- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. '

... , . ' ., II -·

~ .. .-

1890. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 8941 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

THURSDAY, August 21, 18UO.

The House met ab 11 o'clock a. m. Prayer by Rev. J. H. CUTHBERT, D.D.

.APPROVAL OF THE JO URN AL.

The SPEAKER. The Clerk will cause the Journal of the proceedings of the last session to be read.

Mr. ROGERS. ?ilr. Speaker, I make the point of ordel' that there is no quorum present this morning.

The SPEAKER. If the gentleman insist.'! upon the point, the Chair will be obliged tt> say that there is no quorum present.

lt!r. McKINLEY. I move a call of the Honse. A call of the Honse was ordered. The Clerk proceeded to call the roll; when the following members

failed to answer to their names: Abbott, Cooper, Ohio Ketcham, Alderson, Cothran, Kilgore, Allen, Mi1s. Covert, Knapp, Andei-son, Miss. Cowles, La Follette Andrew, Craig, Laidlaw, Arnold, Crain, Lansing, Atkinson, Pa. Crisp, J;awler, Atkinson, W. Va. Cummings, Laws, Baker, Cutcheon, Lee, Bankhead, Dalzell, Lehlbach, Barnes, Dargan, Lewis, Barwig, Davidson, Lind, Bayne, De Haven, Lodge, Beckwith, De Lano, l\Iagner, Belden, Dibble, l\Iaish, Belknap, Dickerson, l\I1ntin, Tex. Bergen, D ockery, 1\:lcAdoo, Biggs, Dolliver, l\IcCarthy, Bingham, Bunphy, l\IcComas, Blanchard, Edmunds, J\IcCord, Bland, Elliott, 1\IcCormick, Boatner, Ellis, McCreary, Boutelle, Enloe, l\IcDuffie, Bow<len, Evans, l\Ic::Uillin, Breckinridge, Ark. Ewart, l\Iiles, Brewer, Featherston, l\Iilliken, Brower, Finley, Mills, Brown, J.B. · Fitch, l\Iontgoruery, Browne, T. M. Flood, l\Iorey, Browne, Va. Flower, :l\Iorgan, Brunner, Forney, l\Iorrill, Buchanan, Va. "Fowle!.·, l\Iorrow, Buckalew, Funston, l\Iorse, Bulloc~, Geissenhniner Mudd, Bunn, Gibson, Nute, Burrows, Gifford, Oates, Burton, Goodnight, O'Ferrall, Butterwortll, Greenhalge, O'Neall, Incl. Bynum, Grosvenor, Osborne, Caldwell, Grout, Outhwaile, Campbell, Hansbrough , Owen, Ind. Candler, Ga. Ila re, Parrett, Candler, l\Inss. Hatch, Payne, Cannon, Ra.yes, Paynter, Carlton, Haynes, Peel, ,, Carter, Heard, Perkins, Cheadle, Hemphill, Perry, Cheatham, Herbert, Peters, Clancy, Jiermann, Phelan, Clements, Hill, Pickler, Clunie, Hitt, Pierce, Cobb, Holman, Post, Cogswell, Hooker, Pugsley, Coleman, Hopkins, Quackenbush, Comstock, Kelley, Randall , Cooper, Ind. Kerr, Pa. Ray,

Reyburn, Richardson, Rife, P.obertson, Rusk, Russell, Sanford, Sawyer, Scranton, Scull, Seney, Sherman, Shively, Smith, W. Va. Smyser, Snider, Spinola, Spooner, Sp1inger, Stilhlnecker, Stephenson, Stewart, Ga. ~tewart, Vt. Stivers, Stockdale, Stump, Taylor,J. D. 'l'hompson, Townsend , Colo. Tracey, Tucker Turner;Kans. Turner, N. Y. Van Schaick, Vaux, Venable, \~·ade, Walker, \Vallace, l\Ias!!, \Vashington, \Vatson, \Vheeler, Ala. Wheeler, Micb, Whiting, Whitthorne, Wike Wiley, "'Wilkinson, Wil Iiams, Ill. Wilson, Ky. \Vilson, Wash. Wilson, \V. Va. Yoder.

During the roll-call the following members appeared and had their names recorded at the Clerk's desk under the rule:

Mr. BANKHEAD, Mr. BROWER, Mr. CHEADLE, Mr. BGRTON, Mr. BELKXAP, Mr. D.!.LZELL, Mr. CANDLER of Georgia, 1\Ir. EARWIG, l\Ir. BLAND; Mr. ELLIOTT, l\1r. CRISP, 1\Ir. BAKER, Mr. COVERT, Mr. .A.TKI:NSONofPennsylvania, Mr.COM TOCK, ]\fr. HERBERT, Mr. DIBBLE, Ur. MONTGOMERY, Mr. BUNN, Mr. DOCKERY, Mr. COMMINGS, Mr.. QUACKENBUSH, Mr. CARLTOX, Mr. ANDREW, Mr. GROSYENOR, Mr. HAN BROlJGH, l'rlr. CL.ANCY, Mr. HATCH, Mr. WHEELER of Alabama, Mr. ENLOE, Mr. BYNUM, Mr. l\icCoRl\IICK.

The SPEAKER. The Clerk reports 139 members present-not a 11uorum.

Some time subsequentJy the following members appeared and answered to their-names:

Mr. BRECKINRIDGE of Arkansas, Mr. FORNEY, Mr. TURNER of New York, Mr. WALKER) Mr. TUCKER, Mr. LEWIS, Mr. LANSING, Mr. MORGAN, Mr. MORRILL, Mr. ROBERTSON, Mr. GOODNIGHT, Mr. SA WYER, .l\'lr. CoOPER of Indiana, Mr. SMYSER, Mr. CARTER, Mr. RUSSELL, Mr. lIOLl\IAN, Mr. MORSE, Mr. CLEMENTS, Mr. MORROW, Mr. CRAIN, Mr. HITT, Mr. HAYNES, Mr. LAWLER, Mr. BUTTERWORTH, l\Ir. CANXOX, Mr. BERGEN, Mr. SPRINGER, Mr. EVANS, Mr. WILKINSON, Mr. ATKINSON of West Virginia.

Mr. McKINLEY. I offer the following resolution, which I ask the Clerk to read.

The Clerk read as follows: Resol·ved, That the Sergeant-at-Al•JllS take into custody and bring to the bar

of the House such of its members as ar& absent without the lea Ye of the House.

The resolution was agreed to. ~Ir. WHEELER, of Alabama. (at 11 o'clock and 35 minutes). Mr.

Speaker, I rise to a parliamentary inquiry. How are the gentlemen recorded who have come into the Hall since their names were called?

The SPEAKER. They are entered as present. Mr. WHEELER, of Alabama. Are they recorded as present, or as

having entered the Hall after their names were called, and consequently as not having answered to their names?

The SPEAKER. They are entered as present under the rule. Mr. WHEELER, of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I want to make the

point that I think the spirit of the rule requires that the roll be called twice. Now, take the gentlemen whose names bead the list, who may happen to be in the lobby when their names are called. They are therefore reported as not answering. Now, I read the rule once before, and the Speaker in effect, I think, ruled that I was right. It provides positively that the roll shall be called twice on all roll-calls. I read the Rule, No. XV, which says:

l. Upon every roll-call the names of the members shalI be called a.Jpha.beticnlly by surname, except when two or more have the same surname, in which case the name of the State shall be added; and, if there be two such members from the same State, the whole nnme shall be called: and after the roll has been once called the Clerk shall call in their nlphabetical order the names of those not voting. ·

This certainly is a roll-call, and the rule is emphatic that-Upon every roll-call the names of the members shall be called. * * * And

after the roll has been once called the Clerk shall call in their alphabetical or· der the names of those not >oting.

Now, Jefferson's Manual, section 7, page 13 of the Digest, which we have adopted and printed ·with our Rules, under section 7, ''Call of the II~ose," says:

On ::i. call of the House, each person rises up a.s he is called, and answereth; the absentees are then only noted, but no excuse to be made until the House be fulJy called over. Then the absentees :U'e called a second time, and if still absent, excuses are to be heard.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that being the spirit of the rule, that the roll shall be called twice, the House can see the greab injustice that is done to certain members. Take, for instance, the name of Mr. ABBOTT, the first name ou the list--

The SPEAKER. No injustice is done to any member who is present. Mr. WHEELER, of Alabama. But if be does not happen to be in

his seat at the time and neglects to answer because he depends upon the Speaker to enforce the mles and require the roll to be called the second time--

The SPEAKER. Then it would be a great injustice not to call the roU a third time, for he mi~ht not be here on the second call.

Mr. ''"'REELER, of Alabama. No; the rule does not say the roll shall be called a third time, but it says it shall be called a second time; and what I insist upon is that the rule be fully complied with, and then no injustice will be done to any one; but I say it is a great injus~ tice not to comply with the rule and not to have the roll called a second time, and thus subject a member to be reported as absent when he is actua.11y here attending to his duties in the House.

The suggestion of the Speaker, or rather his answer to my argument, that it would be as great an injustice'' not to call the roll a third time,'' bas no application and is devoid of any force whatever, because neither the rules of this House nor the custom of this House nor the rules of parliamentary law, nor the rules of the House of Commons, nor the rules of any parliamentary body on earth provide for calling names a third time.

I will further state that neither Jefferson nor Cushing nor any other author of a manual or other work on parliamentary law suggests the propriety of a third call of the roll, but the rules of all these bodies and the rules laicl down in all the books I have mentioned do prescribe that the roll shall be called twice, ancl the members of this House ex:· pect it and conform their action to it, and they do not expect a third roll-call; but in addition to all this the present Speaker sometimei:r, upon calls of the House, orders the roll to be called a second time, and it is certainly of importance to have uniformity of action on such a question.

Again, o. call of the roll when :rcall of the House is ordered is the only roll-call whicb, if called twice, will in nowise whatever delay proceeding.

It is only because a quorum is not present that a call of the House is permissible.

It is almost invariable that the call de>elops and confirms the truth of the absence of a quorum, and then it is invariable that the Honse does nothing whatever, but awaits the coming in of members, and during that interval when any other business is absolutely im1">ossible there certa.inly can be no question of the propriety, feasibility, and advisability of having for once the rules complied with and the names of those members called who failed to answer on the :first call.

I therefore resp~tfully submit that the orderly and parliamentary conduct of business and the propriety of conforming to our rules as_ well as the rules laid down by all the works upon parliamentary law which we profess to follow and adopt as our codes of procedure require that the roll be called a second time, and I therefore trust that it will be so ordered.

The SPEAKER. The Chair thinks the rule of the House is very

' .

-.

._

: ~ .

' .. __

·-

.-

·.

',

. (

. .

.... ~ ......

·.

. :

8942 CONGRESSIONAL -RECOR~HOUSE. AUGUST 21, ,, simple, that one call is all that the rule requires, and then that excuses may be offered for absentees. The rule is very explicit and the Chair has repeatedly ruled on it.

Mr. WHEELER, of Alabama. The Chair has repeatedly ca11sed the roll to be called a second time.

The SPEAKER. The Chair has once done so, but it was by inadvertence.

At 11 0 1clock and 35 minutes-The SPEAKER. The Clerk reports 166 members present-a quo

rum. Mr. McKINLEY. I move to dispense with all further proceedings

under the call. The motion was agreed to. The Journal of the proceedings of yesterday was read and approved.

CHANGE OF Til\IE OF HOLDING COURTS IN THE WESTER~ DISTRICT OF 1\IISSOURL

Mr. CULBERSON, of Texas. I desire unanimous consent to make a statement to the House.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection? [After a pause.] The Chair bears none.

Mr. CULBERSON, of Texas. In the early part of the session we passed a bill to regulate the times of holding courts in a Missouri district. By mistake we required courts to be held at two places on the same day in the same district. The Senate has passed a bill to correct the error, which is now on the Speaker's table. I askunanimousconsent that it be taken from the Speaker's table and put upon its passage, as the present situation is creating a great deal of inconvenience to the people of that district.

The SPEAKE~. The Clerk will read the bill, after which the Chair will submit the question of granting unanimous COilSf'.nt.

The Clerk read as follows: A. bill (S. 4335) to change the time of the sessions of the circuit and district

courts for the western district of Missouri. Be it enacted, etc., That the terms of the circuit and district courts of the

United States for the western division of the western district of Missouri shall bezin and be held at Kansas City, in said State, on the first Mondays in March and September annually.

That the terms of the circuit and district courts of the United States for the St. Joseph division of the western district of l\fissouri shall begin and be held in St. Joseph, in said State, on the first Mondays in April and November annually.

That the terms of the circuit aud district courts of the United States for the eentral division of the western district of Missouri shall begin and be held at Jefferson City, in said State, on the third Mondays in April and November an· nually.

That the terms of the circuit and district courts of the United States for the southern dirnion of the western district of Missouri shall begin and be held at Springfield, in said State, on the third Mondays in May and October annually.

SEC. 2. That all proces issued and returnable to either of said courts, in pursuance of exi ting law, shall be deemed returnable to the terms in this a.ct established, and all recognizances for appearances at any of said now existing terms shall be deemed and taken t-0 have reference to and legal effect in the re· spective terms in this act established, a.ll with the same force and effect a.s if this act had been in force at the time such process was issued and such recognizance ta.ken.

