they could these goods in the manner above described. Our agents kept strict surveillance upon their operations and took samples from time to time as they were delivered. Among the samples taken were three taken where the goods were sold to persons who stated that they bought them from Mr. Bouchard upon his representation that they were pure butter, and that they believed that they were buying butter. We procured the affidavits of these persons and, immediately after the analysis of the samples, brought action against Mr. Peter D. Falardo and Medard Bouchard in the Supreme Court of this State, asking and obtaining a temporary injunction from further sales pending the decision of these cases. The following week they sold goods as before; we obtained samples of these goods, had them analyzed and obtained an order for them to show cause why they should not be punished for contempt of court. It was returnable before Mr. Justice Herrick at the Special Term on the ninth day of December, 1893, who took the papers and has not rendered his decision.

In the meantime, information reached us at this office, through our agents and experts, that Armour & Co., of Chicago, were widening the circle of their operations in this State, by extending their agencies to the cities of Utica, Rochester and Buffalo, and intermediate points.

An advertisement appeared in the Utica daily papers, to the effect that William H. Hackett, a grocer in the city of Utica, had become an agent for Armour & Co., to take orders for oleomargarine and kindred products. Our agents were set to work in set to work in that city, and ascertained that goods were being shipped from Albany, where it was learned that a car-load had been brought from Chicago; that these goods were shipped upon orders sent by Mr. Hackett, which he had taken. Our agents in this city pursued the same methods as those pursued in Cohoes, taking samples from the persons to whom the goods were sold and delivered, delivering duplicate samples to Mr. Hackett, the agent for Mr. Armour. These samples were delivered to Dr. Theodore Deecke,

a chemist, for the purpose of analysis. Before we had received certificates of the analysis made, Armour & Co. served an equity subpoena on myself, George L. Flanders and James H. Brown, Assistant Commissioners of Agriculture, and Le Grange E. Scrafford, W. W. Hall, and M. T. Morgan, agents of this department, demanding us to appear personally before the judges of the Circuit Court of the United States for the northern district of New York, and in the second circuit, on the first Monday in February, 1894, to answer a bill of complaint, etc. In this bill, filed in the Circuit Court, Armour & Co. complain of myself and subordinates as so harassing them in the sale of these goods as to damage them beyond computation, and ask an injunction, restraining us from further operations in enforcing the laws of the State against the sale of oleomargarine in importers' original packages. In the meantime the cases made in that city were placed in the hands of attorneys, and a suit was commenced against William H. Hackett, in the Supreme Court, for violating the State laws by the sale of these imitation goods.

Assistant Commissioner John H. Foley, of the city of Rochester, has also found that Armour & Co., through an agent, is operating in that city for the sale of his goods in the same manner as in the cities of Cohoes and Utica. A surveillance was kept upon the movements there until sales were made and samples were taken by our agents, working through Mr. Foley, in the same manner as they were taken in Cohoes and Utica. Samples were submitted to our chemist in Rochester, whose analysis showed the product to be oleomargarine. Thereupon an action was brought against the agent handling the goods in that city, and a temporary injunction secured, restraining him from selling the goods.

It is safe to say that at this time Armour & Co. are fairly well represented in the principal cities of this State by agents, who are endeavoring to palm these imitation goods off upon the public, and without doubt many good citizens are handling them, believing under the representations made that they have a perfect right to do so. Our information is to the

effect that this company represent and believe their business to be legitimate, in view of the decision in the Supreme Court of the United States in the matter of Leisy v. Hardin. The further representation is also made that these goods are wholesome, pure and healthful articles of food. It will be seen from the above statement that the oleomargarine people are determined to secure the market of the State of New York, if possible, and for that purpose are willing to incur the expense necessary to the determination of the question by the Supreme Court of the United States. This department is taking great care that the cases brought by it against these people, or their agents, shall be uniform, and involve no complication that would tend to exclude the main question or defeat the law.

