The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1886-06-02
The OIeOmargarine Question.

The OleOmargarine Question.
The bill to tax oleomargarine, butter
inc and other artificial substitutes for
butter has been under active debate in
the house since last week Monday, and
at this writing there is a good prospect
for its passage. Two yea and nay votes
were taken before the consideration of
the bill was reached. The one which
is regarded as fair test Of the strength
of its advocates showed one hundred
thirty-six votes for to eighty-siX against
the bill. Strong speeches in favor of
the measure have been made by Messrs.
Hiscock, Scott, Hopkins, Grout, Hatch,
Henderson and others, and the princi-
pal speeches in opposition have been
made by Hammond of Georgia, Reagan
of Texas and Durham of Illinois.
The debate has brought out some in
teresting facts. The committee on
agriculture estimates that the shrink
age in the value of mich cattle alone
since the sale of oleomargarine began
has amountedto S150,OOO,O0O. Mr.. Hen
derson of Iowa stated that the value of
genuine butter and of cheese exported
of late years has ranged from $10,000,-
900, in 1873, to $4,000, 900, in 1881, and
then down to $10,000,000 in 1885 and
$6,000,O00 for three-quarters of the
current fiscal year. The value of imi-
tation butter and oleo oil exported was
$40, 900 in 1876, and it rose to "a ,S42 900
in 1884. In 1885 it was S4 ,451 900, and
for nine months of the current fiscal
year it has been 81, POI 1899. The imi-
tation butter exports were little more
than 100000 pounds in 1882, and
since that time they have rapidly fallen
to 362, 545 pounds for three-quarters of
the current year. The exports of oleo
oil jumped from 100000 pounds in
1882 to 81 900, 900 in 1884 and 1885, and
fell back to 100000 pounds for three
quarters of the current year. A single
factory in Boston made in one year
2,74O,OO0 pounds of oleomargarine and
1,15S, 900 pounds of oleo butter. A
company in Providence made 1,750,0
pounds of butterine last year.
The advocates of the bill all claimed
that the imitation compounds are to a
great extent unwholesome in their
constituent parts and carry with them
the germs of disease, and that the i'm
position of tax was for the promotion
of the general welfare. Mr.. Scott of
Pennsylvania held that if there were
those who preferred oleomargarine to
genuine butter, the manufacturer should
be allowed to supply that demand, but
he should be required to pay tax at
least sufficient to equalize the differ
ence in the cost of producing the coun-
terfeit and the cost of producing the
genuine, which he seeks to dispace
The passage of the bill proposed would
inhict no hardship on the manufacturer
of oleomargarine, but would simply
raise the farmer to the plane of fair and
honest competition. General Grout
maintained that the right of congress
under the Constitution to tax oleomar.
garine cannot successfully be ques.
toned. He showed that a state had
not the power to give adequate relief
from fraudulent butter limitations. Fol
example, Vermont legislation may give
the dairy interest suitable protection,
but Vermont butter finds its way to
Massachusetts, and there encounters
the imitation products which the laws
of Massachusetts fail to prevent being
sold as butter, thus putting the Yer
mont butter at serious disadvantage
General Grout also argued that the pro.
lection of the dairy interest by the
pending bill would increase the magni
tude and value of this great industry
restore our export trade, and set the
whole vast industry of agriculture upor
a new career of prosperity. Mr.. Hen
derson, in the course of his speech, said