News and citizen. [volume] (Morrisville, Vt. ;) 1881-current, 1886-08-12
The First oIeomarsarine Bill.

Considerable has been said of late
concerning oleomargarine, and while
many doubtless have grown tired of
this subject and will say now that a
law has been passed taxing the stuff
"give US a rest" we do not believe
our farmer readers are among that
number. We think they will be in
terested in the following communica-
ton taken from the St. Adams Mes
senger. The writer of the article
shows that W. H. Parker, Esq, Re-
publican candidate for States Attor-
ney, introduced the first bill in our
State Legislature to tax imitation
butter -
Editor Messenger The first bill eyer
introduced before any legislative body
for the purpose of protecting legitimate
butter against 6 OK butter" by imposing
tax and license. was house bill No. 1877
by w. II. Parker, member of the Yer
mont legislature of 1884 from Cam
bridge.
The substance of the bill was that on
each pound of oleomargarine, butter
inc, or other substitute for butter manu-
| featured in the state, the person manu-
| featuring the same should pay into the
state treasury the sum of fifteen cents.
A person might obtain a license to
| sell in the state, OleOmargarlne, Dutter-
inc, or other substitute for butter, for
one year at wholesale, by paying to the
treasurer of the state ten thousand dol
lars, and at retail by paying the treas
urer of the state two thousand dollars.
| The bill was so drawn that penalty was
| imposed in the one case of false return,
of five hundred dollars, and in case of
no return, one thousand dollars, and for
selling without license a penalty of
five hundred dollars, and all necessary
provisions for collecting, etc., were fully
provided for.
During the session of 1884 many petit
lions were presented to the legislature
praying for the passing of a law prohibit
| ting the sale and manufacture of Oleo-
margarine, butterine and other substi-
| tute for butter.
A law prohibiting the manufacture
and sale no doubt would have been I'M
constitutional, and there is no doubt
that the bill taxing the article would
have been constitutional. The bill was
T6I6TIpu 10 lll6
in the house; several hearings were had
| before that committee on the bill, and
Mr.. Parker appeared before the commit
tee as often as desired. The result was,
the bill was amended before the COM
mittee by placing the pound tax at ten
cents, reducing the wholesale license to
st, 900, the retail to 81 900, making a
penalty for each offense, and One-half of
the penalty to go to the complainant. The
bill was reported to the house favOrably.
When the question of third reading
came up a sharp discussion took place.
Mr.. Parker defended the bill, assisted
by others. Dillingham; of Waterbury,
Barrett of Rutland and others opposed
the third reading,-but the bill was
saved in the house, third reading or
dered, and subsequently the bill was
passed by the house. 1t went to the
senate, where it was referred to the
committee on agriculture, there is one
member of the present board of agricul-
ture who identified himself with the OPP
ponents of the bill and helped to defeat
it before the senate committee; good
man for board of agriculture in this
or any other state and was there killed.
The senate of the state of Vermont
killed a bill that was calculated to pro-
tect the principal and most important
industry of the state. Now the object
of this bill was two-fold 4: 1st, to protect
our own state interests I'd, to put upon
our statute book law that was clearly
constitutional, and that other states
would copy. 80