The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1900-05-24
FRIENDLY TO oLEoMARGAR1ME
4 Substitute to the Grout Bill Pro-
Eosed.

POSED.
A substitute for the Grout oleomar-
garine bill was reported TO the Committee
on Agriculture of the House yesterday by
the subcommittee having that subject un-
der consideration. The report of the sub
committee defends oleomargarine as an
article of food and recites in part:
The chief complaint, and the only just
complaint, against the existing oIeomar-
garine law consists in the facility with
which the retail dealer, in breaking the
original package and substituting new
wrappers. may violate the law. There is
nothing in House resolution BIZ Cknown
as the Grout bilD which would decrease
the temptation or increase the difficulty
of such violations. On the contrary, the
increased taxation to be evaded would IN
doubtedly increas: the temptation, House
resolution 37l7 merely increases taxation
without providing any new or additional
penalties or any new methods to prevent
the sale of oieomargarine as butter, either
in its colored or uncolored state.
"One of the claims made by the friends
of the Grout bill is that it will protect the
interests of the farmer. We call attention
to the fact that every ingredient that en-
tiers into the manufacture of oleomargarire
is as much product of the farm as is
butter. and that such ingredients are made
more valuable on account of their use in
the manufacture of oleomargarine.
Your committee has had before it rep
resentatives of both the cattle and hog
raisers of the country. and also represent
tatives of the cotton industry, and they are
unanimous in their opinion that their
business will be materially injured and
the price on their product lowered by the
passage Of the Grout bill and the destrdc-
ton of the oleomargarine industry.
''0leomargarine as an article of food is
nutritious and wholesome. composed prac-
ticaIly of the identical ingredients as but
ter, as shown by charts submitted in testi-
| mcny by DR.. Wiley. Chief Chemist of the
Department of Agriculture.
THE manufacture and sale of oleomar-
garine does not Interfere with the growth
and prosperity of the butter industry.
Statistics show much greater percentage
| in the increase of the production of butter
| than in the production Of oleomargarine.
| Though similar in ingredients, they are
not strictly competing, as the oleomar
| garine is practically all bought by the
poorer class OF our people and butter by
| the well-to-do.
THE manufacture and sale of Oleomar-
garine has In no way deprecated the price
| of butter, as more butter is being sold at
| higher price in this country than ever be-
| fore, as shown by testimony.
THE charge made by the dairy interests
! that 80 per cent of oleomargarine is sold
as butter is not sustained by the evidence
| before our committee. and the Commits
sioner OF Internal Revenue, Mr. Wilson, who
| is in the best position to judge in regard
| to this matter. stated before our commit
| tee that in his judgment Eot to exceed 10
per cent of oleomargarine was sold as but
| ter and a large per cent of this was with
| the knowledge of the purchaser.
The bill we offer as a substitute does not
Increase the temptation to violate the law
1t does render the violation of the law
| more difficult if not impossible by requiring
the retail dealer to sell to the consumer the
original package itself, undefaced as to
brand and unbroken as to stamp or pack
age. The evidence before your committee
! is to the effect that tax Of 10 cents per
pound, as provided by the Grout bill, would
destroy the oleomargariHe industry and
thereby deprive the Government of the rev.
enue it now receives, amounting to, in the
! past year, about 81. SEQ. 000."