Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1900-12-14

OInerSs
The House passed the Grout oleo-
margarine bill Friday by a vote of 1875
to go.
The substitute offered by the mi.
nority of the committee on agriculture.
which imposed additional restrictions
on the sale of oleomargarine to pre-
vent its fraudulent sale as butter. and
increased the penalties for violators.
was defeated by a vote of 112 to 178.
The bill passed makes all articles
known as oleomargarine, butterine,
imitation butter or imitation cheese.
transported into any state or territory
for consumption or sale subject to the
police power of such state or terri
tory, but prevents any state or ter
ritory from forbidding the transporta-
ton or sale of such product when pro-
duced and sold free from celebration in
imitation of butter.
The bill increases the tax on ole
omargarine colored in imitation of Init
ter from to 10 cents per pound, and
decreases the tax on oleomargarine
uncolored from 2 to a of a cent per
pound.
There was a spirited debate in
which many of the members took part.
Mr.. Henry of Connecticut, an old
dairyman, who opened the debate
showed that including the payment of
the present internal revenue tax of
two cents per pound, the cost of pro-
duclng the oleomargarine was not over
10 cents per pound. Mr.. WadsWorth
OF New York, chairman of the commit
tee on agriculture, and one of the six
members who signed the minority re-
port, explained the substitute measure,
and argued that the minority recog-
nlZed the value of oleomargarine as a
wholesome and nutritious food, enti-
tled TO place as food product He
claimed the supporters of the Grout
bill wished to destroy the manufacture
of oleomargarine, 1t to regulate its
sale. The bill reported by the mi
nority, he said, would eliminate the
possibility of fraud by compelling the
sale of oleomargarine in original
packages stamped with the word
"oleomargarine," and bearing the
internal revenue stamp. and imposing
additional and heavy penalties for vio-
lations of the law.
At this point Gen. w. w. Grout of
Vermont, the author of the bill, as
sumed charge of the bill and took the
floor IN support of it. He declared
that the purpose of the bill, in which
every man, woman and child was in
terested, was to suppress fraud in the
sale OF food product, by preventing
the coloring of oleomargarine in imita-
ton of butter. Over 1O4, 900
pounds of oleomargarine had been
manufactured and sold last year
That was about one-ninth of the total
butter consumption in the United
States.
DO you not think that the enact
! m or of fha .1,-ksk
fraud in the sale of oleomargarine?
asked Mr.. Burke Of Texas.
Il do not" replied Mr.. Grout "The
public would have no more protection
than it has now"
Mr. Grout produced figures to show
that oleomargarine cost less than
cents per pound, and was worked off
on the public by the retailer at from
Is to 80 cents per pound. He gave a
practical illustration of the manner in
which oleomargarine is sold by having
brought into the house a boxful of
packages of what looked like butter.
Each was wrapped in brown wrap
ping paper. The packages were
passed around. ana after they had
been examined Mr.. Grout defied any
one to tell whether they contained but
ter or oleomargarine. Then he turn
ed up a corner of the wrapping paper
which had been apparently carelessly
fooled down and displayed the printed
sign "oleomargarine."
Mr.. Lorimer made a vigorous
speech in opposition to the bill. Mr..
Bailey Of Kansas claimed that labor
ing men in all parts of the country had
protested against the enactment of the
Grout bill. Mr.. Grosvenor of Ohio
thought the Grout bill was designed to
destroy one industry for the benefit of
another. He said the coloring matter
which it was proposed to deny oleo-
margarine manufacturers the use of,
was originally used by them and was
now staple of all COW butter manu-
facturers. He thought the bill would
increase the cost of butter to the la
boring men % per cent.
Mr.. Lamb of Virginia and Mr.. David
son of Wisconsin supported the bill,
and Mr.. Williams of Mississippi spoke
against it. Mr.. Tawney of Minnesota,
who has been closely identified with
the proposed measure closed the gen.
eral debate by speaking in favor Of
the Grout bill.
Several members secured recogni-
tion for the purpose of extending their
remarks in the Congressional Record.
Mr.. Bailey of Texas claimed the pre-
tence of the oill-that it was to pre-
vert fraud-was itself fraud.
The Bill in the Senate.
The bill imposing a prohibitory tax
upon oleomargarine when colored
was referred in the Senate Tuesday
to the committee ON agriculture. The
opponents of the bill did not carry
their fight against the reference to
the point of a roll-call. Senator
Frye, who was in the chair, announc-
ed that he felt obliged to refer the
bill to the committee on agriculture
in view of the previous reference of a
similar measure. Senator Aldrich of
Rhode Island who was expected to
lead the fight in favor of reference
to the committee on finance, of which
he is chairman, decided to make no
opposition to the reference pro-
posed by Senator Frye and so an
nounced Opposition was made by
Senator Vest of Missouri upon the
ground that the bill was a revenue
bill, If 1t was an honest measure.
Several other senators discussed the
subject briefly but reference to the
committee on agriculture was finally
permitted by viva voce vote, with
out the call of the roll Senator
Proctor of Vermont, who is guarding