was sold when it was first introduced, was wholesome; and I would not object to its 
 sale now, always providing that it were sold as oleomargarine, and not as butter. I believe, 
 too, that much of the bogus compound that is now sold is not wholesome, since it seems to be 
 reasonably well established that the competition in the manufacture of the product has prompted 
 unscrupulous men to make use of materials that are not fit for human food, and to employ pro- 
 cesses in the manufacture that are dangerous to public health. 
 
 " If the manufacturers would agree to allow their product to be sold on its merits, to have 
 .it placed before the consumers as oleomargarine, or if they prefer the name as artificial but- 
 ter, there would be no opposition on the part of legitimate dealers. But this they will not do. 
 All their efforts seem to be directed toward deceiving the consumer's. If they are honest in 
 what they claim, that their product is equal to most dairy butters and superior to the lower 
 grades, why do they send it to market in packages designed to imitate those used by legiti- 
 mate dairymen and creameries ? Then again, although they sell the stuff as oleomargarine or 
 as butterine, or under any of the names that the compounds have assumed, they must know 
 that the retailers whom they supply dispose of it in most cases as natural butter. They indi- 
 vidually comply with the law, in that they sell their sham product for what it is ; but do you 
 for an instant suppose that these bright, enterprising business men, who keep themselves well 
 informed in all matters concerning the trade they are interested in, are not aware that they are 
 accessories to the violation of the law ? Do they not know, as you and I do, that not one out 
 of a thousand of the consumers of butter in this city would buy artificial butter when it was 
 presented to them in its true colors ? As far as we are concerned, we will have nothing to do 
 with this artificial stuff. We look upon butterine the latest name of the swindle as one hun- 
 dred times worse than the original oleomargarine, and as far as we are concerned we shall de- 
 cline to deal in imitations of any kind." 
 
 " Do you think there is any great quantity of oleomargarine or butterine sold in this city 
 .at present ?" 
 
 " I have no means of knowing definitely how much is sold, but any dealer in butter will 
 tell you that his sales have fallen off, that the prices have been reduced, and that the business 
 is in a bad way. I know of houses in this city where the same grade of oleomargarine is sold 
 from different tubs as fine or medium dairy butter at from twenty-five to thirty-five cents a 
 .pound, and yet, notwithstanding the difference in the retail price, the stuff sold is the product 
 of one factory." 
 
 Mr. Benjamin F. Smith, of Washington Market, who is one of the oldest and best known 
 dealers in the butter trade, said that, so far as he knew, no bogus butter was now being sold 
 in the market. " The fact is," continued Mr. Smith, "that all the dealers are bitterly op- 
 posed to the traffic and keep a sharp lookout for violations of the law. If any dealer tried to 
 retail the stuff he would get into trouble, and so for the past year or so the traffic has been sus- 
 pended. Of course, if people come to us and ask for oleomargarine or butterine, as they occa- 
 sionally do, we get it for them, but the understanding is that we sell it for what it is." 
 
 " The oleomargarine men claim that they do not imitate butter, but that their product is 
 intended as a substitute for that of the dairy. In what shape does oleomargarine come to 
 market?" 
 
 " You might just as well ask me in what shape dairy and creamery butter come, for there is 
 scarcely a package used by the dairies or creameries that is not imitated by the manufacturers 
 of the bogus compounds of beef and hog fat, nitric acid, and other choice ingredients. Here I 
 .have some Western creamery. You see it is packed in layers in ash tubs. In the trade they 
 
28 OLEOMARGARINE AND BUTTERINE, 
 
 are called Welsh tubs. Well, I can get you oleomargarine and butterine that is put up in ex- 
 actly the same way. There is a half-firkin tub of State dairy butter, a famous medium brand, 
 and next to it stands a tub containing State creamery butter. These, too, are closely imitated, 
 and if a dealer is not an expert and able to judge he is liable to be imposed upon. Some of 
 the fancy priced butter conies in one and two pound rolls, stamped and covered with linen 
 cloth, and arranged in a box on sliding shelves. This style, too, the oleomargarine men imi- 
 tate, and the average consumer, who too often takes the package as an index of the contents, 
 is very often deceived." 
 
 " Do customers ever ask you whether your butter is genuine ?" 
 
 " Our regular customers know us, and do not need to ask; but transient customers very 
 often inquire whether our butter is genuine or dairy. I have never tried it yet, but I believe 
 that if I put some sham butter on my stand and offered it to my customers as they came io 
 make their purchases, taking care to inform them exactly what it was, there is not one out of a 
 hundred that would buy a pound of it. You can put it down as a fact that only the cheap res- 
 taurants and boarding nouses buy oleomargarine on its merits. They purchase it largely, and 
 know exactly what they are buying ; but, when the average consumer invests in the stuff, it i? 
 because he is led to believe that he is buying the genuine article." 
 
 Mr. H. Rohr, grocer, of No. 574 Seventh avenue, a leading member of the Grocers' Retail 
 Union, said: "This infamous traffic in bogus butter is rapidly ruining our trade, so far as 
 dealers of moderate capital and of recent establishment are concerned. Many customers that 
 formerly bought butter from the grocer in the neighborhood now prefer to go to dealers of es- 
 tablished reputation, such as Acker, Merrall & Condit or Park & Tilford, for instance, of 
 whom they are morally certain to obtain nothing but the genuine article. In the last three 
 years, owing to the lack of public confidence caused by the almost universal sale of these vile 
 compounds, the retail trade in butter has fallen off fully 33 per cent., and if some action is not 
 taken soon by the authorities I fear that the falling off in the future will be greater still. While 
 my own business, taking the sales of sugar and other standard groceries, has increased proba- 
 bly 50 per cent, in the past four years, my trade in butter has decreased nearly as much, and 
 I suppose there are hundreds of other reputable retail grocers who will tell you the same story. 
 My only transaction in bogus butter occurred about a year ago, and illustrates very aptly one 
 phase of the traffic. One day an old lady, who kept a boarding house in my neighborhood, 
 came to my store and asked me if I ever sold oleomargarine. I told her that I did not deal in 
 it. She asked me whether I could get her some as a special accommodation/ I went to a fac- 
 tory and bought a single tub, of which the old lady purchased fifteen pounds. Soon afterward 
 she visited me again and asked me to enter the oleomargarine on my bill as butter, explaining 
 that if her boarders complained of the stuff and asked any questions she wanted to have my bill 
 to show. ' Don't you see, madame,' I answered, ' that that would render me amenable to the 
 law ?' Well, the old lady refused to buy any more, declaring that she would go to the factory 
 in future for her supply, and I sent back what remained in the tub to the manufacturer. I have 
 no doubt that many grocers are furnishing boarding houses with butter on the terms proposed 
 by the old lady to me, but I could not afford to do it. I am willing to sell oleomargarine if a 
 customer asked for it, but I will only sell it as oleomargarine." 
 
 HOW THE EXECUTION OF THE LAW IS OBSTRUCTED. 
 
 The appended interviews with counsel of the State Dairy Commissioner will serve to show 
 how the violators of the law resort to all possible subterfuges to evade the penalties it 
 imposes, and also give some important information as to other statutes governing this nefari- 
 ous traffic : 
 
 " There has been considerable misconception among retail dealers as to the status of the 
 laws regarding the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine," said Mr. Frank Oliver, the coun 
 sel in this city for the State Dairy Commisioner, " and for some time after the announcement 
 
 
OLEOMARGARINE AND BUTTERINE. 29 
 
 that the Court of Appeals had declared the act of 1884 unconstitutional, the prevailing belief 
 among them was that they might go on selling their compounds of beef fat, neutral lard, and 
 artificially colored counterfeits of natural butter with impunity. A few timely arrests dis- 
 abused their minds of this erroneous impression, but there are still numbers of them who 
 persist in evading the law. Thus far there has been only one conviction in the Court of 
 Special Sessions for violations of the law under the latest act, and this was on the confession 
 of the defendant of his guilt, and one in the Court of General Sessions. The latter is the case 
 of Benjamin J. Hill, a Harlem grocer, who was accused of selling oleomargarine or butterine 
 as butter. In the affidavit upon which the charge was made, which was sworn to by one of 
 the Commissioner's inspectors, it was asserted that Hill had offered to sell him a quantity of 
 butter, but failed to inform him that it was an imitation of the natural product, and also that 
 the deponent had closely inspected the tub containing the so-called butter, and found upon it 
 no brand or printed label, as required by law, designating it as oleomargarine. The bogus 
 butter thus produced the inspector submitted to Charles W. Stillwell, a professional chemist, 
 for analysis, and it was found to be a compound of animal fat, curd, salt-water, and coloring 
 .material, and to contain no characteristic of the genuine article save in color." 
 
 " Can you give me the certificate of analysis in that case ?" 
 
 "No. I have no copy of it. But all the compounds are very much alike, and this, which 
 is the certificate of analysis in another case, will serve equally well. Here is the analysis : 
 
 Animal and butter fat 87.41 
 
 Curd 1.30 
 
 Salt (ash) '- - - 2.91 
 
 Water at 100 deg. C 8.38 
 
 100.00 
 
 "Here is another which shows 85.01 of animal and butter fat, 1.09 of curd, 2.36 of salt 
 (ash), and 11.54 of water. Appended to each certificate are the words : ' This sample is com- 
 posed mainly of animal fat, and was not produced from unadulterated milk or cream from 
 the same. It was not produced from milk or cream alone. It contains coloring matter, 
 whereby it is made to resemble butter, the product of the dairy, and it is in imitation and sem- 
 blance of butter produced from unadulterated milk or cream from the same. ' 
 
 " You will observe that this certificate does not specify what sort of animal fat is used, nor 
 the materials used for coloring. It may be the fat of beef cattle, or of horses, or of hogs, or, 
 in fact, of any animal ; but it is not necessary in these proceedings to go into details. It is 
 sufficient to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the court that the product is not what the seller 
 represented it to be to the purchaser, as herein lies the violation of the law. 
 
 " There are other laws under which we can take action against these sellers of bogus butter 
 besides that of 1885, and the decision of the Court of Appeals in the so-called test case (that 
 of the people against Marx) clearly points out the fact of their existence. Section 403 of the 
 Criminal Code provides that any person who sells, or manufactures, or offers for sale for human 
 food any substance in imitation of any such food product, without disclosing the fact that it is 
 an imitation, and displaying a suitable and plainly visible mark that it is an imitation, shall be 
 deemed guilty of a misdemeanor ; and Section 407 provides that any person selling food or 
 drink, adulterated or diluted, as unadulterated or undiluted, without first disclosing the same 
 and informing the purchaser of the bogus nature of the product, shall be deemed guilty of a 
 misdemeanor, and be subject to an imprisonment not exceeding one year and a fine not exceed- 
 ing $500. 
 
 "This section clearly provides that the intention to defraud shall be shown, and it is held 
 that the withholding of the information as to the fraudulent nature of the product by the seller 
 would be positive evidence of intent to defraud. 
 
3 OLEOMARGARINE AND BUTTERINE. 
 
 " My experience of the trial of cases of this kind has been somewhat limited, but in all the 
 cases that have so far come up the defendants have invariably denied that they represented the 
 stuff they sold to be butter. 
 
 " In the Hill case notice of appeal was given after the close of the trial and the payment 
 under protest of the fine of $100. It should come up before the Court of Appeals at an early 
 day, but I have not seen it on the calendar for the next sitting of that tribunal. There are 
 now pending four cases in the Court of Special Sessions, and thirty-three in the Court of Gen- 
 eral Sessions. There have been complaints as to some of the minor courts that proceedings of 
 this nature were unnecessarily delayed in order that the judges below might await the opinion 
 of those in the higher court; but 1 do not attribute the delay to this cause. In the case of the 
 Court of General Sessions, where the calendar is overcrowded, oleomargarine cases must wait, 
 as liquor license cases do, and hence it is that nearly all the dealers arrested elect to be tried 
 in that court. In many of these cases a civil suit is pending for the recovery of the $500 
 penalty for the violation of the law, but many dealers have preferred to pay the penalty rather 
 than go to trial. 
 
 " The four cases that are to come before the Court of Special Sessions will be heard next 
 week. They are all for selling oleomargarine for butter, as are all that have been acted upon 
 hitherto, and the defendants are John H. Lyddy, John Howell, Charles H. Rohrs, and Her- 
 man Schnaars, all grocers." 
 
 At the time of the trial of the Marks case in the Court of General Sessions, and after 
 notice of appeal had been given, the dealers in oleomargarine asserted openly that no more 
 trials for violations of the act of 1885 would be held until after the decision of that appeal by 
 the court in Albany. They intimated that the ground for their assertions came from the 
 office of the district-attorney. Several members of the trade who were deeply interested in the 
 suppression of this nefarious traffic and the enforcement of the law called upon District- 
 Attorney Martine, who had then newly assumed office. He assured them that he was in 
 ignorance whether any such agreement had been entered into by his predecessor, and declared 
 that if any arrangement of that sort had been made it would not influence his action. And 
 that it did not was evidenced by his subsequently bringing several cases to trial. That they 
 were postponed was due to the crowded condition of the calendar. 
 
