The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1900-12-29
The Grout Bill.

The State Dairymen's Association. In
session at Cheney. has adopted resolu-
tons fayoring the Circuit bill, which are
notable for the exactness with which they
define the real objects and purposes Of
that bill. and for the ease with which
they demolish the sole arguments made
against Its passage. The object of the
Grout bill is not to deprive the poor man
OF opportunity to purchase a cheap sub
stitute for butter but to prevent him
from being imposed upon by the fraud
which seeks to palm on a substitute as
butter. and at butter price. The bill
affects in no manner adversely any legit-
innate business. II simply aims at the
prevention Of a fraud upon the public.
All Of the arguments against the pas
sage Of the Circuit bill ignore this feature
of the question. II oleomargarine. or any
other butter substitute, is cheap and
wholesome food what necessity exists
for the attempt fraudulentiy to deceive
the purchaser and consumer OF 1t into
the belief that he is buying something
else? Why is II not sold In the open mar
ket. without disguise. under its own
name. and for what IT purports to be?
There Is considerable talk about the i'm
portant business interests which would
be adversely affected by the passage OF
this bill. II Is not the business itself
which Is attacked. 1t is simply the fraud
ulent side OF the business. The tax on
uncolored oleomarsarine is reduced by the
bill. so that burden is lifted from tho
legitimate business. The tax Is increased
10 an almost prohlbi,ive extent on the
colored butter substitute. so as to make
the fraud Improbable. The purchasers
OF oleomargarine. II the Grout law went
into effect, would know precisely what
they were buying. and would get the BEN
eft Of the cheaper price at which the sub
siituie Is sold, At the present time II is
the retailer. who buys the substitute at
the low price and passes Il on to the con-
sumner as butter. who gets the benefit.
The fact that the business Is an open
and palpable fraud on the consumer can.
not be successfully disputed The abSo-
lutte proof Of the fraudulent character OF
H. under present conditions Is found in
the almost complete absence OF butter
substitutes. under their own names. IN
the retail markets. As a practically uni
form rule. they are sold as butter
The dairy interests are Of course the
most prominen, In pressing for this par
,icular legislation. but, after an. their In
,erests are no, 20 great as the interests
OF the ordinary consumers The dairy
men simply saffer In some degree from
an unfair and Injurious competition. The
consumer Is the victim 81 fraud
There can be legitimate market made
for oleomargarine under It's own name.
II viii require some time to overcome
the prejudice which Will a; arst exist
against nsins Il. pneolorcd; bat Its cheap.
ness win always be an argument In It's
faVor Had the practice Of marketing q
on It's merits and not under false pre-
lenses, been IN use from the start. u
would already have made place FOR 81.
self. and the profits % the manufacturers
would probably have been rs great as
they arc at present. II the Grout bill
passes, the manufacturers win simply
have TO retrace their steps. and start
again on the plane which they should
have occupied from the beginning.
II is admitted now. BY California wine
growers that serious mistake was made
in the early history Of the industry, when
the product was marketed under the false