SEC. 3 . .Al1 acts providing for holding either of the courts in the first section of this act mentioned at times other than those in said first section mentioned are hereby repe&led.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the present consideration of the bill? [After a pause.] The Chair hears none.

The bill was ordered to a third reading; and it was accordingly read the third time, and passed.

Mr. CULBERSON, of Texas, moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

The latter motion was agreed to. The SPEAKER. Without objection, the House bill of a similar

character will be laid on the table. There was no objection.

BRIDGE A.CRO S THE RED RIVER OF THE NORTH.

Mr. HALL. - I ask unanimous consent for the present consideration of the bill (H. R. 3715) to amend an act entitled "An act authorizing the construction of a bridge across the Red River of the North," ap-proved July 16, 1888.

The bill was read, as follows:

.-

Be it enacled, etc., That section 5 of the act entitled "An act authorizing the construction of a. bridge across the Red River of the North," approved July 16, 1888, be. and the same hereby is, amended so as to extend the time for completing said bridge t-0 four years from the date of passage of said act, instead of two ye&rs as specified therein.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none. Mr. BROSIUS. Will any debate be required on this bill? Mr. HALL. None whatever. The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading; and being

engrossed, it was accordingly read the third time, and passed. Mr. HALL moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed;

and also moved that the motion to reconsider be fa.id on the table. The latter motion was agreed to.

BRIDGE ACROSS THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER BETWEEN THE MOUTHS OF THE ILLINOIS A.ND MISSOURI RIVERS.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for the present consideration of a. bridge bill (S. 3979), to authorize ~e construe-

tion of a. bridge across the Mississippi River at some accessible point between the mouth of the Illinois and the mouth of the .Missouri Rivers.

I will state to the House that this is a Senate bill which has passed the Senate and has been unanimously reported by the Committee on Commerce of the House and, as the gentleman from New York (M:r. BAKER] knows, ha.s been submitted to the Secretary of War. It con· tains all the usual provisions of a bill of this character, and I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the bill may be dispensed with and that it be published in the R:KCORD.

The SPEAKER. The Clerk will read the title of the bill. The Clerk read as follows:

To authorize the construction of a bridge across the l\Iississippi River at some accessible point between the mouth of the Illinois and the mouth of the l\!issom·i Rivers.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the present consideration of the bill? The Chair bears none. Is there objection to the request to dispense with the reading of the text of the bill and that it be printed in the RECORD. The Chair hears none.

The bill is a.s follows: Be it enacted, etc., That the St. Clair, l\Iadison and St. Louis Belt. Railroad

Company, a wrporation organized under the laws of the State of Illinois, its successors, is hereby authorized to construct and maintain a bridge across the Mississippi River, at such point a.s may be hereafter selected by said corporation, between the mouth of .the Illinois River and the mouth of the Missouri River, as shall best promote the public convenience and welfare and the necessities of business and commerce. That said britlge shall be constructed to pro· vide for the passage of railroad trains, and, at the option ot the corporatiou by which it may be built, for the transit of foot passengers, animals, wagons, and vehicles of all kinds for such reasonable rates of toll as may be·approved from time to time by the Secretary of War.

SEc. 2. That such bridge sha.11 be constructed and built without interference with the security and conYenieuce of navigation of such river beyond what is necessary to carry into effect the rights and privileges hereby granted; and in order to secure that object the said corporation shall submit to the Secretary of War, for his examination and approval, a design and drawings of the bridge and a map of location, giving for the space of 1 mile above and 1 mile below th~ proposed location the topography ot the banks of the river, the shore.Jines at high and low water, the location of any bridge or bridges, and shall furnish such other information a.s shall be required for a full and satisfactory understanding of tbe aubject; and until the said plan and location of the bridge are approved by the Secretary of War the bridge shall not be commenced or built: Provided, That if the said bridge shall be made with unbroken and continuous spans it shall have one channel span of not less than 350 feet in length and of nn elevation not less than 55 feet a.bo"Ve high-water mark as understood at the point of location to the lowest part of the superstructure, and the clear head-room of other than channel spans may be less than 55 feet: And provided, also, That if said bridge shall be made with unbroken and continuous span!.' there shall, during the season of navigation, be posted in a conspicuous place on or near the bridge the clear head-room under the channel span on that day, the figures expressing this height to be readily visible to the naked eye from any point in the channel of the river for a stretch of 4,()(1() feet, of which 3,000 shall be above and 1 000 shall be below the channel span of said bridge, and the piers of said brid&"e s~ll be parallel with the current of the river: And prouided, a~o, That if any bridge built under this act shall be constructed as a draw-bridge the same shall be constructed a.s a. pivot draw-bridge, with a draw at a point accessible and conven· ient for navigation, and with spans of not less than 200feet in length in the clear on each side of the central or pivot pier of the draw, and the next adjoining span or spans shall not be less than 350 feet in length, and the head-room under such spans shall not be les!I than 10 feet above high water: And provided. also, That if any bridge built under this act shall be constructed as adraw-bridgethe same shall be provided with such. protection piers and guide piers as the Secretary of War shall require, and there shall be displayed at a point plainly visible to boats passin&" through the draw a record showing the stage of water and whether the river is rising or falling: Provided also, That said draw shall be opened promptly upon reasonable signal for the passage of boats, and said corporation shall maintain at its own expense from sun"'Set to sunrise such lights or other signals on said bridge as the Light-House Board shall pre!!cribe: Provided, also, That all railroad companies desiring the use of such bridge shall have and be entitled to equal rights and privileges relative to the passage of railroad trains over the same and over the approaches thereto upon payment of a reRsonable compensation for such use; and in case the owner or owners of said bridge and the several railroad companies or any one of them desiring such use shall fail to agr~ upon the sum or sums to be paid, and the rules and conditions to which each shall conform in using said bridge, all matters at issue between them shall be decided by the Secretary of War upon a hearing of the allegations and proofs of the parties.

SEC. 3. '!'hat the Secretary of \Var is hereby authorized and directed upon receiving such plan and map and other information, and upon being satisfied thll.t a bridge built upon such plan and with such accessory works and at such locality will conform to the prescribed conditions ofthis act, to notify the company that he approves the same; and upon receiving such notification the said company may proceed to the erection of the said bridge, conforming strictly to the approved plan and location; and should any change be made in the plan of the bridge or said a.ccessory works daring the progress of the work thereon such change shall be subject likewise to the approval of the Secretary of War; and in case of any litigation arising from any obstruction or alleged obstruction to the free navigation of said river, caused or alleged to be caused by said bridge. the case may be brought in the circuit court of the United States for the district in whose jurisdiction any portion of said obstruction or bridge may be located.

SEC. 4. That tbe said bridge, when built and constructed under this act and according to the terms and limitations thereof, shall be a lawful structure; and said bridge shall be recognized and known as a post-rnute, upon which also no higher charge shall be made for the transmission over the same of the mails, the troops, and the munitions of war of the United States than the rate per mile paid for the transportation over the railroads or public highways lea.ding t-0 said bridge; and said bridge shall enjoy the rights and privileges of other post· routes in the United States •

SEC. 5. That the United States shall have the right of way for such postal and telegraph lines across said bridge as the Government may construct or control, and all telegraph and telephone companies shall have equ&l rights and privi· leges in constructing and maintaining their lines over said bridge.

SEC. 6. That Con&"ress shall have power at any time to alter, amend or repeal this act whenever in its judgment the public interests so require; and all alter· ations of said bridge or its entire removal shall be made &t the expense of the owners of or persons controlling such bridge: Pr<>videdfurther, That nothing in this act shaJ.l be so construed as to repeal or modify any of the provisions ofln.w

I

.. t-

•. " ·.

1890. CONGRESSIONAL REOORD-HOUSE. 8943 now existing in reference to the l?rotect.ion of the navigation of rivers or to exempt this bridge from the operation of the same.

SEC. 7. That this act shall be null and void if actual construction of the b~id~e herein authorized be not commenced within two years and completed withm four years from the date hereof.

Mr. HATCH. There is an amendment report~ by the Committee on Commerce; but the gentleman from New York, the chairman of the committee (Mr. BAKER], will bear me out in the statement that as reported there is an error in the amendment, which was to strikeout the word "assigns" and not "assigns or successors." The gentleman from IllinoL~ [.Mr. M.A.SoN] reported the bill.

Mr. MASON. The committee voted to strike out the word ''as-signs.''

The SPEAKER. "Assigns or" are the words stricken out. The amendment was agreed to. The bill as amended was ordered to a third readingj and it was ac

cordingly read the third time, and passed. Mr. HATCH moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was

passed; and also moved to lay the motion to reconsider on the table. The latter motion was agreed to.

CAPT. CHARLES B. STIVERS.

Mr. WILLI A.MS, of Ohio. I desire to ask unanimous consent for the present consideration of House resolution 39, joint resolution declaring the retirement of Capt. Charles B. Stivers, of the United States A.Imy, valid, and that be is entitled as such retired officer to his pay.

Mr. BUCHANAN, of New Jersey. A parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. Do these matters come out of the morning hour?

The SPEAKER. Theydonotcome out of the morning hour. They come out ot the day.

The Clerk read as follows: R~solved, etc., First, that the retirement of Capt. Charles B. Stivers, of the

United States Army, upon the finding of a retiring board on the 30th December, 1864. under the provisions of the a.ct of Congress of August 3, 1061, is a legal and valid retirement: second, that sa.id Capt. Charles B. Stivers is and always has been entitled to his pay as such retired officer.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection? Mr. BRECKINRIDGE, of Kentucky. I do not like to object if I

can help it; but I would like to have a statement as to whether this carries some twenty-six years' pay. If it does so, I do not think it ougb t to pass.

Mr. WILLIAMS, of Ohio. I did not catch the statement of the gentleman from Kentucky.

Mr. BRECKINRIDGE, of Kentucky. My question was whether this carried with it twenty-six years' pay.

M.r. WILLIAMS, of Ohio. No, sir; this officer has drawn his pay up to the present time-; but this legislation is made necessary on account of the question that was raised in the Rankle case and others. He was dismissed for being absent without leave. Upon investigation they found that he was not absent without leave. He was reinstated within a month afterward and served for eighteen months subsequent thereto, and wa3 then retired on account of disability.

Mr. BRECKINRIDGE, of Kentucky. The bill seems to validate '1ll order of retirement made in 1864 and also declares that be was entitled to pay as such officer.

Mr. WILLIAMS, of Ohio. He has drawn his pay. It was on account of a question raised by the last Administration in regard to Runkle and others. The court held that the President bad the power to dismiss an officer, but he had no power to reinstate him.

Mr. HOLMAN. I submit that the report had better be read. Mr. BROSIUS. I hope the reading of the report will be dispensed

with. The report was read, as follows: Mr. OSBORNE, from the Committee on Military Affairs, submitted the follow

ing report (to accompany H. Res. 39): The Committee on l\Iilitary Affairs, to whom was referred House Reso1ution

39, declaring the retirement of Capt. Charles B. Stivers of the United States Army, valid, and that he is entitled as such retired officer to his pay, have duly considered the same and submit the following report:

Capt. Charles B. Stivers was dismissed the service by order of the President oftbe United States, July 14, 1863. It was almost immediately ascertained tha.t the supposed ground of his dis

missal was without foundation in fact, and the President, on the 11th of August, 1863, i·evoked his former or<:ler and restored Captain Stivers to his former rank and duty. December 30, 1864, Captain Stivers was i·etired pursuant to the recommendation of a r etiring-board, and continued to draw his pay as such re· tired officer until a recent date. It has been aseertained by a decision in the Court of Claims tbat while in 1863 lhe President bad power to summarily dismiss an officer he had not the power to revoke such order of dismissal, eyen when improvidently made.

The bill in this case seeks to cure the defect in the authority of the Presklent rest<lring Captain Stivers, and will simply continue him on the roll of retired officers with the same rank and pay a:i though the act of the President had been regular.

Your committee attach hereto the report of the Secretary of War and recommend the passage of the bill.

WAR DEPARTillEXT, Washington, Ap1•il 7, 1890. Srn: I return herewith House resolution No. 39, "declaring the retirement of

Capt. Charles B. Stivers, of the United Stat.es Army, valid, and that he is entitled as such retired officer to his pay," referred to th is Department on the 27th ultimo, and invite your attention totheinclosed copy of the report of the Acting Adjutant-General, dated the 29th ultimo, as also to the copies of the orders rela.tive to dismissal of Captain Stivers, together with copies of the orders and correspondence referred to in that report.

The letter to you from Hon. Epps. Hunton, attorney at law in this city, on the subject of this resolution is herewith returned.

Very respectfully, REDFIELD PROCTOR,

Secretary of War. Hon. B. M. OuTCHEON,

IJhairman Committee on Mililary Affairs, House of Representatives.

WAR DEPARTIUD."T, AD.TUTANT-GE?.'ERAL'S OFFICE,'---~ Washington, March 29, lz:sw.

Statement of the military service of Charles B. Stivers, of the United States Army, compiled from the records of this office.