 " You can scarcely conceive to how great an extent this fraudulent traffic in counterfeit 
 butter, whose component parts are animal fat, nitric acid, and other deleterious articles, is 
 practiced by unprincipled grocers and others," said Mr. Arthur C. Salmon, the counsel for the 
 State Dairy Commissioner in the City of Brooklyn and Kings County, when asked as to the 
 progress made by the department in its efforts to enforce the law. " I came across a case not 
 long since in which it appeared that five different samples of alleged pure butter were pur- 
 chased at a single store for as many different prices, and each of these samples proved, upon 
 analysis, to belong to the same grade of oleomargarine. It is not unusual for dealers in this 
 counterfeit butter to sell the contents of a single tub at as many as three different prices, the 
 rate being fixed in each case entirely by the character of the customer. 
 
 " We have detected oleomargarine in the stores of dealers in every part of the City a r . 
 Brooklyn, some of whom seemed to be above suspicion ; but I believe that at present very 
 few first-class grocers handle it- As to how much bogus butter is sold here it would be hard 
 to say, but the latest statistics I have seen show that the sales in the State in 1884 amounted 
 to 40,000,000 pounds. Inasmuch as the traffic has not been materially interfered with in many 
 parts of the State, the increase in 1884 must have been considerable." 
 
 With regard to the act of 1885, which was passed while the test case was under con- 
 sideration in the Court of Appeals, and which is referred to in their opinion, Mr. Salmon 
 aid: 
 
 " This enactment prohibits the manufacture or sale of any oleaginous substance in imita- 
 tion or semblance of butter. It not only prohibits the sale of oleomargarine as butter, but if 
 sold at all it must not be colored or made in imitation of cream butter. The intention 
 
OLEOMARGARINE AND BUTTERINE, 3! 
 
 of the legislature is plain. All cases now being prosecuted by me are cases where the defend- 
 ants have sold oleomargarine as butter, the product of the dairy, the sale being clearly a- 
 fraud upon the public, although they swear in court that it was sold for what it was. That 
 seemingly respectable tradesmen should engage in such a traffic I cannot explain, except per- 
 haps upon the hypothesis that the enormous profits to be derived from dealings in the cheap- 
 and bogus product tempt them to risk the chances of detection and prosecution. I am informed 
 that the price of oleomargarine delivered at the factory is from eleven to thirteen cents a 
 pound, and yet last winter I convicted a man of selling a pound of this stuff for thirty-seven 
 cents, which was then the price of fine creamery butter. Is it natural to suppose that he sold 
 this stuff to a purchaser who knew exactly what it was ? 
 
 " The law of 1885 was one of the results of a very close and exhaustive examination into 
 the healthfulness of oleomargarine by the Senate committee on public health. They heard a 
 great deal of evidence pro and con, and unanimously favored the passage of the act. It may 
 be possible to make oleomargarine in such a manner and of such materials that it will not be 
 absolutely unwholesome ; but how can that be guaranteed to the public ? When you consider 
 that as competition grows, as it does grow every day, its selling price is reduced, and the 
 necessity for cheapening the materials and the processes of manufacture is increased, it is easy 
 to see how great is the temptation to utilize material that is unfit for human food. When you 
 consider further that this sham butter depends for its sale upon fraud and deception, and fur- 
 ther still that it can be made of any animal fat, no matter in what condition or whence 
 obtained, I leave it to you to decide whether you would regard it as a wholesome or safe 
 article of food to give your children. They can still sell their bogus butter to those who want 
 to purchase it, provided it is not colored or made in imitation of butter ; but I fancy that their 
 customers, should they try to sell their products on its own merits, would be few and far 
 between." 
 
 Assistant State Dairy Commissioner B. F. Van Valkenburgh, who was appointed under the 
 act of 1884, and who has had many years of experience in the butter trade, said yesterday : 
 
 " When the Court of Appeals decided against the constitutionality of the act of 1884 a 
 good many cases of violation of the law were left on the calendar, and the impression among 
 grocers was general that they could go right along selling bogus butter. It was hard to make 
 them understand that the new law was in effect, but during the summer months, when trade 
 was dull, we found very few violations of the law. In September, however, when the cool 
 weather began to set in, there was a marked advance in the price of dairy butter, and this 
 gave the conscienceless traders in the bogus stuff the opportunity they craved. Since 
 September last we have made over one hundred arrests, and many of. the cases are still pend- 
 ing in the courts. In nearly all of these ,the defendants declared that they sold the bogus 
 butter as oleomargarine, and in this their clerks unblushingly backed them up, but in no case 
 did we make an arrest until we had sure proof that the product was sold as prime dairy but- 
 ter. The temptation to deal in oleomargarine is a very great one, for the retailer can realize 
 a profit much greater than that of a pawnbroker. He can buy the bogus butter for from, 
 eleven to fourteen cents a pound, and sell for from, twenty-six to thirty-two cents a pound. 
 They do not dare to sell it cheaper than this, for fear of attracting the attention of our in- 
 spectors; but we are generally provided with evidence showing that they represent their 
 wares to be dairy or creamery butter. Some of the oleomargarine compounds that come to 
 this market are such perfect imitations of butter in color, taste, and general appearance that 
 only an expert can distinguish the difference. Even they are deceived at times by the tests of 
 taste and smell, and have to resort to more severe tests. 
 
 " The manufacturers claim," continued Mr. Van Valkenburgh, "that they sell their 
 product for what it is oleomargarine and this I am not in position to dispute. But the fact 
 remains, and I can easily prove it, that in every possible way they send their wares to this and 
 other markets so packed as to deceive the public. The product of some oleomargarine facto- 
 ries comes in what are known to the trade as Orange County pails ; that of others in hickory- 
 
32 OLEOMARGARINE AND BUTTERINE. 
 
 hooped half- firkins called 'Delaware,' and of others in varnished iron-bound Jamestown 
 tubs packages that are all used by popular and reputable dairymen. Some have even gone 
 so far as to make their product into rolls, packed in barrels, to simulate what is called roll 
 butter. If, as they say, their dealings are honest and above board, why do they resort to such 
 subterfuges ? The fact of the case is that the manufacturer makes a good counterfeit butter, 
 and the grocer shoves it. Of the profits of the former I cannot speak authoritatively, but I 
 know that the grocer makes a bigger profit than the 'shover of the queer,' to use the slang 
 -of the police, and runs considerable less risk. 
 
 " What we need is law requiring that oleomargarine shall be placed on the market in its 
 true form, in which the veriest tyro could never mistake it for dairy or creamery butter. It is 
 of a chalky white, while good butter invariably has a yellow or golden tinge all its own. Thus 
 far most of our prosecutions have been for selling oleomargarine as butter, but the law specifi- 
 cally forbids its sale when it is artificially colored to resemble butter, and that is the only form 
 .in which it is marketable." 
 
 CONGRESSIONAL ACTION. 
 
 The recent agitation of the oleomargarine question has had the effect of awakening Con- 
 gress to the enormity of the traffic in imitation butter throughout the country, and already 
 several bills intended to curb and regulate it are pending in that body. Among these is one 
 that was introduced by Hon. A. J. Hopkins of Illinois, December 21, 1885, was read 
 twice, referred to the Committee on Ways and Means and ordered to be printed. It is en- 
 titled : " A bill to amend title thirty-five, entitled ' Internal revenue,' of the Revised Statutes 
 of the United States," and provides that every manufacturer of adulterated butter or cheese 
 shall furnish to the collector of the district a sworn statement containing the address of his 
 factory, and shall give a bond of not less than $5,000 not to attempt in any way to defraud the 
 government of any tax on the product he manufactures ; that he shall stamp all goods manu- 
 factured by him before he offers them for sale, and before they are removed from the factory, 
 and that he shall post in a conspicuous place a certificate, to be obtained from the Internal 
 Revenue collector, setting forth the capacity of his manufactory. This section (No. 3,4063) 
 concludes with these words : "And every person who manufactures adulterated butter or 
 adulterated cheese of any description without first giving bond, as herein required shall be 
 fined not less than $100 nor more than $5,000, and imprisoned not less than three months nor 
 more than five years. Any article or compound manufactured, in whole or in part, out of any 
 oleaginous substances, pleomargarine, suine, butterine, beef fat, lard, neutral, vegetable oil, 
 or other foreign substances other than that produced from unadulterated milk or cream from 
 the same, and designed to take the place of butter or cheese, or to be sold or offered for sale 
 as an article of food, shall be held to be adulterated butter or adulterated cheese under the 
 meaning of this chapter, as the case may be." 
 
 The next section provides that every manufacturer of these products shall display a sign 
 with letters not less than three inches long, giving his full name and the nature of his busi- 
 ness. A violation of this section entails a fine of not less than $100 nor more than $500. 
 
 Section 3,4o6d will prove of special interest to the retail dealers who persist in violating 
 the State law, and should this law pass, will be an effectual means of destroying the unholy 
 traffic. It reads : 
 
 " It shall be the duty of every dealer in oleomargarine, suine, butterine, beef fat, lard* 
 vegetable oil, or neutral or material used or to be used in manufacturing adulterated but- 
 ter or adulterated cheese, on demand of any officer of internal] revenue, to render such officer 
 a true and correct statement, under oath, of the quantity and amount of such oleomargarine, 
 suine, butterine, beef fat, lard, vegetable oil, or neutral, or materials sold or delivered to any 
 person named in such demand; and in case of refusal or neglect to deliver such statement, or 
 if there is cause to believe such statement to be incorrect or fraudulent, the collector shall 
 
OLEOMARGARINE AND BUTTERINE. 33 
 
 make an examination of the person's books and papers in the manner provided in this title in 
 relation to frauds and evasions." 
 
 Another section directs that all adulterated butter and cheese shall be packed in tubs, 
 firkins, and packages that have not theretofore been used, and the use of an old package in- 
 volves a fine of not less than $100 nor more than $1,000, and imprisonment of not less than 
 six months nor more than two years. It is provided, however, that nothing in this section 
 shall be construed as preventing the sale of adulterated butter or cheese at retail by dealers 
 who have paid the special tax as such, from boxes, tubs, or jars packed, stamped, and branded 
 in the manner prescribed by law. 
 
 The next section provides that each manufacturer shall affix to each box, tub, or other pack- 
 age containing his product, a printed label bearing his name, the number and the location of 
 his factory, and these words : 
 
 " NOTICE. The manufacturer of the adulterated batter (or cheese) herein contained has 
 complied with all the requirements of law. Every person is cautioned, under the penalty of 
 law, not to use this box, tub, or jar (as the case may be) for adulterated butter or cheese 
 again." This notice to be printed in letters not less than one inch long. A neglect to comply 
 with the provisions of this section, or the removal of a label so affixed to any package, entails- 
 a fine of $50. 
 
 Section 3, 4o6g provides that the manufacturers shall pay an Internal Revenue tax of ten- 
 cents a pound on adulterated butter and three cents a pound on adulterated cheese. 
 
 The other sections of the bill, which is voluminous, provides for the stamps to be used to 
 distinguish the bogus from the genuine article ; for the regulation of the inspection of adul- 
 terations ; for the collection of the tax ; for the prevention of the use of counterfeit stamps ;. 
 for the taxing of all spurious butter and cheese imported from other countries, and declares 
 that all bogus butter and cheese on hand after the ist of April next shall be taken to have 
 been either manufactured or imported after the passage of this chapter, and shall be stamped 
 accordingly. 
 
 Section 3,4o6p is evidently intended to reach the retailers. It reads : 
 
 "Every person who purchases or receives for sale any adulterated butter or adulterated 
 cheese which has not been branded or stamped according to law shall be liable to a penalty of 
 $50 for each such offense. " 
 
 A leading merchant, who is a pronounced enemy to oleomargarine and all its relatives,, 
 said yesterday when a copy of this bill was shown him : 
 
 "I am glad that this subject is to come before Congress, for no interest more pressingly 
 demands national protection at this time than that of the dairy man ; but I am afraid that this 
 law possesses too many of the faults that have rendered our State law practically inoperative, 
 and that it will afford to the oleomargarine men the opportunity to pose before the public as 
 martyrs. All honest men concur in denouncing the traffic in counterfeit butter, but my expe- 
 rience with legislators teaches me that any attempt at prohibition is generally frowned upon. 
 How far this bill would put the Government in the attitude of acknowledging oleomargarine 
 and its allied compounds as legitimate food products I am not prepared to say, for I have not 
 had an opportunity to read ii carefully. I will say, however, that it seems to aim to bring 
 about just what the leading men in dairy products have long been urging, and that is the com- 
 pelling of the men who sell the stuff to sell it for what it is. If it can accomplish that pur- 
 pose it will do an immense amount of good, for I am convinced that if the people. knew what 
 they were buying they would infinitely prefer the natural product of the cow to any imitation. 
 I think, however, that when the bill comes up for discussion, and when the national legisla- 
 tors find how thoroughly the people are opposed to the fraudulent way in which the oleomar- 
 garine traffic is carried on, and the injury it is doing to us at home and abroad, this or some 
 similar measure will be adopted. It may be that they will prefer to consider the question as 
 bearing upon the public health, and if they do take that view I think that facts relative to the 
 materials and processes used in the manufacture of this'stuff will be laid before them that will 
 
34 OLEOMARGARINE AND BUTTERINE. 
 
 justify prompt action. You may be assured, however, that this bill will meet with a tremen- 
 dous lobby opposition, for the oleomargarine men are rich and determined, and have their 
 agents not only in Washington, but at the capital of every State in the Union. I think, how- 
 ever, that the pressure of public opinion can overcome even this otganized and desperate op- 
 position, and that if this Congress does not act, the people will take care to elect another 
 that will." 
 
