The Atlanta constitution. [volume] (Atlanta, Ga.) 1885-19??, 1888-02-21
Mo Cottnn 800 m Tnx.

We regret to see our esteemed contempo-
rary, the New York Times, aligning itself
with the hog monopoles Of the west for the
purpose of injuriny the cotton seed oil in
dustry Of the south.
The Times takes the position that cotton
seed oil should be taxed because it IS used,
in great quantities. in the manufacture OF
lard, to the detriment of The hog crop of the
west. We are surprised that such yicor-
Gus opponent to the policy OF protection
should thus array itself On the side Of pro
lection in its worst form. What right have
the hog monopohes OF the west 10 be pro
tected, at the expense of the cotton seed oil
industry of the south ? The Times thinks
that the use of cotton seed oil as an
adulterant in the manufacture Of lard, makes
it liable for taxation in order tha; the GENT
inc article may be protected. Our es-
teemed contemporary makes q greyous
mistake in classifying cotton seed OIL as an
adulterant. Webster defines the meaning
OF the word "adulterate," ito debase or
make impure by admixture OF baser mate
rails; to contaminate; 10 corrupt"
Cotton seed oil is just as pure as hogs
fat; it is purely vegetable oil; IS as clear
and wholesome as olive oil; and besides
being very much cheaper. is the fruit Of dis
tinctly an American industry. In its mix
ture with hogs fat to make lard there is no
cuncealmcnt about how it is done nobody
is injured, no harm is done; lard is rendered
cheaper, and the men who grow cotton are
provided opportunity Of turning a few dol
lars out OF what before was 4 useless refuse
on their hands. OF course this state Of af-
fairs is not entirely satisfactory to the hog
luOnopcljes Of the west. because the lard
manufacturers of this country 90 not now
have to depend on them as they once did.
The consequence is that hog fat has been
reduced proportionately in price, as the value
OF cotton seed OIL has become more gen.
orally recognized. Therefore the hog fat
monopolsts appeal 10 congress and ask it to
tax the cotton seed oil industry ont of exist
ence TO prevent it from further injuring
their business.
This is simply absurd. If they want to
make hog fat lard, they have the material
with which TO do il and both the means and
privilege TO do so. They can establish lard
N anufactories and can make as much of
the pure hog fat article rs they want, and
they would meet with ready sale for it;
but, if other men want to make lard with
cotton seed oil and hog fat mixed, they also
have the right to do so, and the public has
a right to suit itself in what it buys, pro-
yided, Of course, that there shall be no de-
ception in the article sold.
The truth of the matter is, the effort to
tax cotton seed oil is simply another step
towards carrying out Of the internal reYe-
nue. policy, which some of our democratic
friends seem to admire so strongly. Our
people are hardened with, taxes on their
corn, taxes on their orchards, taxes on the
products of their farms, and taxes on their
tobacco, and since some of our public men
seem to be willing not only to condone, but
TO continue the infamous system which al
lows it, other people have come to the con-
clusion, that they will be willing to have
our cotton taxed and will yield to it without
a murmur. II is coming to this and the
sooner our people put their heels on the
neck OF this infamous, Ubiquitous and Rus
sian system of internal revenue taxation,
and crush it absolutely out of existence, the
better it will be for the advancement of our
interests.
The New York Mail and Express very
properly says-of this new departure of the
internal revenue contingent, to tax cotton
seed oil;
The Iroposal is utterly wrong and mischievous on
all accounts The cotton seed oil industry is as le-
Ultimate as the hog growing industry, and il will be
as gross outrage for the government to interfere
with the one rs with tie other. such legislation,