Cadet at the U.S. l\filitary Academy, from July 1, 1852, to July 1, 1856; seconil lieutenant, Seventh Infantry, July 1, 1856; first lieutenant, April 20, 1861; captain, Sept.ember 9, 1861; dismissed, July 14, 1863.

Reinstated, August 11, 1863; retired, December 30, 1861; regimental quarter· master April l, 1860, to September 9, 1861.

He joined his regiment December 21, 1856, and served with it in Texas to March, lS.58; in Utah to September, 1858; in New Mexico to May, 1863; summarily dismissed July 14, 1863. Reinstated by revocation of order of dismissal, and rejoined regiment October, 1863, and served with it in New Mexico to April 17, 1864; on recruiting service to October, 1864; on sick leave to December 80, 1864, when he was retired for disability.

On mustering and disbursing duty from January 19 to August 12, 1865. On duty as professor of military science and tactics at the Western Military InslJtute near Dayton, Ohio, from December 31, 186.5, to March, 1869.

CHAUNCEY McKEEVER, Acting Adjutant-Oeneral.

[Special Orders, No. 313.] 'v AR DEPARTMENT, AD.TUTANT-GENERA.L's OFFICE,

Washington, July 15, 1863. .. *

6. By direction of the President, Capt. C. L. Stivers, Seventh United States Infantry, is hereby dismissed the service of the United States, for disobedience of orders and absence without leave, to date July 14, 1863.

* * • * * * * By order of the Secretary of ·war:

E. D. TOWNSEND, .Assistant Adjutant-General.

[Special Orders, No. 356.] WAR DEPARTMENT, ADJUTANT-GENERAL'S OFFICE.

Washington, August 11, 1863. * * *

24. So much of Special Orders, No. 313, July 15, 1863, from this offi.ce. as dig. missed Ca.pt. Charles B. Stivers, Seventh United States Infantry, from the service of the United States for disobedience of orders and absence without leave, is hereby revoked.

* • • • By order of the Secretary of War:

E. D. TOWN~"'D, Assistant Adjutant-Genera!.

[Special Orders, No. 474.] WAR DEPAJ?.TMENT, ADJUTA1'"1'-GE..>raRAL'S OFFICE,

TJtashington .. , December 30, 1864. * * ~ * *

57. Capt. C. B. Stivers, Seventh United States Infantry, having been fonnd by a. board of examination to be physically incompetent to discharge the duties of his office, and the findin~ having been approved by the President his na.me will be placed upon the list of retired officers of that class in which the disability results from long and faithful service or some injury incident thereto,

k * * * * * * By order of the Secretary of War.

E. D. TOWNSEND. ..4.ssistant Adjutant-General.

WAR DEPARTME1'"T, Washin.Dton, October 29, 1885. Sm: I have the honor to request your opinion as to the legal status, in re&pect

to their right to hold a.ppointments and to draw pay as officers of the Army on the retired-list, of the following-named perS'ons:

* • • * $ • •

Charles B. Stivers, now borne on the Army Register as captain, retired. • * • • • * •

The facts in relation to each of these officers, upon which my request for your opinion }s based, a;e a.s follo':s: * * * *

Capt. Charles B. Stivers, then of the Seventh Infantry, was summarily dismissed July 15, 1863, and restored to his position by the revocation of the order of dismissal August 11, 1863. Copies of the orders of dismissal and revocation, issued in the name of the President, are herewith. The dismissal was revoked on the ground that the actual fu.cts, as subsequently ascertained, did not justify so severe a. punishment. Captain Stivers returned to the position from which dismissed (the vacancy not having been filled m eantime) and continued to serve in that position until December 30, 1864, when, upon the finding of a. retiring board, he was retired from active service under the provisions of the act of .August 3, 18Gl.

* .. * None of the officer hereinbefore named were (assuming that they were le

gally separated from the Army for a time) restored to the Army by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, and on this fact rests the doubt whether they, or such of them as were legally out of the service, were legally restored to or now legally bold their present recogni~ed positions as officers of the Army on the retired-list·.

This question arises in "\'iew of the recent decisions of the Court of Claims in the cases of Benjamin P. Runkle, John H. McBlair,andCharlesP.l\Iiller, which I am informed have been recently taken to the Supreme Court.

An early hearing before that tribunal of these appeals is desirable for the reason that the officers above named are on the pay-rolls of the Army.

I have the honor to be, your obedi.ent servant, WM. C. ENDICOTT,

Sect'etary of JVm·. Hon. A. H. GARLAND,

Attorney-General, Washington, D. C.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, Decembe1· 3, 1888. Sm: In response to your request, made some time ago, for an opinion as to

the righ~ of certa~ person8 ~ be borne •on the retired-list of •the Army ti namely

·.

·.

.,,,,. : . ..

. , ·'

·-

; .

\

'

.,

• .

·' ....

·.

'.

~.

8944 CONGRESSIONAL REOORD-HOUSE. AUGUST 21,

Charles B. Stivers, as captain, retired, * mit the following:

• IC

• I now have 'the honor to sub-

Tlie case of Capt. Charles B. Stivers is as follows: 'Vl.Jile holding a. commission as captain in the Seventh Infantry he l\'as sum

marily dismissed the service by direction of the President, to date July Ht 1863, ;>er Special Orders, No. 313, issued from the \Var Department, dated \Vasnington, July 15, 1663. Of this order he was notified, as appears by a letter from him to the Adjutant-General dated at Rouse's Point, N. Y., July 28, 1863, wherein he writes: "I have been dismissed the sen·ice for not joining my regiment. l\Iy health has been so feeble that I could not do so. I l'espectfully ask that my case be reconsidered, and that if consistent with the inlerestd of the service that I may be reinstated to my former rank." Afterwards. on recon~ideration of his case,

. the order of dismissal was revoked by Special Orders, No. 356, issued from the Wru.·Department,dated Washio~ton,Augu tll,1863. Thereupon Captain Stivers returned to the position from wuich he wa~ dismissed (the vacancy not having been filled in the mean time), and cont.Inned to serve in that position until December 30, lS&i, when, upon the finding of a retiring board, be was retired from active service under the p1·ovisions of the act of August 3, 1861.

At the timo of the dismissal of Captain Stivers, as above, the President was invested with power to summarily dismiss from service a. commissioned officer of the Army. '!' his power Hf not already posst:.:..ied by him) was given by section li of the uct of July li, L862, chapter 200.

In the case of the United States 1•s. Corson (114 U. S. llep., 619} the effect of an order of dismissal by the President, issued while clothed with that power, a.nd nlso the etrect of its subsequent revocation by him, were considered by the Supreme Court.

There an officer holding a. commission as captain and assistant quartermaster of volunteers was, by order of the President, dated l\Iarch 2i, 186.>, summarily dismissed the service. On June 9, 186.5, an order was issued by the P1·esident revoking the order of dismissal and restoring him to his former position in the service. Between tho date of dismissal, l\Iarch 2i, 186.5, and the date of revocation, June 9, 18&3, it does not nppear that the vacancy was filled by another appointment. By an order issued from the 'Var Department under date of June 19, 1865, he was assigned to duty as division quarlermaste1·of the First Dh·ision, First Army Corps, with tho temporary rank of major in the Quartermaster's Department, under the aetof July 4, 186l, and served in that position until October 7, 1~, when he was bonorabfy mustered out of the service of the United States.

The court helu that the effect of the order of l\Iarch 27, 1865, dismissing the officer from the service, was to sever his relations with the Army; that henceforward, and until in some lawful way again appointed, he was disconnected from that bmnch of the public service as completely•ns if he had never been an officer of the Army, and that he could not regain his position and become entitled to its emoluments by means of a subsequent order revoking the order of dismissal and restoring him to the position.

This decision of the Supreme Court is clearly applicable to the case of Captain Stivers, and must be regarded as conclusive of it. According to the doetrine there laid down the order of July 15, 1863, dismissing that officer from service. created a vacancy which could not otherwise be filled than by an appointment with the advice and consent of the Seuate (97 U. 8., supra); and consequently the subsequent order of August 11, 1863, revoking that order was ineffectual lo restore him to his former position iu the Army, although it had in the mean time remained vacant. It follows that when afterwards Captain Stivers was put upon the retfred-list

he was not a commissioned officer of the .Army, and for that reason was not eligible to a place on that list. 'l'he finding of the retiring boa1·d (upon which he was placed there) thRt he was incapacitated for active service was not conclusive of the question of his eligibility, the jurisdiction of the board being limited to the determination of "the facts as to the nature and occasion of the disability" of the officer, and not including within its scope the validity or invalidity of his commission.

I am therefore of the opinion that Captain Stivers is not entitled to be borne on the retired-list of the Army.

* >?: * • • * I am, sir, very respectfully, A. H. GARL~KD, Allomey-Gen~ral.

The SECRETARY OF WAR.

DECE)IBER 6, 1888. .

Sm: The case of C. B. Stivers, now on the retfred-Jist as captain, was some time ago referred by this Department to the Attorney-General for his opinion as to whether said Stfrers is properly on the retired-list and entitled to pay,

The Attorney-General informed me this morning that he had returned the papers to you with his opinion.

I a.m the attorney for Captain Stivers, and respectfully ask to be heard on the case if the opinion of Attorm.•y-General is adverse to Captain Stivers. Plea!eadvise me.

Your obedient servant,

Hon. ·w. 0. ESDICOTT, Secrrtary of War.

EPP A HUNTON, 37 Co1·C'o1·an Buildina, Oily.

WA R DEPARTMEST, Wasltingloii City, December 13, 1888. Sm: I ha Ye the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 6th in·

sta.nt, requesting to be heard if the opinion of the Attorney-General on the question whether Oa.pt. Charles B. Stivers is properly on the retired-list of the Army is adverse to Captain Stivers.

In reply, and in accordance with my promise to you , I inclose a.n extm.ctfcom so much of my letter of October 29, 1885, as requests an opinion of the AttorneyGeneral in regard to the legal status of Captain Stivers, and also an extract from so much of the opinion of the Attorney-General dated December 3, 1888, as relates to Captain Stivers. •

Very respectfully,

Hon. EPPA HcxTos, 37 Col'Corcm Build illy, Wa.~hinJlon, D. C.

WM. C. ENDICOTT, Se<:retaryof lf'm·.

'VAR DEPARTllEXT, Washiitgton Oily, Ja11uary 18, 1889. Sm: Refening to my letter of the 13th ultimo on the subject, I beg now to in

form you that the Department does not feel at liberty to lon~er delay action on the opinion of the Attorney-General in the case of Capt. Charles B. Stivers, United States Army, retired, and that unless 1·eason is shown to the contrary I shall be constrained shortly to act in conformity with that opinion.

V ery respectfully,

Hon. EPPA HU!lo"TOs, 37 Corconm B11ild ing, TJ'aahinoton, D. 0,

WM. C. ENDICOTT, &cretary of Wal'.

WAR DEPAitTMENT, ADJUTU°T-GE:r.~RAL'S OFFICE, Washington, March 22, 1889.

Srn: Referring to your letter of the 16th Instant in regard to the case of Capt. Charles B. Stivers, United States Army, retired, I have the honor to inform you that further action by the Depa.rtment in this case shall be deferred until Congress shall have had time to take action in the matter.

Very respectfully, your obedient ser'\'ant, · R. C. DRU:\!, Adjutant-General.

Hon. EPPA HUNTOY, Room37, Co1·coran Building, Washington, D. C.

Copy of indorsement on letter from the chairman Committee on Military Affairs, House of representatives, dated the 27th ultimo, transmitting House resolution 39, joint resolution declaring retirement of Capt. C. B. Sti'\'ers valid, and that he is entitled as such retired officer to his pay.

LFirst indoreement. J

ADJUTA~"'T-GENERAL'S OFFICE, March 29, 1890. Respectfully returned to the Secretary of War, inclosing a. statement of the

milit9.ry services of Ca.pt. Charles B. Stivers, United States Army, retired, and inviting attention to the indorsement of this officer ot the 28th instant upon l\Ir. Hunton's letter of the 26th instant respecting this case, and the papers referred to in that indorsement herewith.

No objection whatever is known to the enactment of any la.w which shall secure to Captain Stivers his present position of captain on the retired-list of I.he Army in case there is any dange:.- of his losing that position. It is suggested, however, that if the dismissal of Captain Sth·ers in 1863 was valid it· legally put him out of the Army, aud that a person not in the Army can be made an officer therein in one way only, namely, by appointment of the President, with tl1e consent of the Senate.

C. McKEEVEll, A.cliug .Adjutant-Uenaal.

Mr. BRECKINRIDGE, of Kentucky. This does not carry with it any charge or appropriation, but is to >alidate the prese.nt pay?

Mr. WILLIAMS, of Ohio. Yes; that is all. Mr. CUTCHEON. This officer bas never been off the retired-list at

any time. It simply settles a question of doubt. That is all. Mr. HOLMAN. I would like to have the bill rend again. The SPEAKER. The resolution has been read, but th,e Clerk will

read the resolution again without there is objection. Mr. BROSIUS. I call for the regular order. The SPEAKER. The morning hour begins at 12o'clock and-Mr. BROSIUS. I withdraw the call for the regular order, on the

understanding that it .vill not take more than five minutes to pass the joint resolution.