 State Dairy Commissioner Josiah K. Brown, when asked his opinion of Mr. Hopkins' bill, 
 replied: " The title of this act is somewhat misleading, because the compound commonly 
 known as oleomargarine is in no sense an adulterated butter. It is simply animal fat made to 
 imitate butter, and contains only a small percentage of butter fat. 
 
 " L am not prepared to express an opinion as to the provisions of the act, for I have 
 merely glanced at it ; but I will say that if the national Government decides to take action 
 upon this question of the sale of sham butter, it would be wise to intrust the enforcement of 
 the law to the Internal Revenue Department, which has the necessary machinery to under- 
 take the work. It would be unwise, in my opinion, on the part of Congress to enact any law 
 on this subject without careful consideration and exhaustive discussion. If I made any rec- 
 ommendation it would be that Congress pass a law compelling manufacturers, in case the 
 bogus product is to be sold at all, to put before the people an article that could not by any 
 possibility be mistaken for butter an article that a child could recognize on sight and without 
 explanation. It is a notorious fact that these manufacturers make and pack their product so as 
 to imitate natural butter of all kinds, and the trade they are engaged in is a monstrous and in- 
 famous swindle upon the consumers. 
 
 " In this State the law takes the ground, and justly, as I can prove, that the stuff is un- 
 wholesome. Section 20 of chapter 183 reads : ' This act and each section thereof is declared 
 to be enacted to prevent deception in the sale of dairy products, and to preserve the public 
 health, which is endangered by the manufacture of the articles or substances herein regulated 
 or prohibited.' This is as plain English as can be desired and nobody can dispute the right 
 vof a government to protect the health of its people." 
 
 THE LAWS OF THE DIFFERENT STATES. 
 
 The last annual report of Dairy Commissioner J. K. Brown, of New York, contains a suc- 
 cinct presentation of the status of dairy products in all the leading States of the Union. He 
 has not confined himself to New York in his researches, but has obtained information on this 
 vital and important subject from all parts of the country. While Commissioner Brown is 
 understood to hold strong prohibition views, the portion of his report bearing upon his rec- 
 ommendations has not yet been made public ; and whether he will recommend a more strin- 
 gent law or not cannot now be definitely asserted. The facts he gives relative to the laws in 
 other States, however, are well worthy of reproduction here. 
 
 Of the thirty-eight States in the Union, all but ten have laws governing the manufacture 
 and sale of sham butter. These are Alabama, Arkansas, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mis- 
 sissippi, Nevada, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Texas, none of which rank very high 
 among the butter-producing States. Of the Territories, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, 
 Utah, Washington, and Wyoming are as yet unprotected by laws against the swindle. In all 
 the other Sta'tes and Territories there are laws guarding one or all of the branches of dairy 
 production. In California, where the butter produced in factories and creameries, not count- 
 ing that made by the farmers, amounted in 1880 to 2,074,344 pounds, manufacturers and 
 dealers in oleomargarine are required to brand the article with its proper name. The law 
 also requires hotel keepers, restaurant keepers, and others who feed the public for pay to keep 
 posted up in three conspicuous places a notification to customers that their bread must be but- 
 tered with oleomargarine. Any caterer v who sets out oleomargarine without such notification 
 is subject to fine or imprisonment. 
 
OLEOMARGARINE AND BUTTERIXK. 35 
 
 Colorado is also well protected. A fine or imprisonment is the penalty for selling adulter- 
 ated milk or that from which the cream has been taken or from which the strippings have 
 been withheld. Dealers may, however, sell skimmed milk if they inform their customers of 
 the fact that it has been skimmed. Protection against oleomargarine is sought to be secured 
 by imposing a license of $1,000 on any one proposing to manufacture it, and one of $500 on 
 the seller. A penalty of from $50 to $500 is attached to the manufacture or selling of oleo- 
 margarine as butter. 
 
 Indiana has had long standing in its Revised Statutes a law against selling impure milk ur 
 milk from cows to which anything but wholesome and natural food is given. The old law 
 also prohibits the use of deleterious substances for coloring butter and cheese, the penalties 
 ranging from $50 to $500. In 1883 the subject of oleomargarine was taken up by the Legisla- 
 ture, and a law was passed requiring oleomargarine, in whatever shape it is offered for sale, to 
 be branded as oleomargarine, and fines from $10 to $50 are imposed for failure to comply 
 with the law. 
 
 Iowa imposes heavy penalties for adulterating milk, requires oleomargarine to be branded 
 or stamped with its proper name, and prohibits the offering for sale of skimmed-milk, cheese 
 or any cheese containing an admixture of oleomargarine or other substance, unless the adulter- 
 ated product is plainly stamped with words setting forth just what it is. 
 
 Maine prohibits the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine, and imposes a fine of $100 
 for the first offense and $200 for each subsequent offense. 
 
 Massachusetts seems not to have awakened to the subject of imitation butter, but it has 
 provisions for heavy fines for selling adulterated milk. 
 
 Michigan has about the same prohibitory law that obtains in Maine. An act of 1885 for- 
 bids oleomargarine altogether, under a penalty of from $200 to $500, with imprisonment not 
 to exceed one year. 
 
 In Minnesota a penalty of from $2 to $200 is imposed for selling impure milk, while oleo- 
 margarine is altogether prohibited, the penalty of violating the law being from $100 to $500. 
 The prohibitory law in Minnesota was also passed in 1885. The Maryland law is substan- 
 tially the same as the Iowa law, requiring any imitation of butter to be branded with its 
 proper name. The penalties in Maryland are somewhat heavier then they are in Iowa. 
 
 Missouri has taken the same extreme measure that prevails in Maine, Michigan, and 
 Minnesota, prohibiting the manufacture and sale of imitation butter, but it emphasizes its ob- 
 ection to the substance by imposing a fine of$i,ooo and imprisonment for violating the law. 
 
 In Connecticut and Delaware the law is substantially the same. It aims to put imitation 
 butter on its merits, and that is all that is demanded by dealers in legitimate dairy products. 
 In Connecticut, however, the dealer is required to post a notice in his place of business an- 
 nouncing that he sells oleomargarine. In Delaware any substance offered for sale as butter 
 that it is not real butter must be marked artificial butter. The fine for violation of the law in 
 Connecticut is only $7 or imprisonment for from ten to thirty days, but in Delaware the fine is 
 $50, with imprisonment till the same is paid. 
 
 In Illinois there is a general law relative to the adulteration of food or drink, which con- 
 tains a provision that where oleomargarine is mixed with pure butter the seller is required to 
 inform the buyer of the fact, and he must also inform him in what proportion the two sub- 
 stances are mixed. Offenses against the law increase for repetitions till a fine of $2,000 is im- 
 posed for the third repetition. This law was passed in 1881. Another act was passed in 1883 
 requiring operators in butter and cheese on the co-operative factory plan to give bonds in the 
 sum of $6,000 that accurate reports will be made the first of each month, a copy of each to 
 be filed with the clerk of the town in which the factory is situated. According to the best in- 
 formation to be obtained this law is practically a dead letter, for Chicago turns out a great pro- 
 portion of the oleomargarine products that flood the country. There is a movement among 
 merchants and dairymen to make this subject a political issue, and the next election may 
 greatly depend upon the attitude of legislative candidates on the bogus butter question. 
 
36 OLEOMARGARINE AND BUTTERINE. 
 
 Nebraska contents herself for the present with guarding against the use of impure milk. 
 In New Hampshire an attempt has been made to throw the responsibility for using oleomar- 
 garine on the consumer. The law requires it to be colored pink, and then it leaves everybody 
 at liberty to buy the substance or leave it alone. In case of prosecution for selling imitation 
 bulter of the same color as natural butter, or under any other color than pink, an analysis ot 
 the substance is admissible in court as evidence. Ohio, by a law of last year, prohibits the 
 manufacture and sale of oleomargarine as butter, but permits it to be dealt in as beef suet. 
 Oregon has a law similar to a bill that was at one time before the Legislature of this Stale. It 
 requires the public to be notified at every point of contact with oleomargarine that the sub- 
 stance is oleomargarine. It must in the first place be branded for market, then a notice must 
 be posted up by hotel, restaurant, and boarding-house keepers that the substance is used by 
 them instead of good butter, and lastly, the bill of fare, if a bill of fare is used, must state that 
 the lubricator on the table is oleomargarine, if such be the fact. 
 
 In 1883 Pennsylvania started out to protect its citizens against oleomargarine, its Legisla- 
 ture enacting a law requiring the imitation article to be branded for what it was. This pre- 
 caution proving unavailing, in 1885 a prohibitory act was passed. This law has recently been 
 sustained by the Supreme Court of the State in the case of the People against Wallace. 
 
 In Rhode Island stamping with the proper name is required, and each seller of oleomar- 
 garine is required to deliver to the purchaser a label setting forth the true nature of the sub- 
 stance he has bought. In Tennessee the only requirement is that imitation butter shall b 
 made and sold for what it is. The Territories of Arizona and Dakota have similar laws on 
 this subject, traffic in the substance being allowed only on condition that it is properly labeled. 
 The Arizona law requires the dealer to post up a notice that he has notice that he has oleo- 
 margarine for sale, and he must, as in Rhode Island, deliver to the purchaser an oleomarga- 
 rine label with the package, when that article is bought in preference to genuine butter. The 
 laws of New Jersey are like the present New York State laws. 
 
 Florida has made it a misdemeanor for hotel and boarding-house keepers to offer their 
 guests imitation butter, and affixes a penalty of $100 for each offense against the law. There 
 seems to be no provision in that State permitting the use of oleomargarine as such. 
 
 THE DEMORALIZING EFFECT UPON TRADE. 
 
 "There is a phase of this traffic in counterfeit butter," said a leading merchant, "that has 
 scarcely been touched upon, so far as I have seen, in any of the exposures that have been re_ 
 cently made, and that is, its demoralizing effect upon trade. There can be no doubt that the 
 law prohibits the sale of these counterfeits as genuine butter, and yet we hear every day of the 
 arrest of grocers or their employees for selling them. Grant, if you please, that the constitu- 
 tionality of the law is questioned, is it not on the statute books, and should it not be obeyed 
 until the question is definitely decided? If a law is bad and iniquitous in its workings, the 
 surest way to secure its repeal is to enforce it. But these dealers, who sell this product, 
 knowing it to be counterfeit, for real butter, are guilty of a crime, and the manufacturers who' 
 furnish them with the stuff, well knowing that it cannot be sold for what it is, are morally re- 
 sponsible for their violation of the law. In many of these cases the proprietor of the stores 
 escapes punishment because he was not present when the sale was made. Is not the selling 
 of the goods in his store presumptive evidence that he instructed his clerk to sell them ? What 
 can you expect of young business men who are taught at the very outset of their career that 
 deceit and fraud are a part of their duty to their employers ? Can you look to them in their 
 future lives to be honest and honorable ? " 
 
 The Western Plowman, a conservative agricultural journal, says: 
 
 " The failure to stop the sale of oleomargarine does not proceed from any fault in the laws, 
 but from the indifference or sanction of the people. The only executive of municipal laws 
 under our form of government is public opinion. If the people sanction a law and are thor- 
 
OLEOMARGARINE AND BUTTERINE. 37 
 
 oughly convinced of the need of it, they will enforce it ; otherwise it will be dead upon the 
 statute book. We see this illustrated almost every day. Where public opinion is strongly in 
 favor of a strong prohibition law, it is enforced; where public opinion is against it, it is not en- 
 forced. So with other laws. The people are the government, and have a more direct power 
 in enforcing than in making laws. If public opinion were strongly in favor of the oleomargar- 
 ine laws, those laws would be enforced. But the farmers, to begin with, exhibit no interest 
 in the matter. They are sure of the butter they eat, for they make it themselves ; and they 
 fail to see that oleomargarine diminishes the amount realized for their surplus butter. The 
 dairymen are too weak in numbers to enforce the law themselves ; they must have the sup- 
 port of farmers, and this they have not. The wise course to pursue is not to clamor for more 
 stringent laws, but to awaken the farmers to the fact that the sale of oleomargarine is inimical 
 to their interests, as well as to the interests of the dairymen. And 1T the city consumers can 
 be made so thoroughly disgusted with oleomargarine as to join the farmers and dairymen the 
 present oleomargarine laws will be found sufficient." 
 
 THURBER, WHYLAND & CO. ON BOGUS BUTTER. 
 
