The ranch. [volume] (Seattle, Wash.) 1902-1914, 1906-02-15


admitting that nothing is better than
good butter, she makes a number of
statements that will surely convey a
wrong impression to the unposted pub
lie regarding the fight that has always
been waged against oleomargarine by
the friends of the legitimate dairy in
dustry. She studiously avoids giving
the true reason for imposing a high
tax on oleomargarine colored in imi-
tation of butter She does not admit
that oleomargarine in its natural color
has full liberty to go on sale anywher.
in the country and as such has to pay
a tax of but two cents per pound; nor
does she make it plain to the reader
that only when oleomargarine tries TO
pose as real butter by assuming the
color of the genuine article has it To
pay tax of ten cents. She goes back
to 1886 and quotes an old law that i'm
posed a tax of two cents a pound on
oleomargarine, but forgets to quote
the more recent legislation on the
article. Had she done SO it is not i'm
probable that certain of her state
ments would have appeared so Incon
sistent as to have destroyed the eff
ficacy of the Delineator article for the
interests of the oleo manufacturer.
''The low cost at which this new
food (oleomargarine) can be manu-
featured has been it's undoing, and
has filled it's quarter century OF exist
ence with legal strife and won for 1T
the bitter enmity of one of the most
important industries of the United
States-the dairy business" Thus
writes Mary Hinman Abel. This is
not true. Oleomargarine found its I'M
doing solely in it's attempt to mas
querade as genuine butter. Had it
been confined to it's original color
white-and placed on the market for
just what it was, it never would have
been "undone" by the dairy industry.
But the moment it attempted to pass
off as genuine butter, being cOlored in
exact imitation of butter to help the
deceit, the dairy interests rose In
mighty protest and sat down on oleo-
margarine so hard that congress
thought it advisable to give it the
choice of going into the market in its
natural color at a revenue tax OF two
cents, or colored somewhat like but
ter at much higher tax.
That the attempt to initiate butter
IN the first place was conceived in
fraud is attested by the fact that as
soon as the tax on colored Oleo was
made high the sale of such began fall
ing off to a surprising extent. The
sale of oleomargarine is not prohibit
ed. but it's sale under false cOlOrs is
and justly so. Mary Hinman Abel,
however. does not look at the matter
in this light. She labors to make out
that oleomargarine is made martyr
of, and that unjust laws are retardlng
it's sale and depriving the wealthy
packers of an income which was re-
ceived through fraudulent operations.
No doubt but what the article in the
magazine mentioned is giving aid and
great comfort to the manufacturers or
oleomargarine, who, it is said, are now
laying the wires to make another on
slaught on congress and cause the ten
cent tax on cOlOred OleOmargarlne to
be abolished. The author asserts that
coloring of the oleO is "a matter OF
great Importance" but we fail to see
that she proves the point. The state
ment probably was made to influence
public opinion favorably to the abol-
ishing of the tax on the colored stuft,
so it could be sold at such ruinous
prices, and pass itself off as genuine
butter, that the legitimate dairy in
dustry cannot hope to compete and
exist. 1t behooves the friends of the
dairy business to be on their guard
against such willy tactics-patting the
dairyman on the back for his fine
product and at the same time sharpen
ing the stiletto preparatory to his as
sassination.