108 OLEOMARGARINE. 



has taken the tax for it.' 1 To say nothing of constitutional provisions, 

 is that justice? Can you defend it upon any ground of doing justice 

 to any class of our people? I do not think you can. 



The second section of the bill, imposing a tax of 10 cents a pound 

 upon the articles manufactured in semblance of butter, will only per- 

 mit the article having paid the tax to be sold in 13 States of the 

 Union, and then under the laws regulating its sale by marking it and 

 indicating what it is. 



I wish to call the attention of the committee to the fact that if you 

 pass the first section of the bill you provide as to every law in those 

 States that that law may have its full force and effect. You must say 

 that of the law which requires the keeper of a hotel to notify all his 

 guests that oleomargarine is used in his hotel; that he must put up 

 signs here and there over his hotel notifying them that oleomargarine 

 is used. In some States it must be colored an offensive color, bearing 

 which no one will purchase it, and in other States even the wagons 

 carrying it along streets must have labels upon them that these wagons 

 are carrying oleomargarine. The inventive genius of legislators, it 

 seems to me, has been exhausted in throwing around oleomargarine 

 in the States those offensive provisions which will drive it out of exist- 

 ence, if possible. 



In this country we have for many years, in fact from the foundation 

 of the Government, recognized the right of the United States, in 

 imposing taxes upon foreign goods coming into this country, so to 

 discriminate in the laying of those taxes that our manufacturers would 

 be protected from ruinous competition with the manufacturers of like 

 goods in other countries. That policy has almost become a part of 

 our fixed system. But never until this legislation has been invoked 

 has it been contended that Congress should interfere between home 

 producers, and by the use of the taxing power build up one industry 

 and destroy another. This is the first attempt; and, gentlemen of the 

 committee and of Congress, let me call your attention to the fact that 

 if you start on this road there is no end to it. You will be vexed with 

 applications for interfering in almost every kind of business in this 

 country. 



An effort was made, and has been renewed several times, to get 

 Congress to put a tax on what is called compound lard. In two or 

 three Congresses committees of the House have investigated the sub- 

 ject of compound lard, and once they passed a bill in the House upon 

 that subject for the purpose of having compound lard subject to a tax. 

 I do not know that that would make it any different from what oleo- 

 margarine is subject to. 



There has been a suggestion that what is known as process butter 

 should also be subjected to taxation, but that suggestion has been very 

 much opposed by those engaged in the manufacture of process butter. 

 I will ask permission to print in the record a letter that I have on the 

 subject, which I will not take up your time to read, showing that the 

 dealers in process butter are very much concerned in regard to this 

 proposed legislation for fear that the next bill proposed will be a tax 

 upon process butter. 



The following letter was recently received by a member of the 

 House of Representatives: 



" DANVILLE, ILL., March 17, 1900. 



"DEAR SIR: I see bj- a circular mailed to me that a member of Con- 

 gress from Mississippi by the name of Williams introduced a bill on 