 In an interview in June last Mr. James H. Seymour, ex-president of the Butter, Cheese, and 
 Egg Exchange, and one of the leading men in the trade, made public the following letter from 
 Mr. F. B. Thurber, of Thurber, Whyland & Co., which sufficiently indicates the attitude of 
 that great house as regards the illicit traffic in counterfeit butter. It should be mentioned here 
 that Mr. Thurber has long been noted as a determined enemy to anything like deception in 
 trade. The following is his letter : 
 
 NEW YORK, June 18, 1885. 
 
 James H. Seymour, Esq. DEAR SIR: Referring to our recent conversation, I would say 
 that I have always been opposed to the fraudulent sale of oleomargarine, and have contributed 
 perhaps as much as any one person to compel its honest sale. There has been a great deal of 
 misrepresentation of my position regarding this subject. It has been represented that I was 
 largely interested in oleomargarine patents, and in the manufacture and fraudulent sale of the 
 article, when the fact is I have never had any interest in either. My brother at one time did 
 have an interest in a small oleomargarine factory, and owing to his influence our firm at one 
 time acted as selling agents for the Commercial Company, which was then the largest factory; 
 but we always sold it as oleomargarine, and never in any case as butter. This agency, how- 
 ever, ceased nearly three years ago, and shortly after my brother's retirement from the head 
 of our firm we stopped selling oleomargarine. And now, notwithstanding that the law pro- 
 hibiting its manufacture and sale has been declared unconstitutional, I wish to say that my 
 firm will never sell it again, unless it should become such an article of commerce, commonly 
 sold on its merits, that we would be compelled to keep it. I do not think it wrong to sell pure 
 oleomargarine for what it is, for I have always taken the ground that I could not see why an 
 article that was as much a farm product as either beef or butter should not be sold for what it 
 is, providing it is wholesome. And of the thousands of pounds consumed I have never heard 
 of any ill effects resulting from its use. But our other business in magnitude is as a thousand 
 to one to any interest we ever had in oleomargarine, and I do not think it is our duty to com- 
 bat the public prejudice which has been justly evoked by unscrupulous dealers selling it as 
 butter. I have worked long and earnestly to improve the quality and enforce the honest sale 
 of food products. I believe that all articles should be sold for precisely what they are, and 
 I am heartily in accord with you in your opposition to the fraudulent sale of oleomargarine 
 and butterine, which are sold, not on their merits as substitutes for butter, but as butter 
 itself. Yours, very truly, 
 
 (Signed) F. B. THURBER. 
 
38 OLEOMARGARINE AND BUTTERINE. 
 
 CONVICTIONS IN NEW YORK AND BROOKLYN. 
 
 N. Y. Star, January 27, 1886. 
 
 For a long time past the .dealers engaged in the illegal sale of spurious butter and the capi- 
 talists interested in its manufacture have found fault with State Dairy Commissioner Brown 
 and his able and energetic assistant in this city and Kings county, Mr. Van Valkenburgh, for 
 not enforcing the provisions of the law of 1885 against manufacturers as well as retailers. The 
 fact that but few of the former were brought to trial was used as a conclusive argument against 
 the constitutionality of the law, so far as the manufacturing of the article was concerned, and 
 was held to be presumptive proof that the Dairy Commissioner considered the act too weak to 
 bear enforcement. Those who deceived themselves with these sophistical arguments were 
 abundantly undeceived yesterday when the case of The People against Lipman Arensberg was 
 called for trial belore Judge Moore in the Brooklyn Court of Sessions. Arensberg is a well- 
 known manufacturer of oleomargarine, and has an extensive factory on Furman Street. He 
 was represented in court by Messrs. Wheeler H. Peckham and Frederick Coudert, and the 
 former distinguished himself in cross-examining the expert chemists who were called as wit- 
 nesses on the part of the prosecution. 
 
 State Expert Thomas C. DuBois testified that on July 16, 1885, he visited Arensberg's oleo- 
 margarine factory, No. 61 Furman Street, and purchased three tubs of oleomargarine. He 
 asked specifically for oleomargarine and not for butter. The substance closely resembled nat- 
 ural butter. The remainder of his testimony related, as is usual in these cases, to what he had 
 done with the goods purchased, and then Dr. Charles L. Stillwell, one of the chemists of the 
 New York Produce Exchange, was placed upon the stand. He testified to the receipt of the 
 sample, and said that upon analysis he found it to be oleomargarine. In the cross-examination 
 of this witness, which was conducted by Mr. Wheeler H. Peckham, the distinction between 
 oleomargarine and natural butter was very clearly described, and though questions cleverly 
 designed to confuse him were rapidly poured forth by Mr. Peckham, the chemist never wav- 
 ered, but seemed rather more positive than in his direct examination. He, too, described the 
 sample as being colored in imitation and semblance of butter. 
 
 Dr. Thomas Gladding, Dr. Stillwell's partner, and also chemist for the Produce Exchange, 
 passed through the ordeal of another searching cross-examination with equal success, and then 
 the defense offered to put Professor Morton, of Stevens College, Hoboken, on the stand, an- 
 nouncing their intention to prove by his testimony that oleomargarine contained precisely the 
 same chemical constituents as natural butter. The introduction of this testimony was objected 
 to by the prosecution, and Judge Moore announced that he should rule out any evidence o 
 this point unless the defense were prepared to prove that the substance sold was made from 
 pure unadulterated milk, or cream from the same. To this Mr. Coudert replied that the de- 
 fense made no such claim, and the objection was sustained. 
 
 The defense next offered to prove that the goods sold were wholesome, and Judge Moore 
 again ruled that such evidence was inadmissible. Their third proposition was to prove that 
 butter could be made from substances not derived from the milk of the cow, and this shared 
 the fate of its predecessor, Judge Moore holding strictly in his ruling to the opinion of the 
 Court of Appeals in the Cipperly case, in which it was held that the courts have nothing to do 
 with the question of the wisdom or the natural justice of any particular law, and that its power 
 to fix a standard for food products for the protection of the public health could not be ques- 
 tioned. The defense took exceptions to the exclusion of this evidence, and there rested. 
 Then Judge Moore fined the defendant $125 or 125 days' imprisonment, suspending the exe- 
 cution of the judgment pending the decision of the Court of Appeals, and Arensberg and his 
 counsel retired. 
 
 "This case is important," said a leading butter merchant, " as involving the disputed point 
 as to whether the Legislature has the constitutional right to prohibit the manufacture of any 
 substance in semblance or imitation of butter. The oleomargarine manufacturers nave long. 
 
OLEOMARGARINE AND BUTTERINE. 39 
 
 boasted that sections 7 and 8 of the law, which cover this subject, would be declared unconsti- 
 tutional ; but Justice Learned's opinion in the Cipperly case, indorsed as it was by the Court 
 of Appeals, will be likely to open their eyes to the fact that their confidence is misplaced. I 
 hope that the Dairy Commissioner will now proceed actively against all classes of violators of 
 the law, irrespective of their wealth or their business standing, and that the minor courts will 
 support him. I am convinced that this conviction will have a more decided and widespread 
 effect than any of those that have preceded it." 
 
 Out of eight cases tried in the Court of Special Sessions, New York, January 20, 1886, 
 there were five convictions, two acquittals, and one postponement. This was an encouraging 
 result as compared with former experiences. In nearly all these cases the violators of the law 
 were defended by counsel employed by an association formed especially to protect grocers ac- 
 cused of this crime. Comment is unnecessary. Without going into the details of the trials of 
 these cases, which would not be interesting to the general reader, it may be said that every- 
 thing that ingenuity could devise was done by counsel to save these men from the punishment 
 they so richly deserved. 
 
 THE WORK OF THE DAIRY DEPARTMENT. 
 
 " The oleomargarine manufacturers, who do not relish the work done by this department," 
 said Assistant Dairy Commissioner Van Valkenburgh yesterday, " assert that the experts we 
 employ are spies, and insinuate that the work we do is not worth the money we get for it, 
 To disprove this I will give you a resume of the work done by one of our experts in the year 
 that has just closed, and when you hear it, and find that his salary is $80 a month, I think you 
 will frankly acknowledge that his office is no sinecure. You should remember, too, that to be a 
 butter expert requires years of training and experience. This man worked 277 days out of 
 the 365, and in that time bought 1,387 samples in different parts of this city and Brooklyn. 
 Of these he delivered thirty-five, supposed to be spurious, to a chemist for analysis. He ap- 
 peared in court during the year 1 79 times, his- attendance taking in nearly all the police courts 
 from the Tombs to Harlem and those in Brooklyn, and practically devoted 121 days of the year 
 to prosecuting the frauds he had helped to detect. His purchases of samples were made in the 
 evenings for the reason that retailers would have suspected him had he visited the stores in 
 daylight. Thus you see, what with the pur-chasing of samples, the attendance in court, and 
 the working up of evidence for prosecutions, his time was well occupied. This expert caused 
 26 arrests, and paid 1,720 visits to 518 butter and grocery stores. This is a fair sample of the 
 work done by the whole force. My own opinion is that the department should be strength- 
 ened so that the whole State could be efficiently covered. As it is, only the salient points, 
 such as New York, Brooklyn, and Buffalo, are provided with inspectors, and in many parts 
 of the State violators of the law can pursue their nefarious traffic without much fear of official 
 interference. Of the hundreds of cases that have come under my personal observation, at 
 least 98 per cent, have been sales of these unwholesome compounds for and as butter. And 
 yet, in a majority of them, the defendants declare under oath, either that they sold the stuff 
 without knowing that it was oleomargarine, or that they told the purchaser what it was. 
 Many of our inspectors reported that on their first visit to a store they failed to obtain the imi- 
 tation butter, but that on the second or third they seldom failed. We can do nothing with 
 the manufacturers, for while they are morally responsible for the sale of the stuff they evade 
 legal responsibility for selling it for what it is ; and if we ever proceed against them, it must 
 be under that clause of the law which forbids the coloring of their food product to simulate 
 dairy butter. We must confine ourselves, therefore, to the retailers." 
 
 Since the above interview was printed a manufacturer in Brooklyn has been convicted, the 
 rulings of the Court being based on the decision in the Apperby case (which is duly detailed 
 in the chapter on decisions), and now there is every probability that manufacturers will be 
 vigorously prosecuted, so far as New York is concerned. 
 
 IMPORTANT DECISIONS. 
 
 The following are the most important decisions thus far rendered as to the constitu- 
 tionality of prohibitive laws. The decision in the first case mentioned that of The People 
 against Morris Marx, was seized upon by the dishonest dealers as a pretext for continuing 
 their swindle, but subsequent action by the Courts convinced them that they had acted pits 
 cipitately and a number of convictions under other sections of the act persuaded them thai 
 the law was still in force. 
 
40 OLEOMARGARINE AND BUTTERINE. 
 
 THE MARX CASE. 
 
 COURT OF APPEALS. 
 THE PEOPLE, 
 
 Respondent, 
 agst. 
 MORRIS MARX, 
 
 Appellant. 
 
 RAPALLO, J. The defendant was convicted in the Court of General Sessions, of the City 
 and County of New York, of a violation of the Sixth Section of an act entitled, " An Act to 
 .prevent deception in sales of dairy products " (chap. 202 of the Laws of 1884). 
 
 On appeal to the General Term of the Supreme Court in the First Department the convic- 
 tion was affirmed, and the defendant now appeals to this court from the judgment of affirm- 
 ance. 
 
 The main ground of the appeal is that the section in question is unconstitutional and void. 
 
 The section provides as follows : " Sec. 6. No person shall manufacture out of any oleag- 
 inous substances, or any compound of the same, other than that produced from unadulter- 
 ated milk, or of cream from the same, any article designed to take the place of butter or cheese 
 produced from pure or unadulterated milk or cream of the same, or shall sell or offer to sell 
 he same as an article of food. This provision shall not apply to pure skim-milk cheese, pro- 
 duced from pure skim milk." 
 
 The rest of the section subjects to heavy punishments by fine and imprisonment " who- 
 ever violates the provisions of this section." 
 
 The indictment charged the defendant with having, on the 3ist of October, 1884, at the 
 City of New York, sold one pound of a certain article manufactured out of divers oleaginous 
 substances and compounds thereof, other than those produced from unadulterated milk, to one 
 J. M., as an article of food, the article so sold being designed to take the place of butter pro- 
 duced from pure unadulterated milk or cream, It is not charged that the article so sold was 
 represented to be butter, or was sold as such, or that there was any intent to deceive or de- 
 fraud, or that the article was in any respect unwholesome or deleterious, but simply that it was 
 an article designed to take the place of butter made from pure milk or cream. 
 
 On the trial, the prosecution proved the sale by the defendant of the article known as oleo- 
 margarine or oleomargarine butter. That it was sold at about half the price of ordinary dairy 
 butter. The purchaser testified that the sale was made at a kind of factory, having on the out- 
 side a large sign, " oleomargarine." That he knew he could not get butter there, but knew 
 that oleomargarine was sold there, and the District-Attorney stated that it would not be 
 claimed that there was any fraudulent intent on the part of the defendant, but that the whole 
 claim on the part of the prosecution was that the sale of oleomargarine, as a substitute for dairy 
 butter, was prohibited by the statute. 
 
