The establishment of the dairy and food commission did not halt the efforts of the oleomargarine interests to dispose of their products as butter. I would like to quote from the biennial report of Dairy and Food Commissioner Berndt Anderson to Gov. Knute Nelson and the Legislature of the State of Minnesota, which report covered the period of August 1, 1892, to July 31, 1894:

When the interstate commerce law went into effect, oleomargarine was packed in tubs of from 40 to 60 pounds each, and according to the rulings of the Interstate Commerce Commission, it could not be seized while in the hands of the agents of the manufacturers while the original package was unbroken, but that as soon as it was broken or was sold or transferred to the third party, it immediately entered into the commerce of the State and became liable to seizure and to the laws of the State. It soon became apparent to the manufacturers that the large size of their packages seriously affected their sale, knowing full well that the stuff could not be retailed, and that dealers only could handle such large packages. So, in order to evade the law, they have since shipped it in packages containing from 10 to 60 pounds and delivering it directly to the consumers in such quantities as is desired. It has therefore been shipped in packages that were sewed up in burlaps, but this method has been abandoned and the smaller packages adopted; the tubs used are as near in imitation of the ordinary butter tubs as they can be made and many of them are branded as "Kansas Dairy" and "Kansas Creamery," etc., and in every instance are placed upon the market in as close imitation of the product of the creamery as it is possible to get it.

Were it not for the original-package clause of the interstate commerce law, it would be much easier to get evidence that would materially assist in obtaining convictions in our courts. However, all the cases we have now on our hands are those wherein the parties have violated the State or the interstate laws. They evidently felt that as their position as agents was impregnable, they would go a step further, but in so doing they made their mistake, and the courts will decide the matter.

These methods of placing it on the market have seriously hampered the department in its work, and while our laws give us jurisdiction over stores, hotels, boarding houses, etc., we have no right to enter the sacred precincts of a private home and make seizures. When our inspectors commenced their raids the past fall, they found a very unsatisfactory state of affairs. It seemed as if many of the boarding houses, restaurants, and some of the hotels had all at once decided to substitute "bull butter" for the genuine article. The work of seizure commenced at once both in St. Paul and Minneapolis. The result was that the department was the richer by several tons of soap grease than at the start. The raid was also taken up at Duluth and a rich haul was made there. Some of the parties pled guilty and paid their fines, others, to avoid notoriety, relinquished all claims to what was captured and about a dozen have concluded to let their cases go to the courts for settlement, which cases are now pending.

The problem of enforcing oleomargarine laws continued to be an ever-present problem. I will not take the time to discuss our enforcement work from year to year, but let me cite a few more instances: In 1918 our laboratory received samples of oleomargarine which were found to be in imitation of yellow butter. Some of these samples included Oak Grove manufactured by Friedmann Manufacturing Co., Chicago, Ill.; Marigold, by Morris & Co., of Duluth, Minn.; Excelsior, by Friedmann & Co.; Good Luck, by John F. Jelke & Co., Chicago, Ill.; Dairy, by G. H. Hammond & Co., of Chicago, Ill.; and Downey's Delight, by James F. Downey Co., of Chicago, Ill.

In 1924 we had a number of court cases which included the following:

State v. J. L. Kopacek, Brook Park: Fined $15 for serving oleomargarine at meals in place of butter without displaying signs.

State v. Larson & Johnson, Albert Lea: Fined $15 for selling oleomargarine for butter.

State v. John Sargeant, Minneapolis: Fined $25 for fraudulent advertising of oleomargarine as country roll butter.

Two counts against Dubener's Cash Store, St. Paul: Fined $15 for selling oleomargarine labeled "to contain butter" when same did not contain butter; and $25 for selling oleomargarine as country rolls.

Two counts against the Piggly Wiggly Corporation, St. Paul: First, fined $15 for selling oleomargarine labeled "to contain butter" which contained no butter; second, fined $25 for selling oleomargarine as country-butter rolls.

