The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1895-11-13
TO TEST THE OLEO LAW.
Chemists Tell Bogus Buffers Ingredi-
ents-Cow Butter Man Fined.

The first step in the test OF the oleomar-
sarine law was taken In Justice McEiwa.n's
court yesterday, when W. J. Henderson,
the cow butter man." who Is backed by
the Cuaahy Packing Company. was tined
80 and costs for sailing the commodity,
eolo-ea, IA competition with dairy products.
Notice q appeal was given, and the case
VIII oe carried through to the supreme
court.
IL was the most s-gbborniy fought case
thai has come before Justice McE.iwaia
for many months. Henderson was repre-
scented by Charles z. Patterson. attorney
for the Cudshy Packing Company, and the
state b Prosecuting Attorney HASTE and
Deputy Morris. K &. Bogardus, city chem
ist, and II. c. Meyers. professor OF che-nis-
Try at the University Of Washing ton. were
put on tbs stand as experts. and State Dairy
Commissioner Peter J. Smith and John
Huffman. he man who bought the butter
on which the analysis vas made. testified
On behalf OK the state. Henderson took
the stand in his own behalf.
Mr.. Smith told Of sending Huffman to
buy the cleo and OF having Il analysed.
The state then put in its most important
testimony, that OF the experts.
Mr.. Bogar6us stated that he wen. minute
iy into the constituents OF olsomar aT!ne
and butter. and when he spoke OF buiric
acid was closely questioned by Mr.. Pat
lEfSD8 Oh dnAt ingredient. MI
explained that butric acid tends 10 make
butter more diges,ible than other fats. and
gives Il favor that might be called ran
ED. lie sad he had analysed many SAM
pies OF butter and had read the testI-
nlony OF manufacturers under oath. and
thought he had pretty good knowledge OF
the stuff lie was positive that the sam
pie he had analysed was colored. by the
amount OF acid that was in il. The method
n FNnlAsnll
court. and witness wound up by saying that
he discovered plainly the presence Of metaol
orange, which is used for coloring oieo.
Prof. Meyers testimony was substantial
~ the same as that Of Mr.. Bogardus. He
was positive that method orange was pres
ent in the sample. and went on to say that
y was not found in this country, but IN
South America and Spain. 1t might be
said 20 oe an organic matter because Of the
carbon IN It. but II could not be made from
coal oil or parafDe-
At the conclusion of the expert testimony
Mr.. Patterson asked 10 have the law de-
claTed unconstitutional, bat the motion was
denied on the ground that such quss-
ton was not within the province of the
court. Mr.. Patterson then asked for q dis
mlsssl on the ground that the court had no
jurisdiction TO Try the defendant because Il
was not court of record, that the facts
stated In the complaint do not charge any
crime, because the act attempting 10 reg
ulate the sale Of dairy products IS uneon-
stitutional and void. and because the de-
eendant Is denied fair and impartial trial.
since the witnesses for the prosecution are
compelled TO assist t4e prosecution.
These motions were overruled, and Hen
derson was put on the stand In his own
behalf. He bought tho olso from the
Cudahy company, which guaranteed IL as
being uneolored, and he did not believe 1t
was colored. He said II he sold the goods
for pure cleo he was innocent OF its con-
tanning any coloring matter.
Mr.. HASTE then argued on the merits OF
the case. lie claimed that the defendant
must DC presumed as having known what
no was selling, and, as the oleomargarine
came into direct competition with dairy
products. tho law regarding II ought TO DO
strictly enforced.