 On the part of the defendant, it was proved by distinguished chemists that oleomargarine 
 was composed of the same elements as dairy butter. That the only difference between them 
 was that it contained a smaller proportion of a fatty substance known as butyrine. That this 
 butyrine exists in dairy butter only in a small proportion from three to six per cent. That it 
 exists in no other substance than butter made from milk, and is introduced into oleomargarine 
 butter by adding to the oleomargarine stock some milk, cream, or butter, and churning, and 
 when this is done it has all the elements of natural butter, but there must always be a smaller 
 percentage of butyrine in the manufactured product than in butter made from milk. The only 
 effect of the butyrine is to give flavor to the butter, and has nothing to do with the whole- 
 someness. That the oleaginous substances in the oleomargarine are substantially identical 
 with those produced from milk or cream. Professor Chandler testified that the only differ- 
 ence between the two articles was that dairy butter had more butyrine. That oleomargarine 
 contained not over one per cent, of that substance, while dairy butter might contain four or 
 five percent.; and that if four or five percent, of butyrine were added to the oleomargarine, 
 there would be no difference; it would be butter; irrespective of the sources, they would be 
 the same substances. According to the testimony of Professor Morton, whose statement 
 was not controverted or questioned, oleomargarine, so far from being an article devised for 
 purposes of deception in trade, was devised in 1872 or 1873 by an eminent French scientist 
 who had been employed by the French government to devise a substitute for butter. 
 
 Further testimony to the character of the article being offered, the District Attorney an- 
 nounced that he did not propose to controvert that already given. Testimony having been 
 given to the effect that oleomargarine butter was precisely as wholesome as dairy butter, it was, 
 on motion of the District Attorney, stricken out, and the defendant's counsel excepted. The 
 broad ground was taken at the trial, and boldly maintained on the argument of this appeal, 
 that the manufacture or sale of any oleaginous compound, however pure and wholesome, as an 
 
OLEOMARGARINE AND BUTTERINE. 41 
 
 .article of food, if it is designed to take the place of dairy butter, is by this act made a crime. 
 The result of the argument is that if, in the progress of science, a process is discovered prepar- 
 ing of beef-tallow, lard, or any other oleaginous substance, and communicating to it a palata- 
 ble flavor so as to render it serviceable as a substitute for dairy butter, and equally nutritious 
 and valuable, and the article can be produced at a comparatively small cost, which will place 
 it within the reach of those who cannot afford to buy dairy butter, the ban of this statute is 
 upon it. Whoever engages in the business of manufacturing or selling the prohibited product 
 is guilty of a crime ; the industry must be suppressed ; those who could make a livelihood by 
 it are deprived of that privilege The capital invested in the business must be sacrificed, and 
 ?uch of the people of the State as cannot afford to buy dairy butter must eat their bread unbut- 
 tered. 
 
 The references which have been here made to the testimony on the trial are not with the 
 view of instituting any comparison between the relative merits of oleomargarine and dairy 
 butter, but rather as illustrative of the character and effect of the statute whose validity is in 
 question. The indictment upon which the defendant was convicted does not mention oleomar- 
 garine, neither does the section (Sec. 6) of the statute, although the article is mentioned in 
 other statutes which will be referred to. All the witnesses who have testified as to the quali- 
 ties of oleomargarine may be in error, still that would not change a particle the nature of the 
 question or the principles by which the validity of the act is to be tested. 
 
 Section 6 is broad enough in its terms to embrace not only oleomargarine but any other 
 'Compound, however wholesome, valuable, or cheap, which has been or may be discovered or 
 devised forthe purpose of being used as a substitute for butter. Every such product is rigidly 
 excluded from manufacture or sale in this State. 
 
 One of the learned j udges who delivered opinions at the General Term endeavored to sus- 
 tain the act on the ground that it was intended to prohibit the sale of any artificial compound 
 as butter or cheese made from unadulterated milk or cream ; that it was that design to deceive 
 which the law rendered criminal. If that were a correct interpretation of the act, we should 
 concur with the learned judge in his conclusion as to its validity, but we could not concur in 
 his further view that such an offense was charged in the indictment or proved upon the trial. 
 The express concessions of the prosecuting officer are to the contrary. We do not think that 
 section six is capable of the construction claimed. The prohibition is not of the manufacture 
 or sale of an article designed as an imitation of dairy butter or cheese, or intended to be passed 
 off as such, but of an article designed to take the place of dairy butter or cheese. The artificial 
 product might be green, red or white, instead of yellow, and totally dissimilar in appearance 
 to ordinary dairy butter, yet it might be designed as a substitute for butter, and if so would fall 
 within the prohibition of the statute. Simulation of butter is not the act prohibited. There 
 are other statutory provisions fully covering that subject. 
 
 Chapter 215 of -he Laws of 1882, entitled " An act to regulate the manufacture and sale of 
 oleomargarine, or any form of imitation butter and lard, or any form of imitation cheese, for 
 the prevention of fraud and the better protection of the public health," by its first section pro- 
 hibits the introduction of any substance into imitation butter or cheese for the purpose of im- 
 parting thereto a color resembling that of yellow butter or cheese. The second section pro- 
 "hibits the sale of oleomargarine or imitation butter thus colored, and the third section prohibits 
 the sale of any article in semblance of natural cheese not the legitimate product of the dairy 
 unless plainly marked " imitation cheese." 
 
 Chapter 238 of the Laws of 1882 is entitled " An Act for the protection of dairymen, and to 
 prevent deception in the sales of butter and cheese," and provides (Sec. i) that every person 
 who shall manufacture for sale, or offer for sale, or export any article in semblance of butter or 
 cheese, not the legitimate product of the dairy, must distinctly and durably stamp on the side of 
 very cheese, or on the top and side of every tub, firkin, or package, the words "oleomargarine 
 butter ;" or if containing cheese, " imitation cheese," and Chapter 246 of the Laws of 1882, en- 
 titled "An act to prevent fraud in the sale of oleomargarine, butterine, suine, or other sub- 
 stances not butter," makes it a misdemeanor to sell at wholesale or retail any of the above arti- 
 cles, representing them to be butter. 
 
 These enactments seem to cover the entire subject of fraudulent imitations of butter, and of 
 sales of other compounds as dairy products, and they are not repealed by the act of 1884, 
 although that act contains an express repeal of nine other statutes, eighjt of which are directed 
 against impure or adulterated dairy products, and one against the use of certain coloring matter 
 in oleomargarine. The provisions of this last act are covered by one of the acts of 1882, above 
 cited, and the provisions of the repealed act in relation to dairy products are covered by sub- 
 stituted provisions in the act of 1884, but the statutes directed against fraudulent simulations 
 of butter, and the sale of any such simulations as dairy butter, are left to stand. Further stat- 
 utes to the same effect were enacted in 1885. Consequently, if the provisions of section six 
 should be held invalid, there would still be ample protection in the statutes against fraudulent 
 imitations of dairy butter, or sales of such imitations as genuine. 
 
42 OLEOMARGARINE AND BUTTERINE. 
 
 It appears to us quite clear that the object and effect of the enactment under consideratic:: 1 
 was not to supplement the existing provisions against fraud and deception by means of imita- 
 tions of dairy butter, but to take a further and bolder step, and absolutely prohibiting the 
 manufacture or sale of any article which could be used as a substitute for it, however openfy and 
 fairly the character of the substitute might be avowtd and published, to drive the substituted 
 article from the market, and protect those engaged in the manufacture of dairy products 
 against the competition of cheaper substances, capable of being applied to the same uses as 
 articles of food. 
 
 The learned counsel for the respondent frankly meets this view, and claims in his points,, 
 as he did orally upon the argument, that even if it were certain that the sole object of the 
 enactment was to protect the dairy industry in this State against the substitution of a cheaper 
 article made from cheaper material, this would not be beyond the power of the Legislature. 
 
 This, we think, is the real question presented in the case. Conceding that the only limits 
 upon the legislative power of the State are those imposed by the State constitution and that of 
 the United States, we are called upon to determine whether or not those limits are trans- 
 gressed by an enactment of this description. These limitations upon legislative power are 
 necessarily very general in their terms, but are at the same time very comprehensive. 
 
 The Constitution of the State provides (Art. I, Sec. i) that no member of this State shall 
 be disfranchised, or deprived of any of the rights and privileges secured to any citizen thereof, 
 unless by the law of the land, or the judgment of his peers. Section 6 of Article I provides 
 that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, and 
 the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides that " no State 
 shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of 
 the United States, nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without 
 due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the 
 laws." These constitutional safeguards have been so thoroughly discussed in recent cases 
 that it would be superfluous to do more than refer to the conclusions which have been reached, 
 bearing upon the question now under consideration. Among these no proposition is now. 
 more firmly settled than that it is one of the fundamental rights and privileges of every 
 American citizen to adopt and follow such lawful industrial pursuit, not injurious to the com- 
 munity, as he may see fit (Live Stock Association vs. The Crescent City, etc., I Abb., U. S. 
 R., 898; 16 Wall., 156; Corfieldvs. Coryell, 4 Wash. C. C. R., 380; Matter of Jacobs, 9$ 
 N. Y.,, 98). The term "liberty," as protected by the Constitution, is not cramped into a 
 mere physical restraint of the person of the citizen, as by incarceration, but is deemed to em- 
 brace the right of man to be free in the enjoyment of the faculties with which he has been 
 endowed by his Creator, subject only to such restraints as are necessary for the common wel- 
 fare. In the language of Andrews, J., in Bertholf vs. O'Reilly (74 N. Y., 515), the right 
 to liberty embraces the right of man "to exercise his faculties and to follow a lawful avoca- 
 tion for the support of life ;" and as expressed by Earl, J., in In re Jacobs. " One may be 
 deprived of his liberty and his constitutional right ther to violated, without the actual restraint 
 of his person. Liberty in its broad sense, as understood in this country, means the right not 
 only of freedom from servitude, imprisonment, or restraint, but the right of one to use his 
 faculties in all lawful ways, to live and work where he will, to earn his livelihood in any lawful: 
 calling and to pursue any lawful trade or avocation." 
 
 Who will have the temerity to say that these constitutional principles are not violated by 
 an enactment which absolutely prohibits an important branch of industry for the sole reason 
 that it competes with another, and may reduce the price of an article of food for the humaa 
 race. 
 
 " Measures of this kind are dangerous even to their promoters. If the argument of the 
 respondents in support of the absolute power of the Legislature to prohibit one branch of in- 
 dustry for the purpose of protecting another with which it competes can be sustained, why- 
 could not the oleomargarine manufacturers, should they obtain sufficient power to influence or 
 control the legislative councils, prohibit the manufacture or sale of dairy products ? Would 1 
 arguments then be found wanting to demonstrate the invalidity under the Constitution of such 1 
 an act? The principle is the same in both caes. The number engaged upon each side of 
 the controversy cannot influence the question here. Equal rights to all are what are intended ! 
 to be secured by the establishment of constitutional limits to legislative power, and impartial 
 tribunals to enforce them. 
 
 "Illustrations might be indefinitely multiplied of the evils which would result from legisla- 
 tion which should exclude one class of citizens from industries lawful in other respects, in> 
 order to protect another class against competition. We cannot doubt that such legislation is 
 violative of the letter as well as of the spirit of the Constitutional provisions before referred; 
 to, nor that such is the character of the enactment under which the appellant was convicted. 
 
 "The judgment of the General Term of the Court of Sessions should be reversed. All 
 concur." (A copy.) H. E. SICKELS, reported per. C. 
 
OLEOMARGARINE AND BUTTERINE. 43, 
 
 THE CIPPERLY CASE. 
 
 (AT. Y. Star, January 24, 1886.) 
 
 The news of the reversal by the Court of Appeals of the decision of the Supreme Court in 
 the case of the People against Arthur Cipperly of Albany was received by the oleomargarine- 
 men with dismay and by the advocates of honest butter with unmitigated satisfaction. While 
 the Cipperly case bears on the sale of adulterated milk, the decision is regarded as thoroughly 
 sustaining the constitutionality of the law of 1885, under which the prosecutions of bogus 
 butter dealers have been conducted. In handing down their decision the Court of Appeals 
 used the following words : 
 
 "Upon the argument of this case, we were of the opinion that the respondent failed to 
 show any ground upon which the judgment appealed from could be supported; but, in view of" 
 the importance of the question raised, and difference in the court below concerning it, topic 
 further time for its consideration. We still think the judgment wrong, and, for reasons suffi- 
 ciently stated by Judge Learned, who dissented in the General Term of the Supreme Court,, 
 the judgment of that court should be reversed and the judgment of the Special Sessions 
 affirmed." 
 
