ing against many handicaps now, a few of them, shortage of labor, transportation, and so forth. While much of our butter and cheese is being sent to foreign nations yet they are trying to cope with the problems realizing that a shortage of butter exists for the civilians. So why make it harder for them?

The different organizations all can have their say about the value of oleo as a substitute. It is true we are having to use same, but I say there is no substitute that can take the place of pure butter made from the cream of the milk from the ordinary cow. It is absurd to expect all our people to believe that oleo has the same nutritious value.

REPORT WRITTEN BY MRS. L. B. SHAFFER, CHAIRMAN, LEGISLATION, MINNESOTA FEDERATION OF WOMEN'S CLUBS, NOVEMBER 5, 1943

Mr. Henry J. Hoffman, chief chemist in the Dairy and Food Division of the State of Minnesota was the speaker at a luncheon meeting at the Curtis Hotel on November 5, arranged by the Minnesota Federation of Women's Clubs. Mr. Hoffman explained the Fulmer bill, now up for hearings at Washington, which relates to withdrawal of regulations on the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine.

The guest list included the following leaders in the Minnesota Federation of Women's Clubs: Mrs. George W. Sugden, State president; Mrs. R. I. C. Prout, past State president, Michigan Federation, and General Federation Women's Clubs nutrition chairman; Mrs. L. R. Upham, past State president and State war service chairman; Mrs. Sam Rask, past State president and State agriculture chairman; Mrs. A. N. Satterlee, State chairman of consumer problems; Mrs. H. Lester Davies, fifth district president; Mrs. C. M. Colestock, fourth district president; Mrs. E. C. Enbody, past fifth district president; Mrs. R. W. Bradfield, fifth district legislative chairman; Mrs. Fred T. Swanson, fourth district consumer problems chairman; Mrs. Stella Cussons, chairman, fifth district education department; Mrs. A. M. Burnett, fifth district agriculture chairman; Mrs. Perry W. Copeland, fourth district nutrition chairman; and Mrs. Lester B. Shaffer, State legislative chairman.

A motion was made and carried that this group notify the House Agriculture Committee in Washington that they recommend that existing tax on oleomargarine be retained and that they oppose the passing of the Fulmer bill.

It was also moved that all clubs comprising the Minnesota Federation be informed of this action and that their cooperation be sought.

STATEMENT OF MRS. JENNIE R. GARATT, TIOGA COUNTY, SPENCER, N. Y.

As a grass-roots farm woman, living on, owning, and operating a dairy farm, and as a member of the board of directors of the Tioga County Pomona Grange, as a member of the Tioga County subdistrict committee of the Dairyman's League, as a recent Tioga county chairman of the New York State Federation of Women's Clubs, member

of the Spencer Central School Board, member of the Tioga County Farm Bureau, secretary of social education, and active in the SteubenElmira Presbyterial, I am strongly opposed to the Fulmer bill, H. R. 2400. For

The Fulmer bill would wipe out every vestige of protection the public has in discriminating between butter and oleomargarine. The consumer has a right to know whether he is purchasing a simon-pure article or is having worked off on him an imitation product made of various fats, oils, and other ingredients, colored and flavored to look like and taste like butter.

The bill is the dawn of a heyday for the unscrupulous manufacturer and dealer. It opens wide the door for the adulteration of oleomargarine.

The grass-roots folk wonder why so many people think that cutting out the taxes on oleomargarine will bring the price down to the consumer. Such a decrease would be so infinitesimal he would need a microscope to see it. With the increasing scarity of fats and oils the price must go up.

The same 10-cent tax that exists on yellow colored oleomargarine exists on renovated butter as a protection to the public.

According to statistics, the producers of cottonseed oil, soy oil, and other ingredients entering into the manufacture of oleomargarine would not get rich overnight, because the sale of these items is the smallest part of their farm income and can be marketed elsewhere at higher prices.

Gentlemen, I wish you could visit with me some of the rank and file grass-roots dairy farmers who are doing their best, but the production of milk is decreasing because of poor feed. Said one farmer, “I never produced so little milk at this time of year. Look at that gosh darned feed. Cheap base, second-grade oats, ground barley, and the price of feed going up." The dairyman does not want cheap food for his cattle.

Another farmer said, "Those cows gave 60 pounds of milk, each, now I can't get but 40."