The SPEAKER. Is there further objection? Mr. KER of I a. I renew the demand.

Mr. HEND I desire to pre.'3ent a privileged re-port.

The report was read, as follows: The Committee on Rivers and Harbors, to whom was referred the bill \ I!. R.

9680) making appropriations for the construction, repair, and preservation of certain public works on rivers s.nd harbors, and for other purposes, together with the amendments of the Sen:ite thereto, havir:g considered the same, beg leave to report a.s follows:

They i·ecomruentl non-concurrence in all of the amendments of the Senate numbered from 1 to 236, inclusive, and that the request of the Senate for a conference be agreed to.

Mr. KERR, of Iowa. I make the point oforder that that report requires its first consideration in Committee of the Whole.

~Ir. HENDERSO:N", of Illinois. ~fr. Speaker, I submit that this is a privileged question, but in view of the fact that it mn.y take some time to discuss it, and as I do not wi h to interfere with the special rule under which the House is operating, I ask leave to withdraw the report ttntil to-morrow morning, giving notice now that I shall press it at that time.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman withdraws the i·eport. The morning hour begins at 11 0 1clock and 6 minutes.

Ur. HENDERSON, of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the amendments to the river and harbor bill printed in the RECORD to-morrow morning,

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Illinois asks unanimous consent that the reading of the amendments be dispensed with, and that the same be printed in the RECORD.

1\!r. CANNON. Have the amendments been numbered and printed? .Mr. HENDERSON, of Illinois. Yes. Mr . . ROGERS. I rise to a parliamentary inquiry. Dot understand

that the effect of tb,e unanimous consent just asked will be to dispense with the reading of the amendments when the bill comes up for consideration?

The SPEAKER. It will dispense with the reading of the amend-m~t.s.

Mr. ROGERS. At any time before the consideration of the bill ? The SPEAKER. The Chall' thinks so. I:! there objection ? There was no objection. The amendments are as follows: Improving harbor of refuge at Little Harbor, New Hampshire : C<>n

tinuing improvement, (1) [twenty] fifty thou._~nd dollars. Improving harbor at Burlington, Vermont: (1) [Continuing improve

ment] Fm· repairs, (3) [fifteen] ticcnty thousand dollars. Improving harbor at Gordon's Landing, Lake Champlain, Vermont:

(4) [Completing improvement] To complete break1cafer1 six thousand dollars.

\ -

- \ . ""

:

·. ; , •1 . ·. - . ...

1890. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 8945 Improving harbor at Boston, Massachusetts: Continuing improve- (32) [Improving harbor · t Cape Charles City and approaches by

ment, one hundred and (5) [twenty-five] forty-five thousand dollars, Cbenton Inlet, Virginia: Twenty-five thousand dollars, tor dredging of which sum seven thouSi:iond dollars to be used in wideningNanta.sket only.] Beach Channel (6), [and]; twenty-five thous:.md dollars in extending Improving harbor at Charleston, including Sullivan's Islandt South main ship channel from its termination at the southeast corner of Carolina: Continuing improvement, three hundred and (33) [fifty] sevGrand Junction Wharf ea.stwardly toward Jeffrey's Point, (7) and enty-jit:e thousand dollars, of which pve thousand dollars shall be exttcenty thousand dollm·s for continuing improvement of Charles River,· Pro- pended on Mount Pleasant shore of inner harbor of Charleston, South vicled, That no expenditure of this money shall be made until the draws in Carolina. tlie Arsenal street and Market street bridges shall be made to confoNn to the Improving Cumberland Sound, Georgia and Florida: Continuingim-projectecl channel without cost to the United States. provement, one hundred and (34) [twelve thousand five hundred] fifty

Improving harbor at Nantuckett Massachusetts: Continuing im- tlwttsand dollars. provement t 8) [twenty] twenty-jive thousand dollars. Improving harbor at Apalachicola. Bay (35) and tlte m.outli of ihe?"iver,

Improving harbor at Provincetown, .Massachusett.s: (9) [Continuing Florida.: Continuing improvement, twenty thousand dolJars. improvement] Completing existing project, seven thousand five hundred Improving harbor at Cedar Keys, Florida: Continuing improvement, dollars. I two thousand five hundred dollars, ( 36) a part of u'hich 111,ay be ea.pended

Improving harhor at Manchester, Massachusetts: Continuing im- at De:rrick Island Gap on the inside channel from Suwanee River. provment, (10) [two thousand five hundred] five thoitsand dollars. (37) Impr<>ving, dredgin{f, 'and deepening the channel of Charlotte Harbor

Improving Salem Harbor, including South River, Massachusetts; and Pease Creek, Florida, to the pier at Punta Gorda, the terminus of the (11) [ten] fom·teen thousand dollars. Florida &ntthern Railroad, fifty thousand dolwrs.

(12) Oo11sirttcting national harbor of refuge at 01· neat· Point .Tudith (38) Improi•ing harbor at St. Augustine, Florida: To complete pl'otec-Rhode Island: Oonmwncing construction, one hundred thousand dollars. tion f ro11i erosion, according to the esti1nate of Captain W. M. Black, unde1·

Improving harbor at Bridgeport, Connecticut: Continuing improve- date of May twenty-fourth, eigliteen hundred and ninety, tld11y thousand ment, twenty thousand dollars (13), of which fifteen tlwusand dollars shall dollars. be expended in constructing breakwater between the Tongue and inner bea- (39) Improving entrance to Galveston Barbor, Texas: Continuing im-con, and five thousand dollars to complete improvement above the bridge. pl'oi:ement, five lmndred thou.sand dollars : Pr<>vided, That contracts may be

(14) [Improving breakwater at New Haven, Connecticut: Contin- entered into for such materials and work as may be necessary t<> «arry out uing improvement, one hundred thousand dollars.] the plan cmitained i'n the report of the C iief of Engineers for eiglLteen liun-

(15) Constructing breakwaters at N ew Haven, Connecticut, in accprdance dred and eighty-si.x for the 11nprovement of that harbor, to be paid fol' as alJwith the plrlns submitted by Cldef of Engineers in repol't f 01· eighteen lmn- p1·opriations may f1·om time to time be nu1de by law. dred and eighty-nine, page six hundred and seventy-eight: Continuing im- Improving harbor at Ashtabula., Ohio: Continuing improvement, provement, one hundred and twenty-five thousand dollm·s. (40) [twenty] forty thousand dollars.

(16) Improting harbor at Wilson's Point: For 'Widening and deepening Improving harbor at. Fairport, Ohio: (41) [Continuing improvement, diannd, thirty-seven thou8andfive hundred dollars. thirty thousand dollars]. To complete existing project, twenty-one thou-

(11) Im1J1·oving lia1·bo1· at Clinton, Connecticut: Continuing impl'ore- sand three hundred dollars. me11t, tlu·ee thoitsandfive hundred dollars. The owners of dock property abutting on the East Government pier

Improving channel at Gowanus Bay, New York: Continuing im- on Grand River shall have the right to load and unload coal, ore, and pliovement by dcepeninp: to twenty-one feet mean low water and widen- other freight over so much of said pier as lies north of the inner shoreing the channel to four hundred feet on the (18) [notherly] northerly line represented on map in the report of the Chief of Engineers of side from the foot of Percival street, along the wharves to the twenty- eighteen hundred and eighty-one, (42) [under such limitations as to three foot curve, opposite the entrance to the Erie Ba.sin, sixty thou- time and use as shall be approved by the Secretary of War, and in sand dollars. . : consideration thereof the owners of such dock property shall, at their

(19) Improving Bay Ridge Clw.nnel in Gowanus Ba// New York Har- own proper cost and expense, sufficiently repair, renew, and protect the bor, by dredging out and opening the same from a poitfl at its junction with portion of said pier so used, and do all necessary dredging in Grand the Gowanu,13 Creek Channel (near Twenty-eighth street) southerly therefrom River, in front thereof, all such repairs, renewals, and dredging to be along and in front of Gowanus Bay and Bay Ridge to a pointwhm·e the said done under the supervision of the Chief of Engineers of the United Bay Ridge Channel so t.o be opened encounters a twenty-one-foot contour or States Army J on.p riyment of such rent therefor and under such limitations depth of water, so that the channel so to be <>pened shall be of a tinifonn depth· as to time and use and t.uch other conditions of such right as shall be preof twenty-<>ne feet and width of four ltttndred feet at low water, <>ne hundred scribed by the Secretary of War and always revocable by him. and ninety-eight tltousand six hundred dollars. Improving harbor at Huron, Ohio: Continuing improvement, in

(20) [Improving harbor at Wilson, New York: Continuing improve- amended project to give sixteen feet depth at low water, sixteen thou-ment, five thousand dollars.] sand dollars. (43) The owners of dock p1·operty ahutting on tlie old

(21) [Improving harbor at Sheep'~ Head Bay, New York: Continu· Government pier on the ea.'3t side of HuronRiver shall have the right toloacl ing improvement, five thousand dollars.] and 1mload coal, ore, and other freigltt over so mucli of said pier as lies

(22) Improving lla1·bor at H1rntingto11, Long Island, New Yo»kt ten south of the shore line of Lake Erie, ttnd" such limitations as to ti1ne and thousand dollars. 1lse as shrill be amn·oved by the Secretary of War, and in consideration th1:1·eof

(23) [Improving harbor of refuge at mouth of Salmon River, Lake the owners of such dock property sltall, at their own proper cost and expenset Ontario, New York, ten thousand doll!lrs.] sufficiently repair, 1·enew, and protect the p01·tion of said pier south of saicl

Improving harbor at Raritan Bay, New Jersey: Continuing improve- shore line, and do all necessary dredging in Huron River in front tltereof; ment, (24) [thirty-five] forty thousand dollars, (25) [part] one-half of all such repairs, renewals, and dredging to be done under the supervision of which may be used in dredging bar between South Amboy and Great the Chief of Engineers of tlte United States A1·m.1J. Beds light. For ice-harbor at the mouth of Muskingum River, Ohio: For re-

Improving harbor at Erie, Pennsylvania: (26) [Continuing improve- pairs, ( 44~ [thirty l fifteen tho~sa_nd doll~rs. . . ment, forty] Completiny existing project, twenty-fou~· thousand dollars. lmprovi_ng harbor .... t Vermillion, Ohio: For preservation of piers,

Improvingtheha.rborof Philadelphia: ForremovalofSmith'sisland (45) [fourj two thousand dollars. and Windmill Island, in the State of Pennsylvania, and Petty's Island, Improving inner harbor at Michigan City, Indiana: Continuing imin the State of New Jersey, or such parts ofthem and the shoals adja- provement! (46) (five tho~and dollars] seven. tlwusandfivelmndreddolcent thereto as may be required, and for the improvement of the bar- lars, of which tu:o tlwusandjive hundred dollars may be el.pendedforanew bor between the cities of Philadelphia, Penns:vlvaniat and Camden dump Rcow. New Jersey, (27) (two] four hundred thousand dollars: (28) [PrO: Improving harbor at Black Lake, Michigan: Continuing improve-vided, That no part of this sum shall be expended until tlietitle to the ment, ( 47) [five] ten thousand dollars.

· lands forming said islands shall be acquired and vested in the United Improving harbor at Muskegon, Michigan: Continuing improvement, States without charge to the_ latter, except as heretofore provided in (48) [fifty]twentythousanddollars(49), lth~ty-fo~rthousanddollarsof the act of August eleventh, eighteen hundred and eiehty-eight.] which to ~lose gap as recommended by engmee.r 1~ cha.rge.] .

(29) The Se&retary of Wai· is directed to a]Jpoi11t a com11iiRsion of three Improvrng harbor of refuge at Sand Beach, Michigan: (50) [Contmu-11e1·s<>11s, one of whom shall be a civil e11gi11ee1· of experience in the impr<n:e- ing improvement, seventy thousand dollars.] For repairs, C'ltstody, and ment of rivers a11d harbors, who shall proceed to make an. accurate su1·vey control of ltarbor and dredging tlie same, thirty thousand dollars. of the tidal streams which fo1'1n the harbor of Wilmington, Delaware Improving harbor at South Haven, Michigan: Continuing improve-making all necessa1'Y observations i<> obtain all the data req1tiredfor ~ ment, (51) [fifteen].ten thousand dollars. jJlan for tlie pPrmanent i1nprovem,ent of the harbo1· to suit flrn present and Improving harbor at Marquette, Michigan: Continuing improve-prospective wants of comn~erce and navigation; and that said co1nmission- ment, (52) [twenty-five] fifty thousand dollars. ers shall, as soon a.s possible, 11wke to the Secretary of Wm· a report, sub- Improving harbor at Ahnapee Wisconsin: Continuina improvement, mitting wi.th it a 11lanf<>1· th_e intpror:ement of said h_arb_or. . (53) [four] six thousand dollard.

0

Improvmgbarbor atBaltunore, Uaryland: Contmumg improvement, Improving harbor at Kenosha, Wisconsin: Continuing improvement, (30) [thr~e] five hundred thousand dollars. . . . seventeen thousand five handred dollars (54) [two thousand five hun-

Improvmg harb&r at Breton Bayt Maryland: Contmmng improve- dred dollars of the above appropriation to be expended in dredging the ment, (31) [three] flt:e thousand dollars. inner harbor].