 All concurred except Justice Miller, who was absent. Justice Learned's dissenting opin- 
 ion, upon which the decision of the court was based, is a voluminous document, and opens-, 
 with the assertion that the principle of the case of Wyndham vs. People, as to the destruction 
 of existing property, is not, in his opinion, applicable to the present case. It would be a 
 greater stretch of that principle 'to say that the statute in question deprived persons who owned 
 cows at the time of its passage of their property, because it interfered with or even de- 
 prived them of the use of the milk which the cows might yield. The opinion continues : 
 
 "But the defendant takes the broader ground that the Legislature cannot, under the Con- 
 stitution, prohibit the sale of milk drawn from healthy cows which, in its natural state, falls 
 below the standard fixed by the acts, unless such milk, or the article made from it, is in fact 
 unwholesome or dangerous to public health. How is that question of fact to be determined? 
 The Court cannot take judicial notice whether the milk below the standard is or is not whole- 
 some or dangerous to public health. Is that to be a question for the jury? If so, the Court 
 must charge a jury, in each case, that if they find milk below that standard to be unwholesome 
 then the statute is constitutional. If they find it to be unwholesome, than the statute is uncon- 
 stitutional. Evidently a constitutional question cannot be settled, or rather unsettled, in this> 
 way. The constitutionality would vary with the varying judgment of juries. 
 
 " Either then the Legislature can, under the Constitution, forbid the sale of milk below a 
 certain standard, whether such milk be in fact wholesome or not, or else they cannot do this- 
 whether such milk be in fact wholesome or not. If they may fix a standard, they must judge 
 whether or not milk below that standard is wholesome. The courts can not review that 
 judgment. ' * It cannot, then, be material to the present question whether milk below 
 the standard fixed by the statute is or is not wholesome. The question must be whether the 
 Legislature can establish a standard of purity. * * * Now, it is very plain that courts 
 have nothing to do with the question of the wisdom or even, according to our courts, with the 
 natural justice of any particular law. Courts cannot say that the Legislature has the constitu- 
 tional power to pass a judicious law to regulate the sale of articles of food, but have no con- 
 stitutional power to pass an injudicious law on that subject. An examination of the present 
 law plainly shows that it relates to and is appropriate to promote the public health. Whether 
 its details are wise we do not know. But its object is evident and good. * * * What 
 determined the Legislature to fix this standard we do not know. But it may be supposed that 
 different kinds of food produce different degrees of richness in milk. It may be 
 known to the Legislature that this watery milk supplied as food to children, cheats them 
 with the appearance of nourishment, and deprives them of that nutritious food which they 
 need. It may be known to legislators, then, that milk below the standard which they fix by 
 this law is unsuitable for food and should not be sold. At any rate, all this is a matter for 
 the Legislature. * * * The law is general in its scope; not limited to two cities. The 
 only fault to be found is that it may be unwise, as the defendant claims, to make a certain stand- 
 ard the test, and to forbid the sale of milk below that test. Whether that is wise or not, it is- 
 not for us to say. It is a provision evidently intended for the public health. No other in- 
 tention can be gathered from the law. Plainly no other existed, and in view of the difficulties 
 which surround the attempt to secure wholesome milk to the people, it is by no means certain 
 that the establishing of a definite standard is not a judicious provision." 
 
 With regard to the decision of the Court of Appeals in the Marx case, the oleomargarine 
 test suit, the opinion says : 
 
 " In other words, the object of that law, like that of a protective tariff, was to protect the- 
 home industry of the farmer against the city industry of the manufacturer, and the Court held 
 the law to be void, because it prohibits an important branch of industry for the sole reason: 
 
44 OLEOMARGARINE AN 13 BUTTERINE. 
 
 that it competes with another and may reduce the price of an article of food. Evidently the 
 present law has no such characteristics. It is not intended to prohibit any branch of industry 
 
 or to prevent competition. Its sole object is to regulate and control the quality of a certain 
 article of food in the interest of ; the health of the people; and if the Legislature, knowing the 
 difficulty of guarding against the watering or other adulterations of milk, deem it best to fix a 
 standard of richness, I think this is within their power." 
 
 A leading lawyer, who has made a special study of oleomargarine legislation, said last even- 
 ing: " There are three important points decided by this opinion of Judge Learned, indorsed 
 by the Court of Appeals, thai: are worthy of consideration. These are : First That the Leg- 
 islature has the power to prevent the sale of unwholesome food and drink for human beings. 
 Second That the Legislature is the judge of what is unwholesome, and the courts can only 
 
 declare a law relating to food and drink unconstitutional when the Legislature has exceeded its 
 powers to such an extent that it appears on the face of the statute. No evidence can be given 
 
 .'to prove that the forbidden articles are not unwholesome; and third That those who deal in 
 dairy products must see that they do not violate the law. They cannot prove for any purpose 
 
 that they were ignorant of the fact that they were selling imitation goods. In the Cipperly 
 -case the evidence showed not only that the man did not know he was selling adulterated milk, 
 
 but tha the milk was sold just as it came from the cow. There could not be a stronger case 
 on the want of knowledge than this. This opinion declares that want of knowledge of the law 
 is no defense. Now, the query is a logical one : If the Legislature has the power to fix a stand- 
 ard for milk, why has it not a similar power with regard to butter ?" 
 
 Philip Laracy, of No. 327 Tenth Avenue, and Henry Rothman, of No. 564 Eleventh Avenue, 
 grocers, were arraigned yesterday before Justice Duffy at the Jefferson Market Police Court, 
 ior selling oleomargarine as butter. They were held in $200 bail, the former electing to be 
 tried in the Court of General Sessions and the latter in Special Sessions. 
 
 AN IMPORTANT PENNSYLVANIA DECISION. 
 
 One of the most important decisions with regard to the constitutionality of legislative ac- 
 tion for the protection of publi* health that has recently been made was that rendered by Judge 
 J. W. Simonton, of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, in the case of the Commonwealth against 
 W. L. Powell, a Harrisburg grocer. This tradesman, confident that the prohibitive act passed 
 May 21, 1885, would be declared unconstitutional on appeal, deliberately sold butterine as an 
 article of food. He was arrested and tried in the Court of Quarter Sessions in Dauphin County 
 upon an indictment based upon Section I of the act, which reads : 
 
 " No person, firm, or corporate body shall manufacture out of any oleaginous substance, 
 or any compound of the same other than that produced from pure, unadulterated milk or 
 cream from the same, or any imitation or adulterated butter or cheese, nor sell or offer for sale, 
 or have in his possession with intent to sell the same, as an article of food." 
 
 It was agreed for the purposes of the trial that the defendant sold to the prosecuting wit- 
 ness, in the city of Harrisburg, July 10, 1885, as an article of food, two original packages, con- 
 taining an oleaginous substance and compound other than that produced from pure, unadulter- 
 ated milk and cream from the same, and designed to take the place of butter, and that these 
 packages were sold as butterine, and not as butter. It was further agreed that the defendant 
 had 100 pounds of this substance in his possession, and intended to sell the same, and the 
 identity of the packages produced in court was admitted by the defendant. With this agree- 
 ment and admission the Commonwealth rested, and the defendant endeavored to introduce 
 expert testimony as to the wholesomeness of the compound. To this objection was made, and 
 it was excluded. The case was then submitted to the jury, a verdict of guilty rendered, and 
 the defendant moved for a new trial and an arrest of judgment. 
 
 The points made by the defense were : First, that the act under which he was indicted was 
 unconstitutional, per se; second, that the evidence offered and rejected was relevant to the 
 question of its constitutionality, as applied to the special facts of this case. 
 
 After citing numerous precedents showing that in a suit to declare a law unconstitutional 
 the burden of proof is on the defendant, and that the Legislature may exercise all powers that 
 are properly legislative, Judge Simonton's opinion continues : 
 
 " We have carefully considered the suggestions and arguments offered by his (defendant's) 
 able counsel, intended to show that the power to enact a statute such as the one in question, 
 which, as they contend, deprives the defendant of his facilities and takes from him his means 
 of livelihood, is excepted out of the general grant of the legislative power contained in the Con- 
 stitution, by the express or implied limitations or prohibitions of the Bill of Rights of the body 
 of the Constitution itself. But, assuming for the present that the statute is in its nature legis- 
 lative, we are wholly unable to find any limitation or prohibition which can be successfully 
 pleaded against its enactment or enforcement. P"or, while the Bill of Rights does declare that 
 
OLEOMARGARINE ANI> BUTTERINE. 45 
 
 1 all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent and indefeasible 
 rights, among which are those of enjoying life and liberty, and of acquiring, possessing, and 
 protecting property and reputation, and of pursuing their own happiness,' this has never been 
 construed to be a declaration that these rights are absolute.^ ' Hence, if the act in 
 
 question be legislative in its character, the limitations which it prescribes for the defendant in 
 the acquisition, possession, and use of his property are clearly within the boundary lines drawn 
 by the Constitution, if, in the judgment of the Legislature, these limitations are considered, 
 necessary and expedient for the welfare of the community. And if so, then, in so far as they 
 do, if at all, interfere with the defendant's full enjoyment of his property, this interference re- 
 sults from the law of the land.' " 
 
 Speaking of the decision of the New York Court of Appeals in the Jacobs case, in which a 
 statute prohibiting the making of cigars in tenement houses in certain cases was declared un- 
 constitutional on the ground that it was not a health law, Judge Simonton says: 
 
 " And if we could be satisfied that the object and intent of the act in question here were 
 what the Court of Appeals of New York declared the object and intent of the act before that 
 court to be, we would not hesitate to pronounce it unconstitutional and void. But having in 
 mind the axiom that all the presumptions are in favor of the good faith of a co-ordinate depart- 
 ment of the government, and that to doubt is to be resolved in favor of the validity of its acts, 
 how can we say that it is not the bona fide purpose of this act, as expressed in its title, to pro- 
 tect the public health, and to prevent the adulteration of dairy products and fraud in their sale? 
 And the Legislature having, by passing the act, declared its judgment that the means used are 
 necessary to attain these ends, we cannot review this judgment when exercised in good faith,, 
 for the conclusive reason that it is clearly within the jurisdiction of the Legislature to effect 
 these purposes by appropriate means." 
 
 Here the opinion quotes numerous precedents bearing upon the point, deals with the offer 
 of the defendant to prove by expert witnesses the cleanliness and wholesomeness of the pVod- 
 uct, and his assertion that for its manufacture large investments had been made, this evidence 
 having been excluded, says : " But we are unable to see how the admission of this testimony 
 could have legally changed the result. With respect to the first offer we are by no means 
 prepared to say, even, that an offer to show that oleomargarine butter or butterine is made 
 generally from pure animal fats by a pure and wholesome process, and is as wholesome and 
 nutritious an article of food as genuine butter, would have been relevant. But this we are not 
 now called upon to decide. The offer was made to show merely that the article admitted to 
 have been sold in this case, was such. No one doubts that it might be made as stated in the 
 offer. But it is no less certain that it may be made out ef oleaginous substances that are neither 
 pure nor wholesome. How, then, could evidence that the substance sold in any given case, 
 and admitted to be that proscribed by the act, was pure and wholesome, tend to show that the 
 statute which forbids all sales is unconstitutional?' As well might a defendant who is on trial 
 for selling spirituous liquors in a jurisdiction where all such sales were prohibited, while 
 admitting that he had sold the prohibited article, offer to prove, by way of defense,, that the 
 particular glass of liquor sold was pure and wholesome. Witnesses could be called in almost 
 every case who would be willing so to testify, but no court would admit such testimony for 
 the purpose of showing that a prohibitive statute was unconstitutional. Indeed, the question 
 of'the constitutionality of a statute cannot be determined on the testimony of witnesses, for 
 the very conclusive reason that it is a question of law and not of fact, and must be decided by 
 the Court on quite other grounds than those of the opinions and beliefs of witnesses. We 
 are satisfied that it was not an error to refuse the testimony recited in the first offer. We may 
 here remark that this offer brings into view one of the reasons that impelled the Legislature 
 to pass this act. It states that the amount of butterine in the manufactured article was in- 
 creased by the introduction of milk and cream, and that the only effect of butterine is to give 
 flavor to the butter. Manifestly the purpose was to give this article as nearly as possible 
 the flavor and semblance of butter, so that it might be sold as such by the retailer without de- 
 tection, and no doubt this is the ' fraud in the sale ' which the act was designed to prevent." 
 
 In this case an appeal has been taken to the highest court of the State, and the prediction 
 is hazarded that that court will follow the example of the Court of Appeals of this State in. 
 the Cipperly case, and base its decision upon Judge Simonton's learned opinion. 
 
 EDITORIAL COMMENTS. 
 
 (New York Star, January 5, 1886.) 
 
 The campaign against the bogus butter manufacturers and venders is now pretty certain to> 
 be carried into the Legislatures of several States, if not into Congress itself. Our representa- 
 tives at Washington cannot afford to overlook the great interest that is imperiled by this, 
 traffic that of the dairymen and farmers of the entire country. In 1883 our exports of butter 
 had diminished to 12,348, 640 pounds, which was fully 5, 000,000 pounds less than in the preced.- 
 
.46 OLEOMARGARINE AND BUTTERINE. 
 
 ing year. These figures represent a total aggregate loss of 16,786,680 pounds in five years. 
 In 1879 we exported over 25,000,000 pounds and last year (1885) a little over 10,000,000 
 pounds. A moment's calculation will suffice to show that in another five years our creamery 
 export trade will be literally wiped out by bogus butter. The phenomenal growth of the 
 oleomargarine export trade is seen by a glance at the following figures : 
 
 Pounds, Pounds. 
 