The sections of the Federal statute providing for a 10-cent per pound tax on colored oleomargarine which H. R. 2400 would repeal, has been a great help in protecting the consuming public against the fraudulent sale of oleomargarine in imitation of butter and has greatly facilitated enforcement of State laws with reference to the sale of oleomargarine. While that law does not prohibit the sale of colored oleomargarine, the manufacture of colored oleomargarine has become negligible. The one-fourth cent a pound tax on uncolored oleomargarine has not destroyed its manufacture, and the public has at all times been able to buy this product. It has never been the purpose of enforcement officials to prevent the people from buying any products which are not harmful or adulterated but it has been their purpose in enforcing laws and regulations to see that a fraud is not practiced on the public. If the 10-cent tax on colored oleomargarine is repealed and colored oleomargarine replaces uncolored oleomargarine on the grocers' shelves, the public will be practically unable to distinguish the oleomargarine from butter, and the doors will be wide open for fraudulent sales. The only people that would be able to tell with certainty whether a given product were butter or oleomargarine would be the chemists. For this reason we protest the enactment of H. R. 2400.

STATEMENT OF HENRY J. HOFFMAN, CHIEF CHEMIST, STATE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, DAIRY AND FOOD DIVISION, ST. PAUL, MINN.

The history of this department is so closely linked with the history of oleomargarine that we feel any statements we make herein with respect to the present intentions of the oleomargarine interests are made because of our thorough knowledge of the tactics which have always been employed by this industry.

In 1881 the Minnesota Legislature passed an act entitled "An Act to regulate the traffic in oleomargarine"; and from 1881 until 1885 attempts were made to regulate the traffic in this product without a sufficient law-enforcing agency to administer the provisions of this act.

In 1885 the legislature became cognizant of the inefficiency of the old law and enacted chapter 149, Laws 1885. This law provided for a State dairy commissioner to enforce the provisions of this law and he was to be assisted by a chemist and an assistant commissioner. Since that time the commissioner has always had a chemist to assist in the enforcement of this department's duties.

In those early years when oleomargarine first appeared upon the market the manufacturers made no attempt to sell their product as oleomargarine but sold it as butter. They did everything in their power to cause the consumer to feel that he was getting genuine butter when in fact he was receiving oleomargarine. The fraud ex

tended not only to the wholesale and retail sales, but was extremely prevalent in eating places. In those days, all oleomargarine was colored, for the intention was to deceive. Thus it is seen from the very inception of this product the attempt was made not to sell it on its merits, but to palm it off as butter.

It was only natural that Minnesota should be one of the first States to take action against this fraud because it is one of the Nation's leading dairy States. The 1885 legislature of the State of Minnesota also enacted this law to prevent the financial fraud which was being perpetrated on the people of this State. The fact that this type of fraud is difficult of detection by the layman is further emphasized by the legislature's action in providing for a chemist and a laboratory to enforce the provisions of this act. Even in those days it was recognized that a chemist's opinion and testimony would be necessary in order to convict the wrongdoer.

In 1886 the Federal Government recognized the necessity of regulating the traffic in oleomargarine and as a result the National Oleomargarine Act was passed in that year.

Minnesota was not the only State which had experienced the substitution of oleomargarine for dairy butter. Records of enforcement officials and the courts show that this has been a common practice throughout the country. In 1931 Federal authorities discovered that colored oleomargarine was sold in Pennsylvania and was labeled "pure creamery butter," and in 1934 the same agencies located a complete establishment on a farm near Hartford, Conn., which was turning out 3,000 to 4,000 pounds of colored oleomargarine weekly. Later in the same year the Federal agents discovered that a considerable amount of oleomargarine, printed and sold as butter, was being shipped into St. Louis from certain Illinois creameries. According to Government reports all of this oleomargarine was disposed of as butter. Thus it can be seen that the practice of disposing of colored oleomargarine as butter was Nation-wide, and further, was being done in fairly recent times.

The legal history of this department is evidence that the oleomargarine interests resented the new Minnesota law of 1885. Instead of attempting to comply with the new law and sell oleomargarine on its merits and uncolored, the packers of the product continued to ship into the State colored oleomargarine, and attempted on many occasions to sell it as butter. As a result of this action, this department made many seizures of this product and started court action against the violators. One of these cases was finally carried to the Supreme Court; and in the case of Butler v. Chambers in 1886 (36 Minn. 69) the Supreme Court of the State of Minnesota held the law to be valid and a legitimate exercise of the police powers of the State.