Another farmer had just balanced his books. Said he, "My books are so red I don't know where we had our living. I think I will sell my cows and get a job."

Said another farmer, "Give me corn and a good hired man and I'll produce. If I don't have corn within 30 days, there will be 4,500 hens and 50 head of cattle for sale."

Discouragement is increasing. Auction sales are numerous. Into the picture comes the Fulmer bill, with a great hue and cry from some groups of people for cheap food. A great educational campaign is in full swing, leading them to think that such food is "just as good as” the better, but higher-priced article.

This bill, if passed, would bring butter into direct competition with yellow colored oleomargarine with a resultant decline in the price of butter and in its sale. A lower income to dairymen everywhere; another blow to the dairy business.

We farmers think that the Fulmer bill is worthy of a handsome funeral.

RESOLUTION OF THE NATIONAL DAIRY UNION-AN ORGANIZATION OF THE ALLIED DAIRY INTERESTS-CHICAGO, ILL.

Whereas the existing code of Federal tax regulations applicable to oleomargarine, adulterated butter, and process butter, initiated in 1886, has been effective to the point where frauds such as the sale of yellowcolored oleomargarine as butter and the adulteration of butter has been virtually eliminated; and

Whereas H. R. 2400, a bill now in Congress, would repeal key sections of this Internal Revenue Code, which we deem vital to the retention of these conditions, it is pointed out that

1. Prior to perfection of the present system of tax regulation deplorable conditions prevailed. Consumers, honest retailers, merchants, and dairymen were harassed by widespread frauds which seriously disrupted trade conditions and undermined the standing of butter as a food.

2. Experience with oleomargarine and adulterated-butter frauds proved them highly resistant to any measures short of vigorous, specific, and continuous supervision at all points of manufacture, distribution, and sale. Only Federal tax and license will provide this kind of regulation. Federal food laws of the regulatory type will not reach the strictly intrastate and local operation, and we do not believe that any other method of regulation can possibly afford the protection now provided by the time-tested policing of the Internal Revenue Department.

3. Approximately 500,000,000 pounds of farm butter and a vast quantity of creamery butter and butter substitutes are distributed and consumed annually within the boundaries of States where the products are produced. This comprises a vast intrastate traffic with which we do not believe the regulatory food agencies alone have power to effectively cope. State laws failed to correct conditions in the past and today are an uncertainty.

4. While retaining a tax on imported oleomargarine, this bill repeals virtually in its entirety the Federal tax code (acts of 1886, 1902, and others) applicable domestically to oleomargarine, both colored and uncolored. Adulterated and process butter, however, would continue subject to Federal tax regulation although Congress placed them under the same type of regulation as oleomargarine and for similar reasons. 5. Representation of the Federal oleomargarine tax laws as being restrictive or trade barrier in nature ignores the abuses which initially caused Congress to enact these laws, abuses which have yielded to the present tax control, but which remain latent and extremely likely to reappear if vigilance is relaxed. The tax regulations applicable to oleomargarine do not prevent the open sale of the product in any retail store. Due to the wartime shortage in civilian supplies of butter the need for vigilance against fraud is actually greater than ever: Therefore, be it

Resolved, That the National Dairy Union is opposed to the enactment of H. R. 2400.

92417-43- -28

STATEMENT FROM REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS OF AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR ANNUAL CONVENTIONS (SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY HON. AUGUST H. ANDRESEN)

In the report of the proceedings of the Fifty-fifth Annual Convention of the American Federation of Labor, held October 7-19, 1935, at Atlantic City, N. J., it appears (p. 594) that a resolution was proposed to the convention (Res. No. 239) reading as follows:

Resolved, That we pledge our support to the dairy farmers of this country in securing legislation which will insure protection against these substitutes [synthetic substitutes] and at the same time require that these substitutes pay their proportionate share of the local, State, and Federal tax burden as is now or may be imposed upon those engaged in the dairy industry.

The report of the committee on resolutions recommending the adoption of this resolution was unanimously adopted (p. 594).

In the report of the proceedings of the Fifty-eighth Annual Convention of the American Federation of Labor, held October 3-13, 1938, in Houston, Tex., two identical resolutions were presented to the convention. These resolutions were presented by the Tennessee State Federation of Labor and the Illinois State Federation of Labor. Both resolutions expressed opposition to the taxation of oleomargarine. The report of the committee on resolutions, however, recommended nonconcurrence in both of the resolutions (p. 417 of the 1938 report of the proceedings).