 1880 20,000,000 
 
 1881 26,300,000 
 
 1882 22,000,000 
 
 1883 23,400,000 
 
 1884 39,322,841 
 
 1885 37,882,155 
 
 Here is an increase of 17,000,000 pounds of imitation butter sent to foreign markets, to 
 offset a decrease in the same period of 16,786,680 pounds of genuine butter ! It is not an easy 
 task to show the loss to the foreign trade of the country by the substitution of oleo ; but the 
 most reliable estimates place it at $6,000,000 per annum, taking 1885 as the basis, or .a little 
 over $25,000,000 since 1879, inclusive. This, it should be remembered, is altogether apart 
 from the home question, which deals with the loss to consumers in health and pocket and the 
 flagrant violation of law by the wholesalers and retailers of bogus butter. 
 
 COMMISSIONER COLMAN'S WORK. 
 
 W. Y. Star, January 20, 1886. 
 
 A few days ago we made reference to a most important work to which the administration is 
 devoting a great deal of thought and effort. It is a work in which the whole people are con- 
 cerned, for it touches their daily lives and relates to their closest interests. The adulteration 
 of food in this country is attaining gigantic proportions. It is begining to affect almost every- 
 thing we eat and drink, to touch the sources of our vitality, to taint the blood of our children. 
 It menaces that dearest possession of humanity, health, and spreads over the land the blight 
 of its stealthy and terrible influence. 
 
 The Department of Agriculture has taken up the matter in earnest. W^have already al- 
 luded to the enthusiasm with which Commissioner Colman is combating the abuse, and have 
 given some hints as to the methods whereby he proposes to promote the end he has in view. 
 He has enlisted in the good cause the official chemists of the different States, and those gentle- 
 men are now engaged in the preparation of reports that will set forth not only all the various 
 forms of food adulteration coming within their respective jurisdictions, but will, in addition, 
 present suggestions as to the most practicable way of arresting the evil. Further than this, 
 however, and possibly still more important, is the fact that Professor Wylie, the chief chemist 
 of the department, who is now returning from a business mission in Europe, will bring with 
 him full information as to the methods adopted in France, Germany, and other continental na- 
 tions, for the suppression of food adulteration. Those nations, France especially, have had 
 valuable experience in the direction mentioned, and, it is believed, have attained as nearly to 
 perfect efficiency as could be expected. Professor Wylie's report will be a most important 
 contribution to the work in which Commissioner Colman is engaged. 
 
 It is not possible to overrate the magnitude of this enterprise. The people at large, the' 
 consumers, are being made the victims of a colossal, organized fraud. Those engaged in the 
 legitimate business of supply are being oppressed and injured by dishonest competitors. The 
 situation is deplorable from every point of view, and it should be a matter of pride to all Dem- 
 ocrats that the administration is found to be so prompt and earnest in the work of alleviating 
 its asperities. We are at the mercy or* adulterated milk, butter, cheese, sugar, molasses, and 
 a hundred other articles of daily consumption not excepting infants' food and from this ab- 
 horrent predicament the administration proposes to extricate us. We believe that Commis- 
 sioner Colman will be able to formulate a bill effectually covering the whole ground and point- 
 ing out a way by which food adulteration may be robbed of its most injurious features, if not 
 wholly and permanently suppressed. We do not doubt that Congress will, in the interests of 
 the public welfare, enact the law almost without a dissenting voice. 
 
 THE BOGUS BUTTER BUSINESS. 
 
 WHO FAVOR AND WHO OPPOSE IT A STRONG PRESENTATION OF THE CASE. 
 
 N. Y. Times, January, 19, 1886. 
 
 If the people of this State should be required to voio upon the question whether or not 
 merchants should be allowed to sell bogus butter for real butter, how many would be willing 
 to be counted on the affirmative side ? If they should be required to express by vote their 
 opinion as to the propriety of forbidding by law the manufacture of bogus butter, how many 
 would stand up and be counted on the side of the manufacturers ? We cannot assume that any 
 
OF THE 
 COLLEGE OF 
 
 OLEOMARGARINE AND BUTTERINE. 47 
 
 one in this State would deliberately and openly favor by vote such deception in trade as is used 
 by those who palm off upon consumers bogus butter for real butter. Upon the second ques- 
 tion, as to preventing manufacture or sale, prohibition would be favored by every farmer in 
 the State and by every consumer not personally interested in the bogus butter business. That 
 is to say, there would be arrayed in opposition to 5,000,000 of people a few scores of persons 
 who are engaged in making bogus butter or in selling it, or who depend in some way, directly 
 or indirectly, on this "industry" for support. The people do not want the stuff, and they will 
 not use it if they can help it. Nevertheless, it is made in this city and in other parts of the 
 State in enormous quantities, and thousands of packages imported from other States are sold 
 here every month. 
 
 To the consumer it comes as real butter. The manufacturer and the wholesale dealer sell 
 it for what it is, of course, and the retail dealer may occasionally sell it for what it is to the 
 proprietor of a boarding house or a restaurant, but to those who eat it the stuff is presented as 
 real butter, for the excellent reason that if it were presented as anything else they would not use 
 it. Yet there are newspapers that talk about " denying the people the right to use a food pro- 
 duct of their own choice !" The annual report of Dairy Commissioner Brown should be read 
 with satisfaction by the people of New York, because it shows that he has made commendable 
 progress in the work of enforcing the laws against those who swindle consumers by selling 
 them bogus butter for the real product of the dairy. After the Court of Appeals had declared 
 the law prohibiting manufacture and sale to be unconstitutional dealers boldly defied all other 
 laws relating to this subject. The commissioner has reminded them of the existence of these 
 laws, and the cases of nearly 200 persons who have been prosecuted are pending in the courts. 
 Fines to the amount of nearly $2,300 have been collected. We hope that in the current year 
 the commissioner will be able, by vigorous prosecution, to put an end to the sale of bogus 
 butter by deception and fraud. 
 
 Those who have been retained to defend the manufacturers of the several compounds that 
 masquerade in the form and semblance of butter declare that the stuff is wholesome. They do 
 not go so far as to defend the deception, without which the product of the factories could not 
 be sold, but their plea is that the stuff will harm no one who is led by deception to eat it. The 
 commissioner submits a special report, made by Dr. Clark, who has been at work for nearly a 
 year as an expert in this field. His conclusion is that for several reasons bogus butter is un- 
 wholesome and dangerous to health. Manufacturers who are eager to make a cheap product 
 use unwholesome fats and ingredients that cannot fail to injure the consumer. Dr. Clark's 
 list of acids, oils, and other substances used by the manufacturers can be greatly prolonged by 
 adding the names of substances specified in the patents issued for the various processes. It is 
 possible that in some place there is made bogus butter that will not harm the person who eats 
 it. But in most cases the manufacturer's aim is to produce an article that will look well and 
 sell for a price that will hold the market for him against competitors. The fraudulent com- 
 pounds are manufactured under no restrictions except those imposed by the maker's conscience 
 and the demands of the trade. Under these conditions what must be the nature of the product ? 
 
 There is no room for argument upon the proposition that bogus butter should be sold for 
 just what it is and not for a dairy product. A rigid enforcement of the laws forbidding any 
 other disposition of the stuff is demanded in the interests of public health, our export trade in 
 dairy products and our dairy industry, and for the support of honesty in trade. Those who try 
 to thwart the execution of these laws are the enemies of the people. 
 
 AN ABSURD STATEMENT. 
 
 A\ Y. Times, Jan. 28, 1886. 
 
 A few days ago the Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the General Term of the 
 Supreme Court in the case of the People against Arthur Cipperly, thereby declaring the 
 law forbidding the sale of adulterated or unwholesome milk to be constitutional. The judgment 
 of the court below was overturned, the Court of Appeals said, "for reasons sufficiently stated 
 by Judge Learned," who had submitted a dissenting opinion. In this opinion, thus indorsed 
 by the Court of Appeals, Judge Learned was led to speak of the upper court in the Marx 
 case, which declared the law forbidding the manufacture or sale of imitation butter to be un- 
 constitutional. 
 
 "The object of that law, like that of a protective tariff," wrote Judge Learned, "was to 
 protect the home industry of the farmer against the city industry of the manufacturer, and the 
 court held the law to be void because it prohibits an important branch of industry for the sole 
 reason that it competes with another, and may reduce *he price of an article of food." On the 
 other hand, he declared that the milk law's "sole object" was to "regulate and control the 
 quality of a certain article of food in the interest of the health of the people." 
 
 It is not true that the object of the prohibitory law against imitation butter was " to pro- 
 tect the home industry of the farmer against the city industry of the manufacturer," and a 
 
48 OLEOMARGARINE AND BUTTERINE. 
 
 thousand assertions by Judges of the Supreme Court, indorsed by the Court of Appeals, can- 
 not make it true. The imitation butter law which the court has rejected was, like other laws 
 CK the same subject that are still in force, enacted for the protection of the consumer. Legis- 
 lation against imitation butter has been demanded for the protection of the people. It is true 
 that the dairy interests have suffered, and still suffer, by reason of the manufacture and sale- 
 of the imitation, and that the laws have been supported by the farmers, but primarily they 
 were enacted for the benefit of the people who eat butter, to prevent them from being deceived 
 and from bein- fed with an unwholesome product. 
 
 The farmers who make butter may reasonably help the consumer in his contest with the 
 bogus butter men, for the quantity of butter exported has fallen from nearly 40,000,000 pounds 
 in 1880 to only 21,683,000 pounds in 1885, while the quantity of imitation butter and oleo oil 
 exported has risen to 37,882,000 pounds. The consumer in the city or in the country, has a 
 right to demand that he shall not be deceived by those who sell him food, and that stuff that 
 will undermine his health shall not be palmed off upon him as a genuine product of the dairy. 
 The trade in bogus butter thrives on deceit and lives by deceit alone, and no amount of talk 
 from judges or paid attorneys about competition and the trade's "importance as an industry " 
 can convince intelligent people that it is opposed by no one except the makers of real butter. 
 
 A MERCHANT ON BOGUS BUTTER. 
 
 N. Y. Star, Jan. 26, 1886. 
 
 From mercantile circles on every side, no less than from private consumers, The Star 
 continues to receive emphatic indorsements of the crusade it has opened up in the interest of 
 pure and healthful food products and against adulteration. One of the best-known commission 
 merchants in New York, who has been for many years prominently identified with the butter 
 trade, writes us as follows : 
 
 NEW YORK, Jan. 20. 
 
 To THE EDITOR OF THE STAR SIR : Your editorial in this morning's issue on Com- 
 missioner Colman's work is an excellent one. Too much stress cannot be placed upon your 
 own words. They are as follows: "The people at large the consumers are being made 
 victims of a colossal organized fraud. Those engaged in the legitimate business of supply are 
 being oppressed and injured by dishonest competitors. The situation is deplorable from every 
 point of view." 
 
 The Democratic party could do nothing better for the country than to wipe out this gigantic 
 fraud. Pure food products can be produced far in excess of home consumption. There is no 
 excuse in the world for feeding our people so much contemptible trash. It is destroying the 
 confidence of foreign nations in the purity of our food products and our integrity as merchants. 
 
 I hope The S tar will continue to agitate the question, that our law-makers in this country- 
 may see the necessity of stringent means regulating the sale of adulterated products. 
 
 Very respectfully, JAMES H. SEYMOUR. 
 
 Mr. Seymour's is not an isolated case of opposition to the vicious and unwholesome traffic 
 in counterfeit butter. Mr. F. B. Thurber, the largest wholesale produce merchant in the East, 
 several weeks ago wrote to The Starihat his firm had refused to sell oleomargarine, or butter 
 substitutes, being unwilling to share in the odium attached to the traffic. This was followed 
 by the combined action of the retail Grocers' Union, which decided to sell no more counterfeit 
 butter, and even urged the Legislature to pass a law compelling dealers in the stuff to color it 
 blue or pink. Since that time the war has extended into a dozen States. Reputable dealers 
 everywhere are falling into line ; they cannot afford to withstand the overwhelming tide of pub 
 lie condemnation that has set in against adulterated butter in every shape. People have had 
 their eyes opened to the real character of the deceptive compounds they have been consuming 
 for several years past under the pleasant delusion that it was the genuine creamery product 
 they saw shining in yellow, tempting rolls on their breakfast and dinner tables. They refuse 
 longer to be poisoned by slow degrees, in order that the manufacturers of bogus butter may 
 become rapidly rich on their snug profit of four or five hundred per cent. Congress has the 
 whole subject of butter adulteration before it, and the State legislatures are preparing to do 
 their share of the task of conserving the general health and stopping the raid on the public's 
 pocket. All the signs point to the conclusion that bogus butter, as a salable article of food, 
 must go. 
 