XXI-560

,. ;,•

, I

.. : ·.

._

.. _ •'

# '

- J

·.

: .

• I

,. -

. '

. -·

·.

.. :

. " 8946 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. AUGUST 21,- ·;

Improvrng harbor of refuge at Milwaukee, Wisconsin: Continuing improvement, (55) [seventy] eigltty thousand dollars.

Improving harbor at Superior Bay and St. Louis Bay, Wisconsin: Continuing improvement, ( 56) [fifty] sixty-five thousand dollars.

Improving harbor at Duluth, Minnesota: Continuing improvement, (57) [eighty] 01.e hundred thousand dollars, of which sum (58) [onehalf] forty thousand dollars shall be expended on the harbor basin and new channel east of Rice's Point and in the preservation and maintenance of the canal and piers at the harbor entrance, and (59) (the other half of said sum] sixty thousand dollars shall be expended on the chan· nel west of Rice's Point and from thence along the northern shore of St. Louis Bay to Grassy Point.

(60) The Secretary of War is hereby riutlwrized to accept front the city of Duluth the grant and conreyunce of the following-described real estate, to wit: All the tract or JJarcel of lancl lying and being in the county of St. Louis a11d State of Minnesota, described as follows, to wit: Lots tu;o h1mdred and fo1·t.11-seven, two h1rndred and fort,11-eight, two hundred and fortynine, tu·o hmidred andfifl!J, two hundred and fifiy-one, two hundred and nfty-two, two hundred and fifty-three, two hiind1·ed and fifty-four, two hundred and .fifty-fi:1:e, two hund1·ed and fift.1J-six, two hund1·ed and fiftyseven, two hundred and fifty-eight, two hundred and fifty-nine, two hundred and sixty, on Lake avenue, Upper Dufoth, togethenvith all that pm·t of Lake avenue, Minnesota avenue, and Portage street lying tmder the bed of the canal, mider the piers 01· crib-work Oil sides of the canal at the entrance to the lla1·bor of Duluth and adjacent thereto, as shown between lines AD aud B Con map showing the canal th1·ough .Minnesota Point, filed iti the office of the Chief of Engineers, United States .Ar1ny; subject to the conditions under toflich certain other lots at Duluth 1cere accepted by the Government of the United States in the rit'er and ha1·bor act 10hioh became a law August eleventh, eighteen hundred and eighty-eight.

Improving harbor at Grand Marais, .Minnesota: Continuing imprO\·ement, (61) (fifteen thousand dollars] twenty-two thousand three lmndred and fifty dollars.

Improving harbor at Agate Bay, Minnesota: Continuing improvement, (62) [twenty] thirty thousand dollars.

Improving harbor at Oakland, Califorma.: Con tinning improvement, f.wo hundre,d and fifty thousand dollars ( 63), one-lwlf of which may, in the discretion of the Secretary of War, be ea,pended in dredging thecntrance to the ltarbor.

(64) That tlw Secretary of War is authorized and directed to appoint a board of three engineer officers of the United States Anny, whose duty it shall be to e.mmine the Pacific coast between Points Duma and Capistra110 with a view to determining the best 7ocation for a deep-wate1· harbor. Tlte said board shall repo11, to tlw Secrei{Iry of War a project for said harbor, with the estimated cost of the same, 1ulw shall lay said report before Congress at its next session, with the views of the commission and of the Oliief of Engineers of the United Stafe'J Army thereon; and the suin of fire thousand dollars, or so much thereof as may be necessary, is hereby appropriated fol' tlte purpose.

Im proving bar bor at Y aq uina Bay, O.regon: Con tin uin~ improvement, one hundred and {65) [twenty-five] eighty·fil'e thousand dollars.

(65) The Secretary of Wm· is anl71orized a1ul di1'ectecl to appoint a board of three officer.~ of the Corps of Engine<rrs, United States Lfrmy, whose duty it shall be to 1·e-cxamine the harbor at Port Orford, in the State of Oregon, with a view of minimizing the project and tJJtimafes of the proposed inip1·or1mient.for (L harb01· of refuge at that point to sucli pro1Jortio11s as 1cill

la1·gely rec1uce the original estimate of the cost of such irnproi:cme11t heretofore 'ntade 1rncler the direction of the Secretai·y of War ilL purs11ance of the prerious action of Congress, and to report to the Secretary of Tim·, on or before the jfrst Monclay in December next, the res tilt of suck re-exmnination, together with the reduced estimate of the cost of such imp1·oi·ement, in the event that such board shall determine that the same can be made on a less expensire scale than originally 1·ecomrnended, aml the cost of such t•e-examination and re-estimate shall be paid by the Secreta1·y of 1J1m· ont of the one h1mdrecl and fifty thousand donars l!eretoforP appropriated for the commencement of a b1·eak1cater at snch point: Provided, howece1·, That such e:t]JCnse shall 'not exceed the sum of fiv.e tliousan<l dolla1·s.

(67) For the pztrchase of the two canals known as the Portage La.ke and Rive1· Improi:ement Com]Jany Canal, f1·orn Ke1ceenaw Bay to Portage Lake, an<t the Lake 811pe1·io1· Ship-Canal, Railway and Iron Company Canal, from Po1·tage Lake to Lake Superior, being the wate1· conmiunication across Keweenaw Point, Lake Superior, from Kell'eenaw Bay to Lake Supe1'icn·, in the State of Michigan, by tMy of the PortageRi1:er a11d Lake and the ai-tijicial cut made by said companies to render them available to commerce mul ?tavigatio11, together tl'ith ~he works of improvemcn.t on Po1·tage Lake; the ha1·bo1· tcorks upon Lake Superior and Keweenaw Bay, 1cith all lands and franchises connected therJiwith, free f1·011i all incumbrances, three h1wdred and .ftft.11 thonsand dolrars: Provided, That for the pu1-poseof preserving and continui11g the use and navigation of said ca11als, the 1mm of ten thousancl dollars for each of the present and the next fiscal yem· be appro]Jriated, ont of any money in the Treasury not othencise approp1-iated, 01· so much tl1e1·eof as may be necessary, to lJay the actual expenses of opei-ating and keeping said canals in repair; and that an itemized statement of said exven11cs shall acconipany the annual report of tl1e Chief of Engineers: And provided further, That no rtioney appropriated fo» this purpose shal! be ai·ailable until a valid title to all of said premisea shall be vested in the United States, 1101· until the State of Michigan shall have ceded to the United States exclusive jm·isdiction over the

( -

same, during the time the United States shaU be or remain the owner thereof, for all pttrposes exce1Jt the administration of the ctiminal laws of said State and the senice of ciril process on the lands and right of way so conveyed. The ba.lance of the app1·opriatio11, to ·wit, five tho11sand one hLLndred and twenty-tight dollars ancl seventy cents, fo1· examination of Portage Lake and-J';ake Su1Jerior Ship-Canals, contained in the 1·iver an cl harbor act of .Llugustjijth, eighteen 1!11ndred a11d eighty-six, is hereby 'made available for each and ei-ery purpose connected with the establishment of new harbo1· lines in Po1·tage Lake under the p»ovisions of the act of June twentiezh, eighteen hundred and 11inety, authorizing and directing said e-~tablishme11t.

Improving Penobscot River, l\faine: Continuing improvement, (68) and for dredging neal' Stern's mill, twenty-five thousand dollars.

(69) Improving Kennebunk .Jiit:er, Maine, at or near itsmoutlt, itt·enty thousand dollars, the entire amount to be e:c1Je11ded in repairs if 11ecessary.

Improving Pawtucket River, Rhode Island: Continuing improvement, (70) [twenty] tlifrty thousand dollars.

Improving Green Jacket Shoal, Providence River, Rhode Island: Continuing improvement, {71) [twelve] twenty-five thousand dollars.

\72) [Improving Harlem River, New York: Continuing improvement, three hundred and fifty thousand dollars; and the Secretary of War is directed to cause the low bridges now crossing said Harlem River to be replaced, at the expense of the owners thereof, by other bridges which shall leave a clear space of twenty-four feet between the high water of spring tides and the under side of said bridges, and which shall be provided with draw-spans and draws of tbe width and length to be determined by the Secretary of War: Proiided, That the plans of said new bridges shall in all respects conform to the requirements of the Secretary of War: And provided furtli.e:r, That the Secretary of War shall prescribe proper and reasonable regulations for 1he opening and operating of the draws in said bridges.]

Im proving Schuylkill Hi ver, Pennsy I vania: Con tinning improvement, {73) [twenty-five] fifty thousand dollars.

(74) [The Secretary of War be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to negotiate tor and purchase, at a cost not to exceed one hundred and sixty-two thousand dollars, lock and dam number one and its appurtenances, of the :Monongahela Navigation Company, a corpo· ration organized under the laws of Pennsylvania, which lock and dam number one and its appurtenances constitute a part of the improvements in water communication in the Monongahela River between Pittsburgh, in the State of Pennsylvania, and a point at or near Morgantown, in the State of West Virginia. And the sum of one hundred and sixty-two thousand dollars, or so much thereof as may be necessary, is hereby appropriated, out of any moneys in the Treasury not otherwi,se appropriated, for consummating said purchase, the same to be paid on the warrant of the SecreL'\ry of War, upon full and absolute conveyance to the United States of the said lock and dam number one and its appurtenances, of the said Monongahela Navigation Company. J

(75) [In the event of the inability of the Secretary of War to make voluntary purchase of said lock and dam nnmber one and its appurtenances for said sum of one hundred and sixty-two thousand dollars, or a less sum, then the Secretary of War is hereby authorized and directed to institute and carry to completion proceedings for the condemnation of said lock and dam numher one aud its appurtenances, said condemnation proceedings to be M prescribed and regulated by the provisions of the general railroad law of Pennsylvania, approved Febmary nineteenth, eighteen hundred and fo1ty-nine, and its supplements, except that the United States shall not be required to give any bond, and except that jurisdiction of said proceedings is hereby given to tbe circuit con rt of the United States for the western district of Pennsylvania, with right of appeal hy either party to the Supreme Court of the United States: Proi·ided, That in estimating the sum to be paid by the United States, the franchise of said corporation to collect tolls shall not be considered or estimated; and the sum of five thousand dollars, or so mnch thereof as may be necessary, is hereby appropriated, out of any moneys in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to pay the neces'5al'y costs of said condemnation proceedings; and upon final judgment being entered therein the Secretary of War is hereby authorized and directed to draw his warrant on the Treasury for the amount of sa.id judgment and costs, and said amount for the payment thereof is hereby appropriated out of any moneys in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated. And when said lock and dam number one and its appurtenances shall have been acquired by the United States, whether by purchase or condemnation, the Secretary of War sball take charge thereof, and the same shall thereafter be subject to the provisions of section four of an act entitled "An act making appropriations for the construction, i·epair, and preservation for certain public work on rivers and harbors, and for other purposes," approved July fifth, eighteen hundred and eighly-four: Proi·ided, That no proceedings shall be instituted for tho acquisition of this lock and dam pending the lebral proceedings now undetermined between the United States and the Monongahela Navigation Company with respect to dam and lock number seven.]

(76) Improving .Appoqu.innimink Ril'cr and t!Le mouth of tlie sam.e, Dela-1(lare, five tliou.saiid dollnrs.

Improving Patuxent River, Maryland, continuing improvement, (77) [four] six thousand dollars.

' /

1890.

. ,. ..

,• .. .. ..