During the next few years additional laws were enacted in an effort to finally stamp out the fraud of substitution of oleomargarine for butter. In 1891 the State of Minnesota enacted the so-called pink law. This law required oleomargarine to be colored pink so that there could be no possible deception to the public. This law remained in effect until 1899 when it was repealed and oleomargarine was then permitted to be sold uncolored and statutes were enacted which are, to all practical purposes, similar to our present law.

With the enactment of these drastic laws of the late eighties and early nineties in this State and the resultant difficulty of maintaining any adequate supplies of colored oleomargarine within the State, the manufacturers moved their headquarters into the State of Wisconsin, centering them in and about Superior, Wis. In this era of Minnesota's history there was a tremendous transient population in the logging and lumber camps and in the mining camps of northern Minnesota. Because of the nature of the location of these camps and the difficulty of getting to them, it was an excellent place to dispose of large quantities of oleomargarine colored to resemble butter. The fact that the dealers continued to try and dispose of their colored oleomargarine in this manner indicates that at all times the thought has been in their minds to reap the large profits that could be obtained by disposing of their product as butter. There can be no doubt that the sales of oleomargarine would have been practically nil had the lumbermen and miners, and in fact any purchaser, known the true nature of the product.

Due to the diligent action of our department, the sales of oleomargarine that were represented as butter gradually decreased; and during the era from 1900 to approximately 1915 the great bulk of oleomargarine which was sold was truthfully represented. Stringent labeling laws and licensing requirements were successful in enforcing the provisions of the law so that the public would be well aware of the true nature of any oleomargarine they purchased. Most of the violations. still occurred in public eating places where colored oleomargarine was served at meals and represented to be butter. During the last war when prices skyrocketed the tendency to dispose of oleomargarine as butter again became prevalent. The records of the department show a great increase in the sale of colored oleomargarine during the last war. The reason for this was that the great profits which could be obtained because of the high price of butter made the risk a worth while one for the law violator. The accompanying table, showing the violations both prior to and during the last war demonstrates the truth of these statements.

TABLE I.-Table showing number of samples of butter analyzed and number and percent to consist of oleomargarine

TABLE II.—Table showing number of samples of oleomargarine analyzed and number and percent found colored

As is well known, the era of prosperity generated by the last war continued on until the depression years of the early thirties. During all of this time there was a considerable sale of colored oleomargarine which gradually tapered off as the price of butter declined. When butter had reached its extremely low price in 1932, there was no sale of colored oleomargarine in Minnesota because the risks involved were no longer worth while from a financial standpoint.

This situation has remained up until the present time, but once again with the price on the upgrade, it has become apparent to the distributors of oleomargarine what tremendous profits could accrue to them if they could dispose of their product with artificial color added to it. Today, in addition to the artificial color which they wish to add, they also wish to add imitation flavor and other ingredients which will so closely make their product resemble butter in all characteristics that they feel quite confident that the layman will be unable to distinguish their product from butter. The experienced regulatory official is well aware of this fact and that is the reason he is opposed to the coloring of oleomargarine. From an economic standpoint he feels that it is his duty to assure to the layman genuine butter when he pays the price for it and because of the past history of oleomargarine he feels confident that any relaxing of the present oleomargarine law will only allow history to repeat itself and that once again oleomargarine will be sold to the public as butter.

The regulatory official is only too familiar with the statements and arguments which are presented by interests which, when they feel the time is ripe, seek to have legislation enacted which they know only too well is for the benefit of themselves and which is offered in the guise of being a benefit to the American public.

The case of the substitution of oleomargarine for butter is the reason for the existence of the Minnesota State Department of Agriculture, Dairy, and Food, for this department was created originally to suppress not oleomargarine sold on its merits, but oleomargarine sold to the public as butter.

Today we have the case of cottonseed oil and corn oil being substituted for olive oil. There are many current court actions taken by many States and the Federal Government which involve the substitution of these cheaper oils for olive oil. The olive oil interests in this