Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1889-03-14
WILL TEST 1T.
Restaurants Keepers Accept the Advice of
Their Attorney In Regard to Using OIeo-
Adulteration of Vineanr I'm PittsburR.

Restaurants Keepers Accept the Advice of
Their Attorney In Regard to Using OIeo-
Adulferation Of vineanr In PittsburR.
The restaurateurs met yesterday after
noon, but just what they did seems to be
enveloped in somewhat OF fog. President
Dimling said: 1--WE did nothing. exeept
talk and listen to our attorney, j. 8. Fer
guson. He assured US we would be all right
if we wished to use 'oleo, and that it is
only the sellers of it who can be punished.
It gives customers better satisfaction than
does butter, and since it has been in use.
bakers have been able to get better and
cheaper real butter for their use. am not
using oleo now, but am convinced that 1
can if l want to do So. !"
This view would seem to be based on the
ground that furnishing butter to boarders is
not selling it.
Although the Supreme Court has de-
clared the law of 1887 constitutional. it
seems there is likely to be considerably
more litigation. For instance, s. A.
Johnston, Esq, says it is class legislation,
and it is held by some that this phase of it
was not ruled upon by the Supreme Court.
1t is held that the law was passed for the
benefit of farmers alone. Mr.. Johnston
Legislature felt competent to amend the
Ten Commandments, but he held the law
as it read could only be construed to mean
that Pennsylvania farmers were to be pro
tected and that the bill to keep Western
dressed beef out of the State was OF the same
character. He held that neither could
be based on the ground of preserving either
the health or saving the money of the con-
sumer as oleomargarine, In Mr.. Johnston's
estimation, not only averages better in
cleanliness, quality and healthfulness than
cow butter, but is cheaper and fills a greatly
felt want among poor people.
Ex-County Commissioner Beckert de-
nounced the oleo suppression law as an out
rage on poor people, and said the Legis-
lature would be much better employed
were it to set about to break up the adulter-
alton of vinegar, or rather counterfeiting of
it. He said that all the oleo consumed in the
United States did not contain as much mat
ter injurious to health as the sulphuric acid
contained in one barrel of bogus cider vim
egar and that the case of 7211 per cent
sulphate of lime in consignment of alleged
cream-tartar afforded more pertinent matter
for legislative safeguards than all the anti
oleo laws that could be passed.
T. G. LaZear, Esq, said he thought it
would be claimed that farmers were only
incidentally benefited by the law in ques-
tion, and that it would be held that all
classes were, so that the act could not be
construed to be class legislation.
Henry Meyer and j. M. Caldwell, Esqs.,
considered the law as unjust and in reality
class legislation, but did not express any
decided opinion on the question as to
whether the Supreme Court would view it
in that light, if that question were specif-
cally raised.
The restaurant keepers, under the advice
of the attorney, decided to make test case
of the first of the pending suits against them
when tried and take an appeal.