 We commend to the members of our State Legislature the views of such gentlemen as 
 Messrs. Seymour and^Thurber, which ought to possess considerable weight in this connection. 
 The people expect that the Legislature will do its whole duty in the premises and adopt such 
 a measure as will protect equally the legitimate producer of honest butter and the general con- 
 sumer from further imposition by the manufacturers and retailers of poisonous imitations. 
 
OLEOMARGARINE AND BUTTERINE. 49 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 COMMISSIONER BROWN'S REPLY TO THE SENATE. 
 
 On the 9th of March, 1886, the Senate of the State of New York adopted a resolution 
 requesting the Sta'e Dairy Commissioner to furnish certain information relative to the work 
 of his department. The first of the questions propounded was as to the number of prosecu- 
 tions since May I, 1885, for violations of the dairy laws ; second, the number of complaints 
 made against different citizens of the State in regard to which actions have not been begun ; 
 third, the names and residences of the assistants, attorneys, experts, chemists, etc., employed 
 by the department; and fourth, asking special information with f regard to the case against 
 Daniel Kerin, in which an adverse decision was rendered. 
 
 In his reply, which was presented to the Senate on March 18, Commissioner Brown said r 
 
 " Early in the first year of my administration of the affairs of this department, I found that 
 the time of district attorneys of New York and Kings Counties was so fully occupied in the 
 prosecution and enforcement of the criminal laws in their respective counties that it was impos- 
 sible for them to give that attention to the attempt to enforce the statutes with reference to 
 imitation, impure and adulterated dairy products, which in my judgment was necessary to- 
 secure the arrest, trial, and conviction of those who have been guilty of violating the provisions 
 of those statutes. 
 
 "I therefore employed attorneys to assist in this work who were acceptable to, and could 
 therefore work in complete harmony with, the district attorneys. This subject is referred to 
 on page 6 of my first annual report to the Legislature. Section 19 of Chapter 183 of the Laws 
 of 1885 prescribes penalties for violations of the statute in addition to fines which may be 
 imposed by the criminal courts. 
 
 " I was advised by the district attorneys of two dairy counties to bring suits for those 
 penalties, and believing that violations of our law could be more certainly prevented and 
 offenders more surely punished, I determined to have suits commenced and prosecuted for 
 the penalties prescribed. I referred the whole matter of these proposed prosecutions and of 
 the employment of attorneys to my general counsel, Messrs. Risley, Quin & Perry, whose, 
 opinion upon the subject is hereto annexed. 
 
 " This opinion, holding that it was the duty of the Dairy Commissioner to employ counsel! 
 in all prosecutions, and that it was not the duty of the Attorney- General to do this work, was. 
 submitted to that officer, Hon. Denis O'Brien, and he concurred in the conclusions to whichv 
 my counsel arrived in the opinion hereto annexed. 
 
 ' During the previous year proceedings had been instituted and conducted by different 
 attorneys in several different counties, which involved so much care and attention to keep 
 track of and direct the litigation that I decided to have all actions for penalties brought by 
 some one attorney or firm, in order that at any time I could easily possess myself of all the 
 facts relating to this branch of the service throughout the State. 
 
 " It was my purpose, as soon as the pleadings were served and a case ready for trial, to 
 send the papers to some competent attorney in the county where the venue was laid, which in 
 all cases must be the county in which the defendant resided, that causes might be actually 
 tried by local counsel on fair terms to be agreed upon." 
 
50 OLEOMARGARINE AND BUTTERINE. 
 
 Appended to the report was the opinion of Risley, Quin & Perry, to the effect that the 
 Dairy Commissioner was authorized to employ such counsel as he deemed necessary, and 
 that he was not justified in casting the burden of this special litigation upon the Attorney- 
 General. 
 
 In conclusion, Commissioner Brown says : 
 
 " From these statements it appears that there have been two hundred and sixty-three 
 actual criminal prosecutions instituted and fifty civil suits brought for penalties for violations 
 of the statute with the enforcement of which I am charged. 
 
 "A penalty of $100 has been paid without suit in sixteen different cases. In this con- 
 nection it should be stated that evidence of violations of the statutes mentioned has been 
 obtained in something over two hundred different cases, principally for violations of the milk 
 sections of the statute, upon which, as yet, no complaints have been made or proceedings 
 actually commenced. 
 
 " Under Section 19 of Chapter 183, Laws of 1885, civil suits may be brought by the 
 Dairy Commissioner to recover penalties therein fixed in addition to the fines to be imposed 
 in criminal proceedings against offenders, not less than five hundred such suits might have 
 been brought within the tWelve months last past ; but it was deemed unwise and unsafe to 
 plunge the State into such enormous litigation until the courts has passed upon some of the 
 cases now pending. If the Dairy Commissioner is in duty bound to bring suits for penalties 
 in all those cases, it will be seen that his time must of necessity be pretty fully occupied. If 
 suits for these penalties are only to be brought, in such cases as the Commissioner shall deem 
 proper, that officer will often be charged with favoritism and injustice however faithfully and 
 wisely he may discharge his official duty in the matter. Whether the statute can be amended 
 so as to relieve the Commissioner from such a serious responsibility and protect the State 
 against the unwise use of such unlimited discretion or power without taking from the Com- 
 missioner the authority which he needs in order to vigorously enforce the laws, is a question 
 for the Legislature in its wisdom to determine. 
 
 "In the foregoing statement made by Assistant Commissioner Van Valkenburgh, it 
 appears that, in several instances, cases made against manufacturers and wholesale dealers in 
 imitation butter were presented to the grand jury, and indictments were refused. I am 
 informed that such refusal was placed upon the ground that those parties made and sold the 
 article for what it really was and not for genuine dairy butter. 
 
 "Civil suits have been brought against several of these persons, but the cases not being 
 of the class of preferred causes, they have not yet been reached, although we hope to bring 
 them to trial very soon. Large numbers of retail dealers were continually selling imitation 
 butter to the people for the genuine, and I have proceeded with all the vigor and force practi- 
 cable to cause the arrest and punishment of all this class of offenders, and at the same time 
 pushing forward as rapidly as possible the cases against manufacturers and wholesalers. 
 
 " It is further shown in the foregoing documents and statements that the sum of $53,403.80 
 have been expended up to March I, 1886. To this sum must be added, to show the entire 
 sum expended and incurred, and which is not called for by the resolution nor stated herein, 
 the salary and expenses of the Commissioner, the traveling and other expenses of the assistant 
 commissioners, agents, experts, etc., in the performance of their official duties, amounts paid 
 for suspected samples purchased, for chemicals, apparatus, etc., necessarily purchased, for 
 postage, printing and other necessary incidental expenses, as audited and allowed by the 
 Comptroller, which will increase the sum above stated by several thousand dollars. 
 
 " For the further information of the Senate, I have annexed the retocopies of the opinion 
 of the court in the case of The People vs. Daniel Kerin, and also in the case of The People vs. 
 Benjamin J, Hill, both of which were decided at the General Term of the Supreme Court, 
 First Department, January, 1886." 
 
OLEOMARGARINE AND BUTTERINE. 51 
 
 With regard to the adverse decision in the Kerin case, the opinion cf Messrs. Risley, 
 'Quin & Perry says : 
 
 " The submission in the Kerin case was, as we have stated, under the advice of one of our 
 firm. The Commissioner did not know of it at the time of its submission. The case was 
 finally submitted by the district attorney in accordance with our suggestion. After the agree- 
 ment for the submission had been made and the case submitted, the Cipperly decision was 
 made by the Court of Appeals, which apparently held the precise point involved in this case, 
 as we understand its effect. The indictment against Arensburgh, involving the constitution- 
 ality of Section 7, was tried on January 6, 1886, and a conviction obtained against him for 
 selling oleomargarine. The judge before whom it was tried, and the assistant district attor- 
 ney who tried the case, took a little different view of the construction of Section 7 from that 
 which we have argued. No question was raised, however, by the defendant's counsel in that 
 Tespect. The case has been submitted on appeal to the General Term of the Second Depart- 
 ment. An early and favorable decision is anticipated." 
 
 COMMISSION MERCHANTS' PROTEST. 
 
 THEY EXPRESS THEIR OPPOSITION TO ANY REDUCTION OF THE APPROPRIATION 
 FOR THE DAIRY DEPARTMENT. 
 
 In March last the leading butter merchants sent the following communication to members 
 of the Legislature. It explains itself : 
 
 We, the undersigned dealers of Dairy Products of .this city, in view of the fact that the 
 Senate Committee on Finance having reported in favor of reducing the Assembly Appropri- 
 ation for the Dairy Commission of $75,000 to $50,000, which in our judgment is a serious 
 mistake, as it is within our knowledge that the Dairy Commission have used every effort 
 within their power to enforce the Oleomargarine law, and have accomplished a great deal in 
 protecting the consumer against being defrauded. 
 
 It is a question beyond dispute that the enforcement of the law has saved to the Dairy 
 interest of this State not less than one and a half millions of dollars during the past six 
 months. In our opinion, the experience obtained by the Commission how to deal with this 
 gigantic fraud is of incalculable value. Any change whatever in the law or execution of the 
 same would be detrimental to the Dairy interest and to the consumer of the Dairy product. 
 We are aware of the obstructions the Commission have had to contend with in the courts, 
 and especially in dealing with the manufacturers, the courts having shown a disposition to 
 await the decision of the General Term before proceeding with any more trials of cases. ' The 
 bogus butter interest is watching our action closely, and any move on the part of the Legislature 
 to disturb the Dairy Commission in any way whatever would be exceedingly gratifying to 
 them. The Dairy interest and the consumers will hold you responsible. 
 
 We earnestly request that the appropriation be made $75,000 and the Commission be 
 not disturbed. 
 
 Signed, 
 MACKENZIE, CHASE & Co., 92 Warren St. i F. C. BARGER & Co., 82 Warren St. 
 
 EGBERT & CASE, 80 Warren St.. 
 McBRiDE & Co., 74 Warren St. 
 JNO. S. MARTIN & Co., 168 Chambers St. 
 HUNTER, WALTON & Co., 168 Chambers St. 
 
 CHAS. S. BROWN & Co., 84 Warren St. 
 CHAS. H. ZINN & Co., 94 Warren St. 
 W. H. DUCKWORTH, 319 Washington St. 
 HENRY HANSON & Co., 90 Warren St. 
 
OLEOMARGARINE AND BUTTERINE, 
 
 FOLSOM & BENNETT, 70 Warren St. 
 
 JOHN A. SMITH & BRO., 279 Washington St. 
 
 LLOYD I. SEAMAN & Co., 313 Washington St. 
 
 B. F. TUTHILL & Co., 191 Duane St. 
 
 JAS. H. FANCHER, 69 & 71 Clinton Market. 
 TRELEASE & UNDERHILL, 22 Jay St. 
 JOHN H. MEYER, 323 Washington St. 
 L. F. DODD, 325 Washington St. 
 QUICK & REED, 327 Washington St. 
 LUTZ & OETJEN, 331 Washington St. 
 W. F. REDLICH, 332 Washington St. 
 A. M. COLLIGNON, 330 Washington St. 
 
 C. F. GLIMM, 322 & 324 Washington St. 
 W. P. WILDER & Co., 312 Washington St. 
 NELSON SECOR, 189 Duane St. 
 
 G. D. AHRLING & Co., 193 Duane St. 
 H. HENNEBERGER, 317 Washington St. 
 HARRY DOWIE, JR., 316 Washington St. 
 W. H. B. TOTTEN, 291 Washington St. 
 I. H. MACBRIDE, 304 Greenwich St. 
 JAMES H. SEYMOUR & Co., 159 Chambers St. 
 VAN VALKENBURGH & RONK, 350 Washing- 
 ton St. 
 
 JOHN A. WILLETT & Co., 137 Reade St. 
 BROWN & RITTENHOUSE, 139 Reade St. 
 L. B. MILLER & SON, 145 Reade St. 
 JOHN K. LASHER & BRO., 147 Reade St. 
 WM. B. A. JURGENS, 179 Boerum Street,. 
 
 Brooklyn. 
 
 W. I. YOUNG & Co., 149 Reade St. 
 S. C. BRUSH, 149 Reade St. 
 CHAS. M. HOWE, 149 Reade St. 
 M. J. GRAHAM, 151 Reade St. 
 C. E. BLISS, 153 Reade St. 
 FISHER & RITTENHOUSE, 154 Reade St. 
 GERKEN & BURMEISTER, 154 Reade St. 
 G. W. DEMAREST'S SONS, 148 Reade St. 
 JOHN KOSTER, SON & Co., 146 Reade St. 
 WM. H. LUDLUM, 144 Reade St. 
 NICHOLS BROTHERS, 142 Reade St. 
 TARBOX & CRANDALL, 140 Reade St. 
 A. J. D. WEDEMEYER & Co. 394 Greenwich 
 
 Street. 
 
 ENYARD & BAIN, 188 Chambers St. 
 SEYMOUR & NOE, 176 Chambers St. 
 JOHN GUTH, 162 Chambers St. 
 
BHS 
 
 TO 
 
 LOANTERiOD 1 
 
YC 20727 
 
 IVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY