such a lavish outlay. The reason for this is simple. There is not enough profit in making butter to warrant such an expenditure for advertising. In normal times it costs about 10 cents to make a pound of olemargarine. There never was a time from the days of flintlock rifles and wooden moldboards down to the present when it was possible to make a pound of genuine butter for 10 cents and live.

After a fruitless attempt to induce the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to rescind this ruling, the Grange joined with other farm groups in demanding corrective legislation. After a memorable battle extending over the whole of the short session of Congress ending on March 4, 1931, the Brigham-Townsend Oleomargarine Act was passed. This calls for the use of the Lovibond tintometer test in differentiating between white and yellow oleomargarine, entirely eliminating all grounds for argument regarding the coloring matter used in yellow oleomargarine. The passage of this legislation corrected a situation which was costing the dairy farmers of the country approximately $1,000,000 a day in the form of lower prices.

Some producers of cottonseed oil have long entertained the idea that our oleomargarine lasw have worked to their disadvantage, the theory being that without any regulation of the manufacture of oleomargarine, or any taxation, a larger market would be afforded for cottonseed oil. This, of course, overlooks the fact that the dairy industry is one of the best customers of the producers of cottonseed products. Whatever injures the dairy industry also injures the cottonseed oil industry. Moreover, there can be no permanent agriculture without animal husbandry. The destruction of our dairy industry would break the immemorial rhythm of nature: up from the soil and back to the soil.

Notwithstanding all the talk about the improved nutritive value of oleomargarine, Canada prohibits the manufacture, importation, or sale of oleomargarine, butterine, or other substitutes for butter. The Dominion Department of Agriculture declares that there is little likelihood of any change in this legislation, notwithstanding the war emergency. In Canada butter is rationed on the basis of one-half pound per week per person, and supplies are adequate to meet the demand.

With imports of foreign oils and fats practically shut off by the war, domestic producers are finding a ready market for their products at ceiling prices. Under the circumstances, there appears to be no justification whatever for such legislation as is proposed in H. R. 2400.

After the war, we will be flooded by the imports of cheap foreign oils. It is conceivable that Congress, animated by a generous desire to rehabilitate the Philippines, will admit coconut oil free of duty. The manufacturers of oleomargarine may be depended upon to use the cheapest oil they can get. That will be coconut oil, and not cottonseed oil.

In view of these considerations, we think the producers of cottonseed oil and soybean oil would be working against their own best interest in trying to pass such legislation as is embodied in H. R. 2400.

STATEMENT OF R. A. TROVATTEN, COMMISSIONER, MINNESOTA STATE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, DAIRY AND FOOD DEPARTMENT, Sr. PAUL, MINN.

For the last 50 or 60 years we have had laws that were enacted for the protection of the consuming public. The purpose of these laws, both Federal and State, is to guard the consuming public against the fraudulent sale of a commodity represented as something other than the true article. For instance, the sale of artificially flavored maple sirup as real maple sirup would defraud the consumer to the extent that he would be buying something other than what he intended to buy. Many other illustrations could be cited. The reason for having our Federal and State oleomargarine laws is identically the same.

About 60 years ago the oleomargarine interests were selling their product in butter tubs, as country rolls, and in other ways designed to deceive the public. This promiscuous sale of oleomargarine as butter made it necessary for the legislature of Minnesota in 1885 to establish a special department to enforce laws prohibiting the sale of this product unless sold in compliance with State laws. The office of State Dairy Commisisoner was established under section 7. chapter 149, Laws of 1885, entitled "An act to prohibit and prevent the sale and manufacture of unhealthy or adulterated dairy products." Section 7 provides:

The Governor shall appoint a commissioner who shall be known as the State dairy commissioner, who shall be a citizen of this State, and who shall hold his office for the term of 2 years or until his successor is appointed, and shall receive a salary of $1,800 per annum and his necessary expenses incurred in the discharge of his duties under this act; said Commissioner shall be appointed within 10 days after the passage of this act, and shall be charged, under the direction of the Governor, with the enforcement of the various provisions thereof; said commissioner may be removed from office at the pleasure of the Governor, and his successor appointed as above provided for. The said commissioner is hereby authorized and empowered to appoint a clerk, whose salary shall be $1,200 per year and such assistant commissioners, and to employ such experts, chemists, agents, and such counsel as may be deemed by him necessary for the proper enforcement of this law, their compensation to be fixed by the commissioner. The sum of $6,000, annually, is hereby appropriated to be paid for such purposes out of any moneys in the treasury not otherwise appropriated. All charges, accounts and expenses authorized by this act shall be paid by the treasurer of the State upon the warrant of the State auditor. The entire expenses of said commissioner shall not exceed the sum appropriated for the pur poses of this act. The said commissioner shall make biennial reports to the legislature not later than the 15th day of January, of his work and proceedings, and shall report in detail the number of assistant commissioners, experts, chemists, agents, and counsel he has employed, with their expenses and disbursements. The said commissioner shall have a room in the capitol to be set apart for his use by the Governor.

Section 4 of the same act provides:

No person shall manufacture out of any oleaginous substance or substances, or any compound of the same, or any other compound other than that produced from unadulterated milk or cream from the same, any article designed to take the place of butter or cheese, produced from pure, unadulterated milk or cream from the same, or shall sell as an article of food. This shall not apply to pure skim milk cheese made from pure skim milk. Whoever violates the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and be punished by a fine of not less than one hundred (100) dollars, or more than five hundred (500) dollars, or not less than six (6) months or more than one (1) year's imprisonment or both, such fine and imprisonment for the first offense and by imprisonment for one (1) year for each subsequent offense.

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.