The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1901-02-01
BLACKBURN TALKS
The Ohio Food Commissioner Has
Troubles Of His Own.
SWORF To ENFORCE UNPOPULAR Law
COnvicrInns in 0IeOmargarine
CaSes Said to Be Few and
Difficult to Obtain.
Special to News-Democrat.

Columbus, o., Jan. 29.-Any person
who thinks that the life of a diary and
food commissioner is happy one will
have that delusion destroyed by calling
upon Commissioner j. f. Blackburn. of
Ohio. Mr.. Blackburn says that he has
troubles of his own. imposed upon him
by the duties of his office.
Most of these troubles. however, come
to the commissioner as an inheritance
from legislation relating to the manu-
faCture and sale of butterine, or ole
omargarine, in this state. The com
missioner is sworn to enforce an un-
popular law-one' in the enactment
Of which he had no part and from the
enforcement of which he would like very
much to be relieved, while not certain
that he would object to the laws re-
peal.
This at least Is the inference drawn
by the correspondent of the News
Democrat in conversation with Mr..
Blackburn this morning. Mr.. Blackburn
called attention to an act of the legis-
lature passed May 10. 1894, which re-
lates primarily to the coloring of ole
DltuTSuGlHe, SupDOiltu ny u utNi7iOh VI
the supreme court April 10, 1900.
During the past four years" said
Mr. Blackburn, there has been de-
cided revulsion of feeling in this stat,
in favor of butterine. 1t is extremely
difficult to obtain convictions under tn
aw. Wherever the department of dairy
and food commissioner has undertaken
to obtain trial by jury and has oh
tained it, it is our experience that con
viction is impossible. l attribute this
largely to the fact that public sentiment
in regard to this product is not what Ii
sed TO be and is now inciining in its
favor. But meanwhile, what Is a
dairy and food commissioner to do
Shall he ignore the law or shall he en-
iorce it?"
BLACKBURN HAS LITTLE TO SAY.
Mr. Blackburn was asked whether h.
could endorse the existing law as =
measure just and proper in itself H.
replied that his position was such tina
he could not answer that question witt
IeliCaCy or even with propriety. Tie
Vas then asked whether he would
favor the repeal of the law at the next
,ession of the Legislature, and answered
that he was appointed to execute the
iaw and not to interpret ii or to take
sides in retaining or repeating it.
THE worst thing about the Who'll
business" said Mr. Blackburn, ii!
the fact that the people buy oleomarga
line and insist upon having ii and thai
the tendency in favor of this product /.
so strong that a conviction by jury CoulC
not be obtained anywhere In this stat
that | know of. Prosecutions under tn,
law seem hopeless. Let us take, for III
stance, the example of the Capital City
Dairy company of Columbus, whicl
concern has recently reorganized it's
self into a partnership. Under TIN
original act of incorporation of thi'
company we were never able to obtai'
a conviction under the law with triu
~ jury andw hen the supreme court IN
he case against this company rendere,
/ decision practically destroying it as
.0rporation and the corporation sub
,cpuently reorgani2ed as a copartner
ship, the difficulty of interfering with
it's business became more apparent
than ever before. If an officer sworn tC
perform his duty cannot get decision
IN favor Of the state as against cor
"oration with a trial by jury, how IA
surh rlIiccr expect to get decision
goinSt an independent companV"''
COMMISSIONER DISINTERESTEn
MIR. Blackburn said that he was On
tirely disinterested in the prosecution
of the pure food law and that all ale
cations made against him charging
iavorit'sm upon his part to oleomar-
garine of butterine manufacturers out
side the state We're false. His sole oh.
| ieCt had been to enforce the law and h
| Thought this was a somewhat hopeless
| task because public sentiment wa
against it's enforcement. He compare {
| he unpopularty of its enforcement Il
lhat Of the prohibition law in Maine
| The commissioner said that he was ais,
| prepared to bring suit against farmer
| who made or offered for sale butter con
| tanning less of butter fats than wer,
| prescribed by law in order to max,
| butter Il legally marketable product
He would bring the same prosecutions
| against farmers who marketed sucl
! butter as he would against o!eomar.
| garlne manufacturers who violated the
| law. He would not make a differenc.
| between the farmer and the butteriny
| manufacturer in this regard. He said
however, that it was as difficult for hin
to obtain convictions against the farmel
| who produced butter under the scale O
butter fats prescribed by law as it wa!
| for him to obtain convictions agains
the oleomargarine manufacturer In tn,
opinion of the commissioner there wai
no difference in the violations of law ol
the part Of the farmer or the manufac
turer and he did not see how, in th
present state of public opinion, any sue
cessful general prosecution could be in
stituted against either
what would you do?" he asked; ant
the question was hard to answer.
1t Is certain that Commissioner Black
burn feels the responsibility of hi
position and very probable that, lik
other men in equally embarrassin!
situations he would like to be relievet
| al nf