The Barre daily times. (Barre, Vt.) 1897-1959, 1912-02-07
CIRCUIT oLEo LAW CHANGES
Reported On BY Pres. Carter of Yer
mont Dairymen's Association.

| ueHI Vi tHe NtlmOhb ian hith , "Soo
citation, has sent out the following letter
| TO members:
As you may remember, at the meeting
of the Vermont Dairymen's association
in Burlington in January. Congressman
Foster asked that representative he
| sent to Washington 10 assist Mr.. Plum
ley in opposing the repeal of the Grout
| oleomargarine law. The choice fell ON
me for no other reason, apparently, ex-
cept that / had the time.
| went to Washington and found the
situation somewhat peculiar. The oleo-
margarine manufacturers were urging
that since their product was a pure,
wholesome article of food, and so reeog
nzed by the pure food and drug act,
that the law hindered the legitimate
expansion of their business.
The labor organizations, on account Of
the present high prices of butter. We're
demanding the repeal of the law having
the mistaken notion that its repeal
would lower the price OF butter, or at
least enable them to purchase sub
stitute at low price. Allied with the
above interests was the internal rev
enue department The solicitor general
of internal revenue affirmed that il was
Impossible to enforce the law owing to
its inherent defects, and that the law
in itself was an inducement to fraud
and furnished the means of perpetrat
ing such fraud.
] must confess that T. like most farm
ers, was possessed with the idea that
the tax on oleomargarine was 10 cents
a pound. | found that the tax under
the Grout law was one-fourth of a cent
a pound. but the law specifics that on
oleo "artificially colored tax of 10 cents
a pound must be paid. The word Ear
tifeally" was the joker. The courts
held that any essential" ingredient
which entered into the composition Of
leo. however much IL might color the
product, could not be held to be "arti-
fetal" color. Consequently the manufac
turers of oleo sought for and employed
oils and ingredients which while enter
ing into the composition OF the sub
stance, would produce the yellow color.
Furthermore, the tax on uncolored oleo
being one. fourth OF a cent, and on col
ored 10 cents. was the great inducement
to fraud. The dealers secured their IL
censes to sell both colored and unco-
ored, purchased a few packages OF the
colored on which the tax Of 10 cents
had been paid, then purchased large
quantities OF uncolored, which they coli
ored themselves and sold from the pack
ages which bore the stamp for colored
olcomargarine. They could easily do
this for the law specified that the stamp
on the package must not be DESTROYED
until the package was empty. The re-
suit was that the dealer never allowed
the package to get empty.
Three Per Cent. Paid Tax.
| learned from the solicitor that of the !
lls,000000 pounds of oleo removed for
in the United States last |
year. that only three per cent paid tax |
as colored, while over s0000000 pounds |
reached the consumer as colored oleomar
garine and probably a large per cent |
was sold as butter The tax collected |
from the oleomargarine manufacturers !
was less than $500,000 Had the law I
been enforced and the tax OF 10 cents a
pound on the 90,000,000 pounds which |
was sold as eolored oleomargarine, been
you can readily see that the
revenue would have been over SS.000,000.
The solicitor told us Of case after case
where a conviction could not be had al
though dealers were caught with the
uneolored product, the cooring matter
and the appliances for coloring in their
pos session. The Judges before whom the
eases were brought claimed that the
revenue department must show the
actual sale of of the identical piece
:olored. This, of course, they could not
10: hence the cases were dismissed.
Having all the above facts before me,
md becoming convinced not only that
the law would be repealed or amended
buC that il should at least be amended,
It seemed to me wiser to help coneilate
the different interests and aid in Sc
curing the passage of a law which would
correct the defects in the Grout law
md safeguard the interests of the but
.er maker, while assisting the oleo man
lfacturer. Remember that the latter
vas not the man who was perpetrating
he fraud and was as anxious that
,he law be enforced as was the dairy
nan.
The agricultural committee appointed
subcommittee to draft a new law.
This subcommittee first agreed that
he nutItE HdktI was tUbllieu 10 pro- |
ection from fraud in his market and the
leo manufacturer was likewise entitled
o the free and unhindered market TO
ell his product for what it is This
was composed of five
Members, one being from our second
congressional district. Frank Plumley.
whose voice and Judgment carried great
weight in framing the bill which was |.
nally reported. This committee invit- /,
d the representatives of the different /,
interests to come before it-and mingling
n its deliberations, TO assist it in franz
ng a bill which should be satisfactory.
Asked For Change of Name. t
The oleomargarine manufacturers asked s
hat the word to designate the product :
Q changed to margarin," this being the y
oreign name for the product. They :
lso asked that they be allowed to put {
in packages of from one-half to ten Y
ounds in size The dairy interests in c
isted that the size Of the original pack
&c should not be larger than one-half ?
nd one pound, that the name should be d
eeply indented in the substance. that >
he strip stamp used on tobacco should c
? so placed around the package as TO a
fectually seal it, and that this stamp q