It has been suggested in many quarters that if an action were brought directly against Armour & Co. in the State courts that a multiplicity of suits would be avoided. This would appear feasible on the face of it, but on examination it has not been deemed advisable for the reason that Armour & Co. are a non-resident corporation organized under the laws of another State; if an action were brought against them they would immediately make application to remove the same into the United States courts. Under the rules pertaining to that court they would be entitled to have the action so removed, and immediately upon their application being granted the injunction that had been secured in the State courts would fall. The defendants, with their fruitful industry for advertising their business, would at once take advantage of this to claim that their right had been sustained by the courts and before the matter could come to trial incalculable damage would result. In fact it has been the desire of Armour & Co. to get the department to commence action against them so that they could get into the United States courts. As I understand the law it has been held by the Supreme Court of the United States that where the court of last resort of any State had deter mined the meaning and object of the statute of a State that that interpretation was binding on the Supreme Court of the

United States; therefore, when a question under that statute came before that court that the only question left for the court to determine was the question of the constitutionality of the law. With this view and with the idea of securing an early action in our State courts for the purpose of securing their interpretation of our law we have refrained from bringing an action against these corporations that would at once take us into the United States courts before our State courts had interpreted the object and intent of our statute upon the disputed questions. In the meantime Armour & Co., having failed to get us to bring such an action against them, and being worried and harassed by our work, have taken the initiative. This cannot fail to operate powerfully in behalf of the friends of the law, as it will awaken all the people to a realization of the arrogance of a gigantic corporation, and their disregard, not only of State authorities, but whatever may stand in the way of their desire to force their business and accomplish their ends.

To illustrate the views of these people as to their right within this State and as to the department, we print below correspondence between Mr. Wm. H. Hackett, of Utica, who is acting as agent for Armour & Co., and the Commissioner of Agriculture of this State:

Utica, N. Y., Dec. 11, 1893.

Commissioner of Agriculture, Albany, N. Y.:

Dear Sir. I beg to inform you of the fact that I am now acting as the order agent of Philip Armour & Co., of Chicago, and am daily taking orders for delivery in original packages, butterine or butter substitute in the city of Utica and vicinity, and I am intending to continue this business publicly as I have a right to do. The agents of your department came into my store and took away, without license or authority my order book and are now, as I am informed, taking samples for chemical analysis, presumably with a view of prosecuting of parties who have purchased and are using our food product.

What I wish to say is that there is no need of your subjecting the State to this expense, as I will produce my order book in

court to any authority that has the right to examine it and will admit every sale that I have made, where such admission is necessary or proper to be made. The Supreme Court of the United States, as I am informed, has held that I can handle these original packages, and, therefore, any interference on the part of your agents with our trade cannot be considered in any other light than bulldozing and blackmailing. Now, if you have any case whatever against me, I will promptly appear and answer in any court that has jurisdiction to hear the case, on any process that is proper to be issued against me, and I invite you now to institute the proceedings, if you have any complaint against me, and in default of your doing so at an early date I shall have to advertise your department as meddlers with people's private business.

Kindly advise me what disposition you propose to make with your agents meddling with my business. There is no law in this State which prohibits the sale of butterine or butter substitute manufactured in any other State and shipped to this State and sold in the original packages as an article of commerce, nor can there be any law passed by any Legislature which will prevent a citizen from buying and using a perfectly wholesome article of food. If you make any claim contrary to this I ask you to institute in a manly way, proceedings against me, to determine the justice of any claim which you may make. I intend cheerfully to obey all laws, and think as a citizen I have the right to ask your officials and department to do the same.

I await an early reply.

Respectfully yours,

W. H. HACKETT,

Order Agent.

P. S.-I have mailed a copy of this letter to Albany and one to Lowville to the end that it may come to your hands at an early date.

Lowville, N. Y., December 19, 1893.

Mr. W. H. HACKETT, Utica, N. Y. :

Dear Sir. I am in receipt of a remarkable communication from you, under date of December eleventh. Severe illness has prevented my answering sooner. I am not in the habit of holding communication with evil disposed persons, or those openly proclaiming themselves as criminals, and but for the