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. .' 8947

Improving Wicomico River Maryland, (78) [five] ten thousand dol- Improving the Ohio River: Continuing improvement, three hundred Jars. thousand dollars, of which sum seven thousand five hundred dollars

Improving Elk River, Maryland, {79) ffive] ten thousand dollars. shall be expended in constructing an ice-pier pursuant to the present Improving Potomac Iliver at Washington: Continuing improvement, or prospective plan of the Chief of Engineers, at or near the mouth of

(80) [two hundred and forty] three hundred thousand dollars, (81) of Kerr's Ran, in Ohio: Provided, That the Secretary of War is hereby wliich iluc;1dy-fii·e thousand dollars, or so much thereof as may be necessary, authorized and directed to obtain, if he can do so without cost to the may be e.rpended on the channel in the Eastern Bra'Aeh between the 1Ull'Y- United States, a perpetual lease or conveyance of the riparian rights of yar<l and Giesborough Poi11t. the property-owners at said locality, in the event said ice-pier shall be

Improving York River, Virginia: Continuing improvement, (82) located where there is no landing-place: Andprovidcdfwtlier, That at [twenty] thirt.11 thousand dollars. said locality, if it be an improved landing, he shall first obtain a re-

Improving by dredging and otherwise the inland water way from linqnishment of wharfage right and dues in favor of water-craft seekChincoteague Hay, Virginia to Delaware Bay at or near Lewes, Dela- ing protection from damage by ice; and no part of this appropriation ware, to be used from Chincoteague Bay to (83) [Indian River] Dela- shall be used for such purpose until the foregoing conditions are comware Bay: Continuing improvement, fifty thousand dollars. no part of plied with; and a like sum for like purposes upon similar terms in all which shall be expended until the right of way is secured free of cost respects may be used in the discretion of the engineer in charge of the to the United States. Ohio River at Ripley, Ohio, and at Portsmouth, Ohio; and twenty thou-

Improving Hampton Creek and Bar, Virginia: To c~mplete improve- sand dollars of said Ohio River appropriation may be used for .contin-ment, {84) [ten] five thousand dollars. uation of harbor improvement at Madison, Indiana, according to the

Improving Great Kanawha. River, West Virginia: Continuing im- plan~ heretofore submitted by Lieutenant-Colonel Merrill; thirteen provement, (85) [two hundred] three hundred and forty thousand dol- thousand (109) two hundred and fifty dollars may be expended in the Jars. completion of the construction of the embankment on the sorrth side

(86) improving Monongahela River, West Virginia, above Morgantown: of the Great Miami River near its junction with the Ohio to confine Continuing improvement, twenty-five thousand dollars. the waters of said Miami River in great floods to the general course of

J mproving Little Kanawha River, West Virginia, (87) [Continuing its channel at or near the Ohio, to the end that the formation of the improvement, fifteen] To complete projected lock and dam, forty thousand bar in the Ohio now obstructing navigation may be arrested; and fifdollars. but no toll shall be collected by any person or corporation for teen thousand dollars may be expended in completing the embankment this improved navigation, and such right, if any exist, shaJl be relin- at Shawneetown, already partly constructed for the preservation of the qnished in a manner satisfactory to the Secretary of War before the harbor at that place; the further sum of twenty thousand dollars may expenditure of any of the money herein appropriated for this work. be expended for the removal of rock obstruction at the mouth of Lick-

Improving Cape Fear River at and below Wilmington, North Caro- ing River, Kentucky. lina, (88) [one] tioo hundred thousand dollars. {110} The Secretary of Wai· is hereby authorized and empowered to Improvin~ Conteutnia Creek, North Carolina: Continuing improve- grant leases or licensesfm· the use of the wate1·-pou:e1· 01& the Gree1~ and Bar-

ment, (89) Lfive] aei:en thousand dollars. ren Rit:el"s at such a rate and on such conditions and for such periods of Improving Neuse River, (90) up to Smithfield, North Carolina: Con- time as may seem to him just, equitable, and expedient; said leases not to

tinning improvement, (91) [twelve] twenty thousand dollars. exceed the period of twenty years: Provided, That the leases011licensesshaU Improving Roanoke River, North Carolina: Continuing improvement, be limited to the use of the su1·plus water not 1·equi1'ed f01· navigation. And

from its mouth to Clarksville, (92) [twenty] ttoenty-ftve thousand dol- he is also empoirered to grant leases or Uce11ses fo1· the occupation of 1tuck lars. lands belonging to the United States on said Green and Barren Rivers as

Improving Mackey's Creek, North Carolina, (93) [ten] fifteen thou- 1nay be requi1·edfor mill-sites 01·for other purposes not inconsistent toith. sand dollars (94) [for dredging only J to complete the project 101• nine feet the requfrements of navigation; said leases or licenses not to extend beypnd

the period of twentg years; and all nioneys recei-red under such leases or depth of channel. licenses shall be tm·ned into the Treasnry of the United States, and the

(95) Improving Pasquotank River, North Carolina, three thousand dollars. itemized statt!1nent thereof shall accompany the annual report of the Chief Improving Salkiehatchie River, South Carolina: (96) [Continuing of Engineers. But nothing in this act sllall be construed to affect any

improvement] To complete existing project, five thousand dollars. vested right, if such there be, of any lessee of water-1Jower on said river. Improving Flint River, Georgia: Continuing improvement, twenty Improving Saginaw River, Michigan: Continuing improvement, (111)

thousand dollars, of which five thousand (97) doUars are to be expended [fifty-five] seventy-fi11e thousand dollars; (112) (twenty-five thousand] between Albany and Montezuma, and fifteen thousand below Albany. tllirt.11-seven thousand five hundred dollars of which shall be expended Improvin~ Ocmulgee River, Georgia.: Continuing and extending im- above Bay City.

provement, thirty thousand dollars, of which fifteen thousand dollars (!13) Improving St. Mary's Ril'er at the Falls, .Michigan: Continuing are to be expended between :rtlacon and Hawkinsville and fifteen thou- imp1·oi·ement o1i new locks and approaches, 11foe hundred thousand dolsand (98) dollars between Hawkinsville and its month. lars: Prorided, That such contracts as may be desirable may be entered

Improving Apalachicola River, Florida: To maintain existing works, into for materials and labor for the entire structure and approaches, or (99) including Lee's Slo1t_qh, two thousand dollars. any pm·t of the same, to be paid fo1· as approp1iati<ms may frorn time to

Improving Manatee River, Florida: Continuing improvement., {100) time be made by law. [:five] six thousand dollars. (114) Imp1·oving Hay Lake Channel, Michigan: Continuing impl"ot·e-

Improving St. John's River, Florida, (101) [from Jacksonville to ment, four hundred thoueand dollm·s: P1·ovided, That su.ch contracts as the ocean,] including the channel over the bar at the mouth: Contino- may be desirable may be entered into for materials and labor fo1· the enti1·e ing improvement, one hundred and (102) [fiJty] seiienty-ftve thousand tcork, or any p-art of tlle same, to be paid for as appropriations may fro11-,, dollars. time to time be ·made by lait.

ImprovingSuwanneeRiver, Florida: Continuing improvement, three Improving \115) [Menominee] Menomonee River, Michigan and Wis-thousand dollars (103), apart of 'which may bee:i.pended on the inside clwn- consin: Continuing improvement op the river from termination of old ?iel to Cedar Keys. I work, fifty-four thousand dollars.

Improving Big Sunflower River, Mississippi: Continuing improve- Improving Red River of the North, l\Iinnesota: Con tinning improve-ment, five thousand dollars, of which one thousand five hundred (104) ment, (116) [twenty] twenty-five thousand <lollars. dollars is to be used between Woodburn and Lebrton. If the conditions of this act have been complied with, the collector

Improving Arkansas RiYer, Arkansa.~, Indian TerrHory, and Kansas: of the port ot Galena and the local inspectors of steam-boats for that Continuing improvement from Wichita, Kansas, to its mouth, (105) district shall certify to the fact. Upon the receipt of this certificate [one hundred and fifty] two lwudred thousand dollars. by the Secretary of War he is hereby authorized and directed to draw his

Improving Cumberland River, Tennessee and Kentucky, below Nash- warrant on the Treasurer of the United States in favor of the city ofGaville: Continuingimprovement, fortythou!'ianddollars, thirty thousand Iena, her assigns or legal repre.sentatives, in payment of the aforesaid dollars ot which to be used in improving the mouth of the river. (106) amount: Proridtd, That in no case shall the Government of the United The fit:e thousand dollal"s lurretofore appropriated by act of second of August, States be liable for any losses ( 117) or damage.dncurred by said city of eighteen hundred and eigllty-two, for "improving the Oumberland River Galena, or its representatives, in the performance of the work herein aboi·e tlie mouth of Jellico, Kentucky," whiclisaid sum of five thousand dol- mentioned, nor shall any payments thereon be made in excess of the lars is yet held over under said act and 110t expended, be applied to the re- sum uor contrary to the terms herein before prescribed. ?noi-al of snags and and-bars in the said 011,mberlaud River above Nashville, Improving the Kaskaskia River, Illinois, from the mouth to Baldwin Tennessee, said amount to be thus expendedttnder the direction of tlte engi- Bridge, (118) [eight] six tllouS!lnd [five hundred] dollars. fleer in charge of that work and with the approval of the Secretary of War. For the construction of the Illinois and Mississippi Canal to connect Improvin~ Hiawassee River, Tennessee: (107) [Continuing] To com- the Illinois River at a point near the town of Hennepin with the Mis-

plet.e improvement, fifteen hundred dollars. sissippi Rh-er at the mouth of Rock River, together with a branch Improving Tennessee River, below Chattanooga, Tennessee, includ- canal or feeder from said Rock River to the main line of said canal, five

ing Colbert Shoal~ and Bee Tree Shoals: Continuing improvement, (108) hundred thousand dollars. Said canal and feeder shall be 1..-nown as the (four hundred and twenty-five] five hU1uired thousand dollars, out of Illinois and Mississippi Canal, and shall be constructed on the route which twenty-five thousand dollars may be used at Livingston Point a.t located by the Secretary of \Var in pursuance of tlte provisions of "An the mouth of said river, in accordance with the recommendation of the act making appropriations for the construction, repair, and preservaengineer in charge of that portion of the river. tion of certain public works on rivers and harbors, and for other pur-

...-,' ,- .. ~·

. . ..

,.,

..

\, :-_

> ·,,+

·.

. ~

) ! '

·.

·,

·' -. .·.

8948 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. ·' AUGUST 21,

poses," which act became a. law August eleventh, eighteen hundred and eighty-eight, and said canal and feeder shall be eighty feet wide at the water line and seven feet deep, the locks one hnndred and seventy feet in length and thirty feet in width, and shall have capacity for vessels of at least two hundred and eighty tons burden, with guard-gates, waateweirs, Jocks, lock-houses, basins, bridges, and all other erections and fixtures that may be necessary for safe and convenient navigation of said canal and feeders, and shall be constructed on plans and specifications to be approved by the Secretary of War ( 119) : Provided, That the Secretary of TV-a,. shall, in his discretion, change or alter tlw dimensions of the locks of.

.said canal and feeder if fo his 011inion the cost of saicl imp1·oi·etMnt is not tlw·eby increased.

For continuing operations upon the reservoirs at the head waters of the Mississippi River, (120) [forty] eighty thousand dollars, to be expended in accordance with the (121) [recommendation] recommendations of tbe.(122) (Board] Chief of Engineers iu (123) [their report to the Chief of Engineers, dated May twenty-fourth, eighteen hundred and eighty-seven] !tis annual 1·eport for the year eightem hundred and eiglttynine.

Impl'oving the Mississippi from the landing on the west bank below the Washingtouavenue bridge, Minneapolis, to the Des Uoines Rapids: Continuing improvement, five hundred thousand dollars. of which sum thirty thousand dollars, or so much thereof as may be necessary, shall be expended by the engineers in charge in removing the sand-bars and other obstructions to navigation in the East Channel of the Mississippi River opposite the prairie, on whi<'h the city of Prairie du Chien, in the State of Wisconsin, is located, the same being between Minneapolis and Des Moines Rapids; (124) of tvldch stwi also fifty thousand dolla,.s shall be eJ:pended betu:een the Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis and Omaha Railroad bridge at St. Paul and the Washington arenue bridge, Minneapolis. in dredging, remoml of gravel, bowlders, and broken rock and the constrttdion of dams and revetments; and, in the discretio~ of the Secretary of War, the sum of five thousand dollars, or so much thereof as may be necessary, shall be expended iJ:t removing the bar in the river at Port Byron, in the State of Illinois; five thousand dollars at Burlington, Iowa, and two thousand dollars at Montrose, Iowa (125), [.And the Secretary of War is berebyairected to pay, out of said sum to M. J. Adams five thousand dollars, in fall of all claims and demands growing ont of the test made by him of what is known as the Adams Flume, on the Upper Mississippi River, the said test having been authorized by Conw-ess.]

Improving Mississippi River, from Des :Moines Rapids to the mouth of the Illinois River, one hundred and sixty-five thousand dollars, out of which twenty-live thousand dollars shall be expended in continuing the dredging in Quincy Bay, in the State of Illinois, and the Secretary of War i~ authorized and directed to cause an examination and report to be made by a competent engineer upon the advisability of reopening Willow Slough, or some other channel, from the Mississippi River to Quincy Bay; and also fifteen thousand dollars of said sum shall be used in the rectification of the river at Clarksvil1e, .Missouri, as sugge.cited in the report of Captain Ruffner; and also twenty-five thousand dollars of said sum, or so much thereof as may be nece. sary, may be expended at the discretion of the Secretary of War to protect the banks of the river from erosion and prevent the destruction of the embankment of the (126) [Suy] Sny Island levee.

(127) [Improving Mississippi River from Head of the Passes to the mouth of the Ohio River, includinv; salaries and traveling expenses of the Mississippi River Commission: Continuing improvement, one million dollars, which sum shall be expended, under the direction of the Secretary of War, in accordance with the plans, specifications, and recommendations of the Mississippi River Commission: Provided, That no portion of this appropriation shall be expended to repair or build levees for the purpose of reclaiming lands or preventing injury to lands or private property by overflows: Provided, however, That the Commission is authorized to repair and build levees, if in their judgment it should be done, as part of their plans to afford ease and safety to the navigation and commerce of the river and to deepen the channel. Out of the sum appropriated for this reach of the river twenty-five thousand dollars shall be expended in the protection and preservation of the harbor at New Madrid, Missouri.]

