The ranch. [volume] (Seattle, Wash.) 1902-1914, 1904-07-15
THE DAIRY
The Oleo Decision.


an end. This is at least true OF the
colored article. The present oleo law
requires the manufacturers OF oleo to
pay a tax of One-fourth OF one cent
per pound on all oleomargarine manu-
tactured to which no coloring matter
has been added, and a tax OF ten cents
per pound on all oleomargarine colored
10 initiate butter. The latter tax is so
nigh that it prevents the oleo manu-
facturers from competing with genuine
butter. They can, of course, continue
to manufacture the product without
adding colOring matter, but 1t is not
likely that they will find any very
great sale for their product in that
condition. Many have consumed oleo
in the past, never dreaming but that
they were eating good country or
creamery butter, as it is fact that
modern appliances OF the oleo manu-
facturers have been improved to such
an extent and their skill in making
this product has been so perfected
that it was difficult, even for good
Judges of butter, to tell the imita-
ton product from the real article.
The dairymen for many years have
Justly considered the sale OF oleo as
an imposition upon the public, and
have looked upon it as an unjust COM
petition. Various laws have been
passed to the effect that these manu-
facturerS should label their products
''oleomargarine" or Imitation butter.
These laws gave some rel1ef, but When
the article reached the restaurants the
labels did not find their way to the
tables, and hence the consumer at
these places had no means OF knowing
whether he was being fed on butter
or on oleo, and the result was that
imitation butter had a tremendous
sale in spite of legislation. This no
doubt had depressing effect upon the
price of the genuine article.
Some time ago Leo w. McRay was
fined $50 for selling cOlOred oleo upon
which a tax of only one-fourth of
cent had been paid, as Mr.. McRay
claimed his product was not "artif1c1-
ally colored," because he had colored
it by using butter which was itself
artificially colored and which practice
is sanctioned by law. He evidently
desired to make test case of 1t, as
the matter was taken before the United
States supreme court, which court has
recently affirmed the decision OF the
lower court sustaining the constltu-
tionality of the law. Justice Whlte
rendered the decision and declared
that the main question brought up by
the attorneys for Moray, that tax
of ten cents per pound was prohibi-
tive and confiscatory, and an evident
attempt on the part of the government
to exercise police powers within the
states, was irrelevant and had nothing
to do with this case. He held that
that was a matter for congress to de-
eide upon, which it has done, and he
did not consider it the business OF the
supreme court to go into details as to
the law The main point, in his opln-
ion, was whether congress had gone
beyond its power in imposing this pro
hibition tax on oleo and on this point
Justice White said:
"It is the duty Of the judiciary to re-
strain the acts of congress beyond the
powers given that body by the const1-
tuition, but if we sustain appellants
contention, it would mean that this
court not only has the power. but also
whether in our judgment it is wrong.
We hold that responsibility to deter
mine the question of power does not
embrace the right to go beyond that
and assert ourselves as regulators OF
the policies of congress and OF the
government"
nbo daoicion IF tha SrDreme court