On a motion, which was seconded, to adopt the committee's report and its recommendation of nonconcurrence, Delegate Hughes of the Brotherhood of Teamsters secured the floor and told the convention that it was the unanimous opinion of delegates representing the international union (teamsters) that the committee report recommending nonconcurrence be approved. After pointing out that the delegates of the Teamsters' Union represented 60,000 men in the convention and who were engaged in the dairy industry, Mr. Hughes stated:

Oleomargarine is not a substitute for anything but axle grease, and we quit using that when the horses went out of business. I am of the opinion that the time is not here for the American Federation of Labor to begin to dictate to the Government the levying or taking of taxes off of any commodity.

Suppose we walked into the Government tomorrow and laid a resolution or a request we take the tax off of beer,, off of clothing. Where is the money coming from to carry on the workings of the Government?

I am heartily in support of the action of the committee in nonconcurring in the resolution, and with the unanimous consent of the delegates representing our international union.

Mr. Hughes was followed on the Wisconsin State Federation of Labor.

floor by Delegate Ohl, of the Mr. Ohl stated in part:

* The oleomargarine interests have been spending a lot of money for a good many years in order to market a spurious product. Oleomargarine was born in fraud. There was a time when they sold it as butter. The law stepped in and said, "You can't sell this stuff as butter; you must sell it for what it really is."

Restaurants used to dish it out to us as butter and in some States the law stepped in and said, "If you want to sell margarine, then you must serve it is margarine and not as butter," and the reduction in the sale of oleomargarine at that time was tremendous.

* * I don't think the American Federation of Labor should permit an imposition on the working men and women and their families.

After a further report of the secretary of the committee on resolutions, the motion to adopt the committee report and recommendation of nonconcurrence in the two resolutions carried (pp. 418, 419 of the 1938 report).

The secretary of the committee on resolutions, Mr. Frey pointed out in his remarks that "after many years of action against a tax on oleomargarine a convention of the American Federation of Labor in 1935, after full deliberation on the question, changed its previous policy and advocated a tax on oleomargarine."

An examination of the official reports of subsequent annual conventions of the American Federation of Labor does not disclose any action taken by the convention regarding oleomargarine contrary to the convention action in 1935 and confirmed as late as 1938 in the action rejecting the resolutions submitted by the Tennessee and Illinois State federations.

STATEMENT OF HERB E. SHARP, WASHINGTON, D. C., SECRETARY OF NATIONAL WHEAT LEAGUE

Gentlemen, before taking up the discussion of reasons for denying this move to remove taxes from oleomargarine, kindly permit me to discuss my Jersey cattle for a few minutes, this will give some idea of my background and assist the committee to make a fair appraisal of my qualifications to present this subject.

Oleomargarine has come into more direct competition with Jersey cattle than with any other breed, and Jersey breeders have fought back more stubbornly, perhaps than have the breeders of other cattle.

The Jersey cow is primarily the world's greatest butter producer; with the records of 32,000 Jersey cows officially tested, we find their milk has made an average test of 5.35 percent butterfat. With 60,000 Holstein cows officially tested we have an average test of 2.85 percent butterfat; while with 2,500 Guernsey cows officially tested we find an average test of flat 5.00 percent.

The Guernsey cow carries a high, rich color in her milk, that does not indicate her value, but does measurably improve the selling qualities of her milk. The Holstein cow makes a direct appeal to the man located near a large city where he has a market for large quantities of fluid milk. These conditions largely leave the field of butter production to the Jersey.

On the island of Jersey many years ago there was a very famous Jersey bull, Golden Fern's Lad-he became so popular that a little later it was said there was no animal on the island that did not carry some of his blood. Three of his sons were brought to America and sold at auction; Flying Fox sold for $7,500; Eminent sold for $10,000; and Sensational Fern sold for $11,600; they were each, in his turn, the highest priced bull of the breed.

Eminent was sire of a calf Eminent's Pilot, that sold for $150 and was lost sight of for a time, turning up at Spokane, Wash., where I met him. I declared that he was the best bull I had ever seen, and that I would not be surprised if the truth could be known he was then the finest Jersey bull in America. How true was my prediction. I urged Mr. Dilworth, who owned him, to breed some of Pilot's daughters back to their sire. Many years before that, at the Oregon