i ! X The Conservative ,
out of its boundaries , provided they had
.
been held therein , even temporarily ,
either for consumption , sale or storage ?
And is not this section a plausible at
tempt on the part of Congress to dele
gate its power to regulate interstate
commerce to the several states and ter
ritories ?
The ostensible public purpose for lay
ing a tax is to get money into the na
tional treasury , with which to pay the
national debt , provide for the common
defence , and to promote the general
welfare. But the first oleomargarine
legislation was approved August 2,1880 ,
and entitled : "An Act Defining Butter ;
also Imposing a Tax upon and Regulat
ing the Manufacture , Sale , Importation ,
and Exportation of Oleomargarine. "
At the time this pretended revenue
law was enacted , the national treasury
was full and overflowing. The great
question among statesmen was : "What
shall we do with our surplus revenues ? "
Therefore , the first enactment could
not have been purely for a public pur
pose. It could not have been because
the public treasury needed more rev
enue. It must then have been legisla
tion under a false pretence. The pur
pose of that legislation was purely for
the promotion of certain special or class
interests. The revenue was not needed
and the real object of tne enactment
was to discourage , impede , and , if pos
sible , destroy the manufacture of butter
substitutes of all kinds. Notwithstand
ing this great injustice by the legisla
tive branch of the government , the
manufacture of oleomargarine and but-
terine has continued. And more un
friendly legislation is now sought , and
also under the guise and pretence of
getting revenues into the national treas
ury. But everyone understands tnat
the revenues of the government
of the United States have in
creased so rapidly during the
last three years that many federal taxes
were reduced by the last Congress , and
many stamp duties have been done away
with because there is a surplus revenue
We all understand perfectly well the
plethora of money in the treasury of the
United States which causes Mr
Secretary Gage to constantly adver
tise for and purchase at a premium
the outstanding bonds of the govern
ment. It is evident from these oondi
tions that there is no particular public
purpose to be served by the taxation in
the Grout bill. It provides that oleo
margarine or butterine , not colored in
imitation of butter , shall be taxed one
fourth of one cent per pound. Bu
when it is colored in imitation of butter
the tax to be paid by the manufacturer
shall be ten cents per pound. .
Pretended Philanthropy.
This legislation is sought not by farm
ers , but by manufacturing and commer
cial dairymen. It has very properly
and quite naturally originated in the
state of Vermont , whence came the
Merrill protective tariff , and where the
majority of the land-owners and farm
ers have persistently impoverished
themselves by clinging to the fallacies of
protection. And just as wo have been
asked to believe that the vast lobbies
maintained at Washington for the purpose - '
pose of securing higher duties on cer
tain foreign articles imported to the
United States are entirely philanthropic
as to their motives , and that the sole ob
ject of high protective tariff laws is to
make certain American manufacturers
pay higher wages to their employeesand
at the same time compel them to sell
the products of the labor of those em
ployees at lower prices ; so we are now
requested to tax our credulity and be
lieve that the unselfish dairymen of the
United States , incorporated and other
wise , are keeping and paying a lobby at
Washington , solely for the public purpose
ese of raising revenue for the government
by imposing this ten cent tax on yellow-
colored butter substitutes. Disinterest-
d Samaritanism asks us to believe that
it makes all these efforts to pass the
Grout bill for the purely patriotic pur
pose of increasing the overflow of the
torrential revenues of the general gov
ernment. Sometimes , however , we are
to understand that it is because of an
affectionate solicitude for the general
healthfnlness of the American people
that it is proposed to tax oleomargarine
and butterine out of existence. It is
even declared by some of these sympa
thetic health-guardians and amateur
scientists who claim to be not even ex
cepting calves the sole legitimate rep
resentatives of the meek-eyed cow , that
oleomargarine and bntterine , whether
colored or not , are substantial and active
causes of indigestion and dyspepsia.
They ask us to refrain from using these
proxies for butter because of their destructiveness -
structiveness to human health. Recent
ly at Sioux Palls , South Dakota , there
was a convention of , allegedly , the
farmers of the United States. The
farmers , however , were not all there
from any one of the states or territories
nor was the representation extensive
from any state , nor was there any rep
resentation from more than fifteen
states. But with great unanimity thai
assorted collection of distinguished and
disinterestedly benevolent dairymen
passed vigorous resolutions in favor o :
the immediate enactment of the Grou
bill. But by some unsanotified friend
of the cattle industry an amendmen
was proposed to the effect that all so
called "Process Butter , " if colored with
the June tint or Jersey complexion
which is supposed to inhere with old
fashioned , churn-made , hand-worked
butter , should be likewise subjected
the same tax and penalties provided by
these patriotic philanthropists for but
terine , oleomargarine and other bntte :
substitutes ; however this amendment
was rejected.
Process Butter.
The public may not generally know
the fact but members of this National
Convention of Cattlemen understand it
pretty thoroughly , that for years it has
been the custom of the incorporated
creameries and dairymen generally
to gather up in all the
towns and villages of the country ,
from stores and warehouses , all the ran
cid , antique and malodorous butter on
the market , for the purpose of
reworking it before "working it"
on consumers disinfecting , coloring
and sweetening it , to go out into
the world as the only genuine , cow-de
scended , absolutely pure bread-spreader ,
without guile and without reproach.
Tons upon tons of this bric-a-brac but
ter , antique , loud-smelling , rancid and
rank , have been gathered up throughout
the country and by chemical processes
rehabilitated , given the complexion of
the finest , carrot-colored cream , and put
upon the market by the very men who
now assume the right to take charge of
American digestion and prescribe all
oleaginous or unctuous veneering for
bread in this free country. These ex
emplars of commercial virtue , these
reprobaters of fraud and denouncers of
all modern bread-spreaders , when seek
ing to pass the Grout bill , decline abso
lutely in open convention of alleged
dairymen to permit that the provisions
of that enactment with all its penalties
and taxes be extended to the renovated
and rehabilitated butter in question.
Unanimously that amendment was voted
ed out and down. The vote was the
voice of affectionate solicitude for the
stomachs of their countrymen. And
yet some of the best and most eminent
chemists of the United States , including
Dr. H. W. Wiley , chief chemist of the
U. S. Department of Agriculture ; Prof.
Schweitzer , of the Missouri State Uni
versity ; Prof. Caldwell , of Cornell
University ; and Prof. Atwater , of the
Wesleyan University at Middletown ,
have declared these butter substi
tutes , oleomargarine and butteriue ,
wholesome , digestible , edible fats.
They have declared them nutritious
and healthful and protested against
any further inimical legislation.
If , however , the manufacture of these
substitutes for butter could be absolute
ly prohibited by the power to tax , it
would give to the dairymen and reno-
vated-bntter makers a monopoly of
bread-greasing in the American market.
It would put the prices of butter to such
heights that the ordinary working men
of the country would be unable to pur
chase it.
An attempt to obtain goods under
false pretences is no more a crime mor
ally than the proposed anti-oleomargar
ine legislation is a crime , under the pre-
. > . . ; . „