(128) bnp1'oving Mississippi River fro11i the Head of the Passes to the mouth. of ihe Ohio .ilfre1·, incl!Lding salaries, cletical, office, trareling, mid niiscellaneo11s expenses of the Mississippi Rit'er Commission: Continuing

.improvement, three 1nillion fit·e. lmndred thousand dolla1's, which suni sh ail be expend eel under the directum of the Secreta1·y of War in accordance with the 11lans, specifications, and recommendations of the Mississippi Rit'er Commission, for th~ general bn11rovement of the river, for the biiilding of levees, fo1· surt·eys, for work at the Ti arbors at Hickman, Kentucky, at New Ma<frid, MiBsom·i, at Helena, Arkansas, at Gree11ville, Vicksburg, and Natchez, Mississi.ppi, at New Orleans, Louisiana, at the head of the Atchaf · alaya a11d tlte 1110itth of tile Red. River, and at other localities, in such 'manne,., to such extent, and in such proportion as in their opinion shall best promote the inteJ'est.s of commerce and navigation.

(129) [For survey of the ~Iississippi River from the Head of the Passes to its headwaters: Continuing survey, seventy-five thousand dollars.]

(l 30) [For work in accordance with the plans and specificati~s of the Mississippi River Commission.]

(131) [At Q-reenville, Mississippi: Continuing improvement, one hundred and twenty thousand dollars.]

(132) [At Vicksburg, Mississippi: Continuing improvement, one hundred and twenty thousand dollars.]

(133) [At New Orleans, Louisiana: Continuing improvement, one hundred thousand dollars.]

(134) [At the head of the Arehafa1aya and the mouth of Red River, Louisiana, for the rectification thereof, by preventing farther enlarge· ment of the Atchafalaya. and restricting it8 outlet capacity, and for turning the waters of Red River in the north or upper channel around Turnbull's Island, and for keeping open a navigable channel through the mouth of Red or Old River into the Mississippi, two hundred and fifty thousand dollars.]

Improving St. Francis River, from Greenville to the Arkansas line: C-0ntinuing improvement, ten thousand five hundred dollars; and the Secretary of War is hereby authorized (135) [and directed] to purchase the Cut-off Canal now owned and controlled by the Dunklin County Tran,sportation Company, of DunkJin County, Missouri, if, in his judgment, (136) [Government ownership of said canal would be the best or the. mo~t economical route by which the free navigation of the St. Francis River can be completed, and the snm of eight thousand dol· lars of the sum hereby appropriated, or so much thereof as ma.y be necessary to make such purchase, is hereby appropriated) tlie interests of commerce require the purclwse to be made, and the swn he finds to be reasonable for tlie purpose may be taken fro11i the money herein appropriated.

(137) [Improving Missouri River from its month to Fort Benton, including office and traveling expenses, salaries of commission, surYeys, permanent bench-marks, gauges, and so forth, nine hundred thousand dollars, to be expended in the systematic improvement of the river from it8 mouth up: Provided, That in the discretion of the Secretary ?f War such ~rtion of said sum as he may deem proper may be expended m the protection of harbors and localities on any portion of said river: And provided further, That one hundred thousand dollars of said sum may be expended, in the discretion of the Secretary of War, on the river above Sioux City; .fifty thousand dollars of said sum between Sioux City, Iowa, and the north line of the State of South Dakota on said river, ann fifty thousand dollars, the balance of said sum above the north line of South Dakota.]

(138) Improt'ing Missouri River f roni, its mouth to Siou.'V Oily, Iou:a inclulfive, embracing office, clerical, traveling, and other expenses of the Missoitri River Commission, surreys, permanent bench-marks, and gauges, nine lmndred thousand dollars, to be expended by tlie Secretary of War in the sy wmatic impro1:ernent of the river from its mouth up to Sioux City, inclusfre, according to the plans and specification of the Missou,ri River Commission, to be approi·ed by hint: Provided, That in the discretion of the Commis· sion sucli portion of said smn and of all tmexpended balances from former appropriations duri11 g the last four years for the impro1:ement of the Missouri River below Siou~'C City, or any part thereof, not exceeding two liundred and three thousand doUars, as tliey may deem pmper shall be expended in the protection of harbors and localities on any part of the ril:er witliin said limits.

(139) Improving Missouri River between the foot of the Great Falls of the said 1·iver in Montana and Siou.-c Oily, three hundred and fifty tlwusand dollars, to be expended in the discretion of the Secretary of War, and he is autlwrizecl to use so much thereof as may be necessary for tlte pro1:iding of two ice harborsi to be located by liim.

Improving canal at the Cascades, Oregon: Continuing improvement, four hundred (140) and fifty thousand dollars.

Improving the mouth ot Columbia River, Oregon: Continuing improvement, (141) [four hundred and twenty-five] five hundred thousand dollars.

Imf)roving Lower Willamette and Columbia Rivers in front and below Portland, Oregon: Continuing improvement, (142) [eighty] one hundred thousand dollars.

Improving Coquille River, Oregon: Continuing improvement thirty thousand dollars (143), not exceeding tln·ee tlwu.sand dollars of which nw.y with the approval.of the Oltief of Engineers, be used for snagging. '

(144) Improving Columbia River from the ltead of Rock Iiiland Rapids to the foot of Priest Rapids, Washington, seventy-nine thousand dollars, of 101tich ten tlwitSand dollars, or so niur.li tl1ereof as may be 1U'.cessm·y, 1nay be 'used in the s-uri·ey of the C<>lumbia Rit:er from the inteniational boundary to .Rock Island Rapids.

Improving Cowlitz River, Washington: ContinuinO' improvement, (145) [four] eight thousand dollars.

0

(146) Tl1e Secretary of War is authorized and directed to appoint a board of three officers of the Corps of Engineers of the United States Army, whose duty it sliall be to select and survey theniostfeasible location, n "d estimate the expense of construction of a ship-canal to cmmEct the 1calcrs of Lakes Union, Wa.~ltington, and Sammnish with Puget Sound; a 11 d the su1n of ten thousand dollars, or as much tliereof as may be nccessar11, i hereby appropriated for its expenses. ·

SEC. 2. That (147) it shall be the duty of the Secretan1 of Wai· to apply the money herei1i and hei·eafter app1'opriated for imp1·ove111e11ts of 1·ivers and ltarbo1·s, othfl' than s1wveys, estimates, and gaugings, in carrying on the various works, by contract 01· othencise, as may be most economical ana

_ .. ·.,,, ·~· :,

... I - -... ••• "t •••

I' ...... ~·· ~ ...

1890. CONGRESSIONAL REOORD-HOUSE. .~ J - 8949 adt•antageous to the G01:er111nent. 1Vheresaid works m·e done by c011tract, such contract shall be made afte1· sufficient 1mblic adve1·tiseme11t fo1· proposnls, in s1tch maimer and form as the Secretary of Wa1· shall prescribe; and such cont1'aots shall be nuule tcith the lowest responsiblo bidders, acconipauied by such securities as the Stcretary of War shall reqiifre, condiiiu11ed for the faithful prosecutio11 a11d completion of the wo1·k according to suck contract; l.mt nothing contained in section thirty-seven hundred and seventeen of the Revised Statutes of the United States, nor in (148) this section (149) [three of the river and harbor act of August eleventh, eighteen hundred and eighty-eight] shall be soconstmed a.sto prohibit or prevent the cumulation of two or more works of river and harbor improvement in the same proposal and contract, where such works are situated in the same region and of the same kind or character.

The term "South Pass," as herein employed, shall be construed as embracing the entire extent of channel between the upper ends of the works at the head of the Pass and the outer or sea end of the jetties at the entrance from the Gulf of Mexico; and any willful violation of any rule or regulation made by the 8ecretary of War in pursuance of this act shall be deemed a misdemeanor, for which the owner or owners, agent or agents, master or pilot of the vessel so offending shall be separately or collectively responsible, and on conviction thereof shall (150) [pay J be punished by a fine not exceeding two hundred and fi1ty dollars or ( 151) L undergo an J by imprisonment not exceeding three months, at the discretion of the court.

That whenever the Secretary of. War shall have good reason t,o believe that any railroad or other bridge now constructed, or which may hereafter be constructed, over any of the navigable water-ways of the United States is an (152) unrea«onable obstruction to the free navigation of such waters (153) [by reason] on accom1t of insufficient height, width of span, or otherwise, or where there is difficulty in passing the draw opening or the draw-span of such bridge by rafts, steam-boats, or other water-craft, it shall be the duty of the said Secretary (154) first giving the parties rea.~onahle opportunity ta be heard, to give notice to the persons or corporations owning o; controlling such bridge so to alter the same as to render navigation through or under it (155) rea. onably free, easy, and unobstructed; and in givrng such notice he shall t156) [prescribe in each case a reasonable time in which such alteration is to be made] specify the changes reqiiired to be made, and shall prescribe in each case a 1·easonable time ill which to make them. If at the end of such time the alteration has not been made, the Secretary of War shall forthwith notify the United States dii:ltcict attorney for the district in which such bridge is situated, t,o the end that the criminal proceedings mentioned in the succeeding section may be taken. . SEC. 5. That section ten of the river and harbor ad of August eleventh, eighteen hundred and eighty-eight, be amended and re-enacted so as to read as follows:

{157) (That the owner or owners, or manager or managers of any railroad or other bridge obstructin~ the free navigation of any navigable water way of the United States who shall willJully fail or refuse to remove the same, or to cause the necessary alterations to be made in the same so as to render navigation through or under it free, easy, and unobstructed to rafts, steam-boats, or other water-craft, after receiving notice to that effect from the Secretary of War and within the time prescribed by him, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof shall pay a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars and undergo an imprisonment not exceeding two years, at the discretion of the court; and every mont.h be or they shall remain in default in respect to the removal or alteration of such bridge shall be deemed a new offense and subject t,o the penalties above prescribed.]

(158) That if the pC1·sons, corporation, or association 01Dning 01· controlling any railroad 01· other bridge shall, after receiving notice to that effect as hereinbeforerequi1·edfront the Secretm·y of War and within the tim.e prucribed by hint, willfully fail or refuse to remove the same, or ta contply with the lawful order of the Secretary of Wa1· in thepreniises such persons, corporation, 01· association shall be deemed guilty of a misclemea1101· and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding fire thousat1d dollars, and every rnonth such pcl'sons, corp01·ation, or association shall remain in default in respect to the 1·emoval or altt:ration of such bri<lge shall be deemed a new offense and si"bject the pe1·sons, corp01·ation, 01· association so offending to the penalties above prescribed.

(159) Sec. 6. That eve1·y obstruction, not affinnatii'ely a11tlw1'ize<Z by law, a11d not haring existed more than twenty yem·s, to tlte navigable capacity of any watm·s in respect of which the United States has jm·isdiction, is heteby prohibittd. Each da1,'s continuance of any such obstnwtion shall be deemed a separate offense. Euei·!J person and eve1·y corpo1'atfon which shall be guilty of cre,athig 01· continuing any such obstruction in this section mentioned shall be deerned guilt.I/ of a inisdemeanor, and on conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine not exceeding one thouBa11<l dolla1·s, or by imprisonment (in the case of a natural person) not exceeding one year, 01· b,11 both such punishments, in the discretion of the court. The. c1·eating or co11tinwing of arr.y obstruction fa this section 'mentioned may be p1·erented by the injunction of any circuit co111"t exercising jm·fadiction in any distl'ict in which such obstruction may be th1·eatened 01· may exist; and p1·oper p1·oceedings in equity to this end may be instituted muler the directi-Ou of the Attorney-General of the United States.

SEC. (160) [6] 7. That section twelve of the river and harbor act of

August eleventh, eighteen hundred and eighty-eight, be amended and re-enacted so as to read as follows:

Where it is made manifest to the ::;ecretary of War that the establishment of harbor-lines is essential to the preservation and protection of harbors, be may, and is hereby authorized to, cause such lines to be established, beyond which no piers, wharves, bulk-beads or other works shall be extended or deposits made, except under such regulations as ma.v be prescribed from time to time by him; ancl any person who shall willfully violate the provisions of this section, or any rule or regulation made by the Secretary of War in pursuance of this section, shall be (161) deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof, shall (162) [pay J be punished by a fine not exceeding one thousand dol)ars, (163) [and undergo] or imprisonment not exceeding one year, at the discretion of the court for each offense.

SEC. (164) [7] 8. That for the purpose or securing the uninterrupted work of operating snag-boats on the -Ohio River and removing snags, wrecks, and other obstructions in said river, the Secretary of War, upon the application of the Chief of Engineers, is hereby authorized to draw his warrant or requisition from time to time upon the Secretary of the Treasury for such sums as may be necessa.rytodosucn work, not to exceed in the ~gregate for each year the sum of twentyfive thousand dollars: Provided, ltowever, That an itemized statement of said expenses shall accompany the annual report of the Chief of Engineers.

SEC. (165) (8] 9. That the dry-dock constructed at the Des Moines Rapids Canal under the provisions of acts of Congress approved August second, eighteen hundred and eighty-two, July fittb, eighteen hundred and eighty-four, August fifth, eighteen hundred and eighty-six, and Au~ust eleventh, (>igbteen hundred and Aighty-eight, shall be considered an integrant part ot the Des Moines Rapids Cana.I, and the act of Congress appro"\"ed March third, ei~bteen -hundred and eighty-one, which provides for expenses of operating and care of Des Moines Rapids and other canals, and the act of Congrt>ss approved July fifth, eighteen hundred and eighty-four, which provides penalties for violation of rules and regulations prescribed by the Secretary of War, shall also apply to the said dry-dock.

