The Montgomery advertiser., 1902-05-10
rnr oLE1rAnaAnrNr 1IIL.

In another place 10 pubhshed letter from valued friend and subscriber, talk ing issue with The Advertisers position on the oleomargerine bill. We have no desire to enter into an extended con- troyersy with the writer. but there are one or two points In his letter worth noting. What we said about the ad- Vance in the price of butter was based on the quotations printed in the news papers of the country, which are as apt to be correctly informed as "Hoard's Dairyman," or any other paper devoted to the interests which profit by the law in question and which worked it through Congress. And We must also inform the writer that no decline such as he men, tions has made itself manifest in any of our butter bills, nor Is butter quoted by our local merchants at lower figures than formerly. True, there was a sudden and decided rise in butter few days age, which was followed by a decline. but there Is no cheap butter in this market, and a well informed local dealer gives it as his opinion that if the oleo bin goes ttto ChNNt tut PEtSG Ol BCuuiHc Uubtti win go up beyond the reach of most people
 Now a few words about the act of Con- gress of August 2, 1886, and the action of President Cleveland. The act was a | sweeping one, but 1t lacked one of the most objectionable features of the present one in that 1t was impartial. There was . license tax on manufacturers and deaI- CTS. and a specific tax of 2 cents per pound on all oleomargerne manufsctur- ed, and under that name was included every artificial product made or sold as butter. The present law, on the con trary. imposes . tax of only Une-fourth of a cent pound on oleomargerine not colored. and a tax of ten cents pound on it if colored to initiate butter. This forty times as much as the uncolored is an outrage. Another redeeming feature of the act of 1886 is that every package | or lot of the manufactured product must | be stamped, marked or branded so that | no purchaser could fail to know just what he was getting. In addition to that. the tax of cents per pound was not prohibi- tive.
 | Turning to MT. Clevelands message, which we have read carefully. but which is too long for republication. we find that he was not at all satisfied with the act Referring to the argument that the bill | was intended to destroy one industry for the benefit of another he says that if he was entirely satisfied" that 1t would have such a result he should doubtless 1 feel constrained to interpose executive j dissent" plainly showing the doubt that existed in his mind. Again he calls at- tention to the fact that certain pro- visions of the act may be construed as an an interference with the police powers of | the States, and adds: Not being entire- ly satisfied of the unconstitutionality of these provisions, and regarding them as not being so connected and interwoven l with the other sections as if found in- | valid, to vitiate the entire measure, 1
 have determined to commend them to the attention of the House with view to the
 immediate amendment of the bill If it should be deemed necessary and If it is practicable at this late day in the session
 of Congress"
 MT. Cleveland also alluded to the fac,
 the expiration of ninety days after its
 passage, which would be within one
 month of the re-assembling of Congress
 and he reasoned that no great harm
 could result, even if part or all of the
 act should be found objectionable. In
 was in doubt about the act and he did
 what was a very rare thing for him and
 yielded his own judgment to that ot Con.
 gress. From the tenor of his message we
 feel that we are justified in repeating that
 he would not approve the present act l if he was President.
 We have devoted some space to this
 matter because we believe the bill is vicious. unjust, discriminating and inde-
 fensible, and ought not to become a law
 Oleomargerine should not be prohibited or taxed, but 1t should be made a crime I
 act of 1886 it should be so stamped or
 marked that no purchaser could fail to
 know just what he was getting, and with
 this precaution its manufacture and sale
 should be unhampered.
 We shall close this article with an ex.
 tract from recent editorial in The Kan.
 sas City Journal, a Republican paper
 which usually endorses whatever is done
 its Party, and which is published 1T
 the great butter region of the North,
 west. 1t says:
 The Retail Merchants Association, oi Kansas City, yesterday sent a telegram | to President Roosevelt asking him to veto the anti-oleo bill. The Journal express cd a hope some days ago that the Presi dent would take this action. There art
 abundant reasons why he should do so The butterine industry is a legitimate one filling genuine want of the people. The
 prices regularly charged for butter place
 that staple article out of reach of mil.
 lions of working people and others ol
 small incomes Oleomargarine makes q
 good and wholesome. substitute. It is
 sold at a price which enables the humble to have 1t upon their tables. That it is
 appreciated is shown by the records of its sales many millions of>pounds being l consumed annually.
 To deprive the working people of this
 substantial item in their daily bill of fare
 would be to impose upon them a real
 hardship. This is all the more true be-