Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1900-05-23

| known that there only were S3,O0O.0O0
pounds of oleomargarine manufactured last
year, which shows that the amount of oleo-
margarine produced is about per cent of
the amount of butter produced. Therefore,
the argument that oleomargarine in any
material sense controls the price of butter
is not justified by the facts.
The manufacture and sale of o1eomar-
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.
1t is suggestive fact that those sections
of our country which are most exclusively
devoted to the dairy interests are blessed
with the greatest prosperity, as brought
out in the testimony of Ex-Governor Hoard
of Wisconsin before our committee, who
said that a few years ago land was worth
only s15 an acre in that state, but as the
state began to be devoted more exclusively
to the dairy interests land had rapidly ap-
preciated in price. and that farmers had
gotten out of debt. had paid their mort
cages. and the land is now worth the sum
of $50 per acre, this price averaging much
higher than agricultural lands in other
parts of the country.
Dairymen's Charges.
The charge made by the dairy interests
that so per cent of oeomargarine 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 not 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.
Another reason for opposing the bill is
that it will impose an extra cost of cents
per pound upon wholesome ana nutritious
article of food that has come into daily use
among the industrial class of our country,
thereby imposing a burden upon those who
least afford to bear it, In justification
of this position we respectfully submit a
large number of petitions received from
the labor organizations of our country pro-
testing against the passage of this bill for
the above given reasons
1t is evident that the purpose of the bill
Oh. r. 371O is not to prevent the fraudulent
sale of oleomarSarine, but the abolition OF
the industry. This statement was made
before our committee by Mr.. Adams pure
food commissioner for the state of Wiscon-
sin. in advocating the passage of the Grout
bill, and has been made at various times
by Mr.. knight, secretary of the National
Dairy Union.
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. provided by the Grout bill. would
thereby deprive the government of the rev.
enue it now receives. amounting to, in the
past year, about $2,50o00O.
other Measures.
Another consideration in this connection
is that the increased profit accruing for
violation of the law would lead to an in
crease in the illegitimate and dishonest
business carried on in oleomargarine, while
it would cripple or discourage honest deal
ers. The bill suggested by us protects hon.
est dealers and reaches dishonest ones.
And as further reason against the pas
sage of this bill. your committee submit
that they believe it to be class legislation
of the most pronounced kind and estab-
fishes a precedent which, if followed.
would create monopolies, destroy competi-
ton and initiate against public good.
Your committee would respectfully sub
init the accompanying bill, believing that
the one which we offer as substitute for
H. r. 3717 will effectually eliminate all
possibility of fraud without in any way re-
tarding the legitimate manufacture and
sale of oleomargarine.