The Mankato free press. [volume] (Mankato, Blue Earth County, Minn.) 1879-1924, 1902-01-10
THE ouEo BILL.

ID SGruSSl0 III proSioSo ootWoont MI.
Tawney and Mr.. McCleary for per.
sonal glory over the question of cleo
margarine legislation. That is not tn,
fact. The question is simply this
Shall the Grout bill, for which tn,
] people have petitioned by the hundred
of thousands. be passed in this con
gress, or shall some substitute for ii b,
passeds Congressman McCleary i.
astsnding by the Grout bill exactly al
! it passed the house in the last CON
gress. Congressman Tawney is stand
ing for a substitute for it. The bill
introduced by Mr.. McCleary III. R.
u is an exact reproduction of the
! Grout bill of last congress. The bill
| which Mr.. Tawney introduced H. X.
A is not.
1t may be of interest in this con.
nection to know how Hon William w.
Grout of Vermont, the author of the
famous Circuit bill, thinks of the Taw-
ney substitute. In answer to an in
quiry from Mr.. McCleary, General
Circuit sent him a letter, copy OF
which we append hereto. Many of our
readers will no doubt be interested to
know General CIRCUITS Judgment in the
matter. In this connection it may be
we'll to remind our readers that under
existing law (Act of August 2, 1857
there is tax of two cents a pound on
oleomargarine, whether colored to mi
tate butter or not. Both the Circuit
blu and the Tawney substitute pro-
pose to raise the tax on colored oleo
ten cents per pound. The Circuit bill
reduces the tax on the uncolored oleo
to one-fourth of a cent a pound. The
Tawney substitute proposes to wipe
out the tax on uncolored oleo entirely.
What General circuit Himself Says.
st. Johnsbury, East Vt, Dec 80, 1901.
Hon. James T. McCleary, Washing
ton, D. C-My Dear McCleary: 1 am
just home after several days absence
aud find yours of the 24Eh instant,
though not the newspaper clippings of
which you speak.
think with with you that the
change made in the oleomargarine bill
of last year by Mr.. Tawney's~ bill does
not strengthen it but weakens it, and
as matter of policy is very. unwise,
to say the least In the last congress
the bill was endorsed by the country
and the house without demand from
any one for this change. No one who
then opposed us will now be reconciled
by this change. How, then, can the
change be said to facilitate the pass
age of the bill2 On the contrary, 1 be-
lieve the change would embarrass it's
passage. II would give our opponents
a chance to say that we do not know
what we want that in one congress
we propose one thing in the next con-
gress another and different thing.
Any change of front in the face of
the enemy is always dangerous ex-
pertinent. We are literally in the face
of an enemy. whom we have thus far
been unable to handle. The proposed
change of position would present to
him a wavering, vacillating front. No
one can fail to see that this would
weaken us and give room for courage
on his part.
Of course, if the change. will make
better law, that is full answer to all
this class of objections. Let us see If
it will.
The bill of last session reduced the
tax on uncolored oleomargarine from
two cents to one-fourth of cent pei
pound. The Tawney bill takes the tax
off the uncolored article altogether.
| The objection to this is that with nc
tax on the uncolored oleomargarine
the revenue derived from licenses I'm.
der the law would be insufficient tc
pay the expense of administering it
and no one will pretend that this dirty
fraud ought not to be kept under con
tribution in a sum surely sufficient fol
that purpose. There ought to be NJ
mistake about this. The sum better be
considerably too large than little to-
small. -....
| Of course, it cannot now be exactl,
determined what the revenue from tn,
uncolored product would be. But thu
drafter of the bill of last year felt tina
there would be no mistake in provid
ing sufficient revenue from the act it
self to cover the cost of holding dow
| this fraud that under no circum
stances should it be charge on tn
treasury. In short, that it would no
be fair to tax the dairymen for tn
purpose of paying the cost of enforc
ing the law that protects him from
dishonest competition not fair to ia,
the general public for the enforcement
of law protecting it from fraudu
lent food product, especially when W
have in our hands the machinery TO
making that fraudulent food produc
itself pay the cost.
But some one may say that the IN
colored article is not fraudulent. Tha
answer is not sufficient. While it i
true that the uncolored article in itsel
is not fraudulent, it is also true tina
unless constantly watched at great cos
the dress of butter will be given it, s
that it may go out and palm itself OF
on an unsuspecting public as butter
and at the price of butter. It, is S
liable to become fraudulent, the temp
tation being so great for it to do sc
that the only safety lies in keeping
under constant surveillance, and tbs
too at constant cost. And speaking 70
myself say let this article-I mea
uncolored oleomargarine, which on
friends say is not fraudulent, BIT
which cannot be trusted out of sight
itself pay the cost Of the inspector WI
| must constantly stand over it to kee
it from being fraudulent. do not b.
J lieve that less than one-fourth of
cent per pound will do this But if
should little more than do it, VIII
will say that that little would be a
unjust burden2 What think you th
dairymen of the country would say o
this point3 What, in short, the who
public, whose sense Of fairness can a
ways be relied on2
The proposed change from last year
bill, as you will see, is really prop'
sition favorable to oleomargarine.
] would be gratuitous concession