CONGKESS. (Tns OLEOMARGARINE LAW.) 



233 



sible safeguard about its agricultural interests. 

 They who devote their entire lives to the pro- 

 duction of those articles which are relied upon 

 for the sustenance of the people have a primal 

 right to make known their grievances and to 

 persist in their appeals until at least a measure 

 of relief is afforded. The farmer is never agres- 

 sive, but always patient. His hours of toil are 

 not limited to the period between the rising 

 and setting of the sun ; he suffers hardships in 

 his battles with Nature, but his struggles are 

 the struggles of peace ; he is always law- 

 abiding, and never fractious. True to the in- 

 dependent characteristics of his calling, he is 

 slow to invite others to his assistance; and 

 when that appeal is made it should be answered 

 with a promptness that attests the nation's 

 confidence in his statements and appreciation 

 of his worth. Within a period of less than ten 

 years a gigantic traffic has grown up which has 

 already displaced one fifth of the purest prod- 

 uct of the dairy, and substituted therefor an 

 article the ingredients of which are acknowl- 

 edged to be not only offensive in their original 

 character to human taste, but positively inju- 

 rious to the public healtb. So rapidly has this 

 traffic developed, and so vast have its propor- 

 tions become, that State Legislatures have been 

 powerless to arrest its growth, and the na- 

 tional Congress is finally appealed to to pass 

 laws that shall at least check its further disas- 

 trous advance." 



Touching the constitutional authority to levy 

 the tax provided for in the bill he said : 



" The Congress of the United States unques- 

 tionably possesses the right to tax any industry 

 or any commodity, however innocent in its 

 effects. The harmless article of salt, which 

 enters so largely into the manufacture of but- 

 ter, carries with it the enormous tax of 236^ 

 per cent., while whisky is taxed 90 cents per 

 gallon, with the avowed object of restricting 

 its sale because of the baneful influence which 

 springs therefrom. There are those who favor 

 the taxation of oleomargarine to the point of 

 extermination, but with these I can not agree. 

 If there are those who prefer oleomargarine to 

 the genuine butter, the manufacturer should 

 be allowed to supply that demand ; but, in my 

 judgment, he should be required to pay a tax 

 sufficient at least to equalize the difference in 

 the cost of producing the counterfeit and the 

 cost of producing the genuine article which he 

 seeks to imitate and displace." 



Mr. Reagan, of Texas, in opposition to the 

 measure, said : " If the object was to tax oleo- 

 margarine for revenue, it would be within the 

 power of Congress to levy such a tax, but the 

 object manifestly being to drive it out of exist- 

 ence, to destroy it as a product, there is, in my 

 judgment, no power under the Constitution au- 

 thorizing the passage of such a bill. We no- 

 where in the Constitution find any power au- 

 thorizing Congress to destroy any product or to 

 outlaw any article. There is no such power. 

 The States may, if they see proper to do so, but 



we have not been informed that any State has 

 attempted to do it, and if the community suffers 

 the injury which it is alleged grows out of the 

 manufacture and use of oleomargarine, it is 

 singular indeed that the people in the several 

 States have not discovered that fact and ap- 

 plied the remedy which they clearly have the 

 power to apply in such cases." 



Mr. Hiscock, of New York, maintained the 

 right of Congress to tax any industry either 

 simply for revenue or for the protection of 

 another: "I ask gentlemen upon the other 

 side of the House, who always have or profess 

 to have special charge of the Constitution, 

 when has there ever been a time in the history 

 of our country, when, for the purpose of taxa- 

 tion, we have not discriminated in favor of 

 one industry and against another ? It is con- 

 ceded on all hands that under the taxing power 

 we can tax the manufacture of any product 

 out of existence, and where then is the ground 

 for opposition to this bill ? It has always been 

 conceded by every statesman, or less, who has 

 ever discussed a tax law, that it was proper to 

 discriminate in favor of, protect, if you please, 

 one industry if it needed it, as against another. 

 This can not be disputed, and who challenges 

 the assertion ? 



"Gentlemen have been appealed to and 

 put upon their consciences and oaths, in de- 

 livering their votes upon this bill. Well, by 

 our votes, one industry is to be stricken down; 

 that great industry in favor of which three 

 fourths of all the States have legislated agri- 

 culture, an industry from which this country 

 derives practically all of the wealth it has or 

 we are to foster and support it. What is 

 asked? That in levying taxes we will give it 

 incidental protection as against a compound 

 which has been declared by those who have 

 examined it to be vile in its component parts, 

 and carrying with it the germs of insidious dis- 

 ease, a fraudulent, spurious article, which is 

 palmed off upon the poor as an honest product 

 of the dairy." 



Mr. Curtin, of Pennsylvania, attacked both 

 the principle and the policy of the bill : " I 

 believe the whole system of internal taxation 

 is wrong, unjust, and not needed by this Gov- 

 ernment, and I do most decidedly object to 

 making any addition to it. And as to the 

 quality of this food, after all, Mr. Chairman, it 

 is the American man who must judge of what 

 he shall eat and give to his family. The aver- 

 age American man is quite capable of judging 

 whether butter made in this manner is good 

 or bad for him whether it is a wholesome 

 article of food or whether it is a source of 

 contagious disease. With my experience of 

 life, 1 am willing to submit to every Ameri- 

 can citizen what is best for himself and family, 

 and the Congress of the United States can 

 neither regulate his independence of action nor 

 appetite. I admit, however, that it is the right 

 and duty of the Government to inquire into the 

 wholesomeness of this food, and to make the 



