Orleans County monitor. [volume] (Barton, Vt.) 1872-1953, 1900-07-30
THE AUTHOR OF THE OLEO
BILL OF 1884 COMES TO
IT'S DEFENCE.

The charge has been made that an
oleomargarine bill, introduced into
the legislature of 1884, was opposed
by Mr.. Dillingham; and others who
succeeded in killing it. In answer to
this charge Mr.. Dillingham's friends
say that he opposed the bill on the
ground that it was unconstitutional
and that he afterward favored another
bill which became law and is still on
the statute books.
The charge that the bill was uncon-
stitutional has stirred up the author
of the bill, Lawyer w. I'll. Parker of
Cambridge. This charge was made
in the Free Press and Mr.. Parker re-
quested that paper to print letter
from him on the subject. The Free
Press declined to do so and at Mr..
Parker's request we print his defence
of his bill as follows:
To the Editor of the Free Press:
In an issue of the Free Press about
the 30th of June last you make men
tion of bill 187, session of 1884, reg
ulating the manufacture and sale of
oleomargarine and other substitutes
Dillingham; adopted in opposing and
voting against the bill upon the
ground that it was unconstitutional.
remember this bill distinctly, as I
drafted and introduced the bill, ard
when it came up for third reading and
final passage l spoke for it to the best
of my ability.
deny that the bill is unconstitu-
tional. 1t was a bill to tax and regu-
late the sale of oleomargarine. 1t
contained no provisions that the oleo-
margarine law passed by Congress in
1856 does not contain; and though un-
constitutional arguments were press
ed against the bill at Washington the
same as by Mr.. Dillingham; at Mont
pelier, yet the bill became law and
has been sustained by repeated decis-
ions of the supreme court.
Mr.. Dillingham; claimed that the
tax and license was prohibitive and
therefore the bill was unconstitution
al. He and his papers claim the same
now. The claim that the tax and Ii
censes were so large as to be prohib-
tive would be matter of opinion at
most. But if prohibitive it would not
make the law unconstitutional, for
under the power of taxation the gov
|ernment may absolutely destroy
property and franchises. This is a
power as all lawyers know, which
rests in the sovereignty of the state
to be expressed through the legisla
tive branch. A notable instance Of
the exercise of this power was the
taxation by authority of congress Of
the state banks out of existence in |
I1s62, to make room for our present |
banking system.
have made careful study of this |
subject and declare without fear of |
euccessful contradiction that this bill |
WAS not unconstitutional.
You say that in New York and |
Pther states similar measures have
been held to be unconstitutional. I
Ideny this and call on you ito print the
Decisions that hold laws unconstitu-
tional which prohibit the manufac-
lure and sale of oleomargarine. But
n no state is there a decision deny
Hng the right to tax such substances
10 any extent the legislature might
determine.
VI Bill 1S7 did not pass the senate
'he powers that sought to defeat the
bill in the house had doubtless got
heir work in the higher branch.
That Mr.. Dillingham; afterwards fav-
red another bill relating to oieomar-
arie has nothing to do with his con-
titutional argument against this one.
I would not deny to any man his
light TO advocate and vote in regard
b any legislative matter as he saw
#t, but when attacked upon a meas
RE of this character, in which I was
@ght, as claim upon legal ground,
ben and now, and the claim is made
pat I was then and now wrong, I
#eem it not only my privilege, but