SEC. (166) (9] 10. That in determining the mileage of officers of the Corps of Engineers traveling without troops on duty connected with works under their charge, no deduction shall be made for such travel as may be necessary on free or bond-aided or land-grant railways.

SEC. (167) [10111. That whereas the United States, in compliance with its obligation to the Buffalo Ba.you Ship-Channel Company, has constructed a ship-channel through Galveston Bay from the Bolivar Channel to the channel constructed by said Buffalo Bayou Ship-Channel Company, known as Morgan's Cut, for vessels ot twelve feet draught, it is therefore declared that the ship-channel through Galveston Bay from Bolivar Channel to the point where the San Jacinto River enters what is known as the .Morgan Channel, excavated through Morgan's Point, is now the property of the United States and is declared to be free to navigation; and the Secretary of War is hereby directed to keep said ship-channel free to navigation: Provided, That the Secretary of War shall first ascertain by a commission of United States engineers to be by him designated for that purpose, and whose report shall be subject to bis approval, the present value of any portion of said channel which may have been constructed by the Buffalo Bayou Ship-Channel Company, agreed to be paid for by the United States in the act of Congress of March third, eighteen hundred and seventy-nine, but in appraising the value thereof no account shall be taken of the charter -~ranted to said company by the Legi_slature of Texas, or of any franchise right claimed thereunder, and the amount so ascertained and certHied to be correct by the Secretary of War shall be paid to said Buf· falo Bayou Ship-Channel Company, and (168) the su1n of one lwndred and seventy-nine thousand sfa; hundl"ed and fifty-eight dollars, (Jr so much thereof as mny be necessary, is hereby appropriated out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated.

SEC. (169) (11] 12. That the Secretary of War is hereby directed, at his discretion, t,o cause examinations or surveys, or both, to he made, and the estimated cost of improvement to be estimated, at the following localities, to wit:

Clarendon (170) a1ul the lowfi· White Ri1:er, to determine the effect of back water from the Mississippi River (171) and its cause, and the means and cost of preventing injury therefrom.

.Alabama River, to ascertain cost ol securing a six-foot channel at low water from mouth (172) [of] to Wetumpka.

(173) San Simeon Bay. (174) Stamford Harbor, Starnford. (175) Broad Creek River.

(176) FLORWA.

(177) Channel lyinq north ancl west of the town of Cedar Keys, known as Boat 01· Number Four Channel

(178) I11dian Rit'er betueen Melbourne and .hipite-r Inlet. (179) St. John's Ri1,er, from Jacksot1ville to Sanfo1·d, to obtain an

estimate of the cost of deepening the cha1mel so as to secu1·e navigationi fo1• ocean steamers, and ·to repo1·t separaiely the cost of opening the cha11 nel of the rit;er in th~ 1:icinity of Orange Mills.

-.

.. J- .. -

~

·.

·.

. . ,

., ,,. .

. · .... :• t

·.

•1

I I

.·

-: ·\r • .. . ·-

8950 CO.NGRESSIONAL REOORD_:HOUSE. AUGUST 21,

(H:iO) The upper part of the St. John's River f2•011-i, Lake Mo11r_oe southtua1·d, or in a southerly direction through the 1·iver and connecting lakes to tlw head of stcani--Ooat navigation.

(181) Slouglt at Hamt1ton, wit/' a view to dredging out the same. Illinois Ri \er from La Salle to the Mississippi River, a.s recommended

by Captain W. L. Marshall, Corps .of Engi?eers, ~ his report ~a~ed March ten, eighteen hundred and mnety, with a VIew ~ ascertaimn~ what lands would be subject to overflow by the construction of a navigable waterway between Lake Michigan and the Mississippi Riv~r, {182) but not more titan twenty-"fi,ve thousand dollars of the money appropriated for surveys sl1all be allotted fo this 1·iver.

INDIANA.

Wabash River from Terra Haute to La Fayette with a view of removing obstructions of (183) [Snags] snags and bars and (184) [re-establish] re-establislLing the navigation of said river between these (185) [Cities] cities.

(186) IDAHO.

The Upper Snake River, between the Huntington Bridge and Seven Devils Mining District in Idaho, with a view of overconiing ob!h·uctions to steamboat 11avigation.

( 187) Green River above the mouth of Big Bm-ren River. (U::!8) Green River, Kenhwky, abore the 11wuth of Big Ba1·ren, Rive1·,

completing sm·vey witll a view of ex tending slack-water 11avigation on <been River.·

(189) Big Ba1'1·en Rfre1·, Kentucky, above Bowling G1·een, with a 'L'iew of e.ttending slack-1cate1· navigation by additional locks and dams.

(19U) Bayot£ Black to connect with Terre Bomte. (191) Berwick's Bay to the Gulf, with a view of obtaining a deeper

cha1111el. (192) St. Jerome Bay. • (193) North River, Salem, from Bei·erly bridge to the North street brid,qe. (194) Weymouth Back lli-1:e1·. . (195) Essex Ri1:er. {196) Harbor of Bluehill, with especial reference to tlte removal of the

ledges known as Middle Ground, eastern and western. (197) Penobscot River. (198) Pepperell (:ove, fonning the eastern boundary of Portsmouth Lowe1·

Harbor. The American channel of the Detroit River, beginning at the west

ern boundary of the city of Detroit, and from thence continuously in American waters to Lake Erie, with a view to deepening said channel to the same depth as has been attained and is- contemplaied under present plan in the Canadian channel of said river, the said survey to be made in the channel of said river fronting the towns of Springwells, (199) [Ecord] Ecorse, Monquagon, (200) and Brownstown, (201) (Nonquagon, and Trenton], and the American shore of said river to such a point in Lake Erie as may be necessary to reach a proper depth of water in said lake to correspond with the increased depth of the river contemplated by this bill.

Grand River, (202) below Grand Rapids, with a. view of determining the existence or non-existence of underlying rock, the hydraulics of the river and the detailed topography of the va1ley subject to overflow.

Red River and tributaries above Fergus Falls and Crookston, and of Big Stone Lake, (203) ·with a t iew to improving tiavigation thereon by the erection of suitable dams 01· by such other means as 11ia.y be deenied 'best, together witk an estim.ate of the cost.

(204) The St. Loui,, Rive1· froni G1·assy Point in St. Louis Bay to Fond au. Lao, or the State line between Minnesota and Wisconsin.

(205) Missouri River, between Sioux City and Fort Benton. MiE.souri River, between Great Falls and (206) canyon next below

Stubb's Ferry. (207) Yellowstone River,jroni its mouth to the rnoi,th of Tongue Rivei·. (208) Cla1·k's Fork of the Colmnbia River (b1.J whatever name called)

front tile international bounda1·y line to the nwuth of the Big Blackfoot River, in the State of Montana.

{209) Huntington Harbor, Suffolk Oottnty, for improvement. l210) Gltamplin's Oreek, in town of Islip. (211) Harbor of Washington, Pamlico River.

(212) OHIO. (213) Conneaut Harbor. (214) Grand River between Richmond and tlte moutli. (215) Alsea Bay and .River. _ (216) The Lower Willamette and Columbia Rivers, toith a view of se

curing twtJnty-five feet at low water from Po1'tland to the mo1itl1 of the Columbia.

(217) Tho Yamhill River from its mouth to McMinnville, with a view of improving the same by removing snags and othe1· obstructions.

(21t)) You11g's Bay channel fi·oni the ship channel of the Columbia Rit:fl' to the head of Young's Bay, a di8ta11ce of one and one-half 11iiles, with a view to iniproving the same by dredging, so as to seczwe a depth of eighteen ftet at low tide.

Delaware Bay, with a. view of determining the best site near the mouth of the same for a national harbor of refuge suitable for deeptira.ught vessels. The examination to be made by a commission of three engineer officers, who will make the examination, and submit to

the Secretary of War a report thereon, with a project and estimate of cost of construction (219) Lof construction] of such a harbor of refuge.

(220) Narragansett Bay Channel between Starve Goat Island and th.e main-land, with a view of deepening the same.

(221) Memphis Harbor, especially for the removal of the bar fonning opposi'.te the upper part of the city or the prevention of the river bank taking the fOrJn that the natural forces are now gi1;ing it.

Brazos River from its mouth to (222) [where said river is crossed by the International Railway, near Hearne, in Rober~n County].

(223) Trinity River from its mouth to Dallas. (224) Orane's Oreek. (225) Nandua Greek. (226) Piscataway Oreelr. Nooksack River, (227) Skagit, Snohomish, D' Wamish, Black Puyallup,

Nasel, North, Gray' s, Deep, Skamakawa, and Crooked Rivers. Gray's Harbor and Bar, (228) [survey of harbor to Cosmopolis] and

extending up Chehalis River to Montesano. (229) Shoalzuate1· Bay, from and including it,s entrance, to South Bend,

about two miles up the Wtllapah River, and from said South Bend, about ten miles up said river, to Woodward's Landing, 1uith a view to improving tlte same for na'!l'igation.

Columbia Ri'\l'er, (230) [below the city of Vancouver, with the view of removing the bar in said river] from tl1e mouth of Willamette River to the upper limits of the city of Vancoui·er, with a vieto of establislting a ship-channel.

(231) For a ship-channel between Port Townsend Bay, Puget Sound, and Oak Bay.

(23:J) Bm·bo1· at Hudson, with a view to prevent the city being cut off front the navigable channel of the St. Croix Lake, as a1"esult of the Gove1'11ment dike now constnwted at that point, and with a view to the feaBi· bility of conducting the waters of Willow River past the city of Hudson into the navigable channel of tlte lake.

(233) DISTRICT OF COLUMBU. Rock Creek, Distl'iot of Columbia, 1oith a view to its preservation and

improvtmien t. SEC. (234) [12] 13. That for examinations, surveys, and contingen

cies, and for incidental repairs, for which there is no special appropriation, for rivers and harbors, two hundred (235) and twenty-five thousand dollars: Provided, That no survey shall be made of any harbors or rivers until the Chief of Engineers shall have directed a preliminary examination of the same by the local engineer in charge of the district, or an engineer detailed for the purpose, and such local or detailed engineer and the di vision engineer of the locality shall report to said Chief of Engineers whether, in their opinion, said harhor or river is worthy of improvement, and shall state in such report fully and particularly the facts and reasons on which they base such opinions, including the present and prospective demands of commerce; and it shall be the duty of the Chief of Engineers to direct the making of such survey, if, in his opinion, the harbor or river proposed to be surveyed be worthy of improvement by the General Government; and he shall report to the Secretary of War the facts, and what public necessity or convenience may be subserved thereby, together with the full reporm of the local engi· neer: .And provided further, That no survey for new works other than those designated by law shall be made, and the Government shall not be deemed to have entered upon any project for the constrnctfofi or improvement of any water way, harbor or canal mentioned in this act unless or until the work of construction shall have been actually appropriated for. Said reports of preliminary examinations and surveys shall be made to the House of Representatives, and are hereby ordered to be printed when so made.

(236) [SEC. 13. That the Secretary of War is hereby authorized, if in his judgment the interests of the Government would be subserved thereby, to extend the contract under which work on the Vicksburg Harbor is now being done, so as to cover the additional appropriation herein made for said work by a supplemental contract, without further advertisement for bids for such work.]

Mr. BUCHANAN, of New Jersey.' Mr. Speaker, I understand that the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. RUSSELL] desires to present a. concurrent resolution from the Committtee on Printing which will take but little time, and I yield to him for that purpose.

PRECIOUS METALS.

Mr. RUSSELL, from the Committee on Printing, reported a Senate concurrent resolution, which was read, as follows:

Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concm·ring), That there be printed for the use of the Director oC the Mint 1,000 e.dditione.l copies of the re· port on the production of precious metals in the United States for the calendar yearl889.

The concurrent resolution was adopted. llIES~AGE FROM THE SENATE.

A message from the Senate, by Mr. l\IcCooK, Hs Secretary, announced that the Senate bad passed without amendment the bill (H. R.1284) granting a pension to Theodore M. Piatt.

The message also announced that the Senate had passed with an amendment the bill (H. R. 5939) for the relief of settlers on Northern Pl!cific Railroad indemnity lands, asked a conference with the House on

...

; · .. l • 'I • '".:: .. - • ·,,·

.. . ·.

1890. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 8951 the bill and amendment, and had appointed Mr. PLUMB, 1\Ir. DoLP_H, and Mr. BERBY conferees on. tho part of the Senate.

The message further annonnced that the Senate had agreed to the report of the committee of conference on the disa.greeing votes of the two Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H. R.11380) Jnaking appropriations for additional clerical force and other expenses to carry into effect the act entitled ''An act granting pensions to soldiers and sailors who are incapacitated for the performance of manual labor, and providing for pensions to widows, minor children, and dependent parents," from July 20, 1890, for the balance of the fiscal year ending June 30, 1891.

The message farther announced that the Senate ap:reed to the amend· ments of the House to the bill (S. 3714) to apply a portion of the proceeds ol the public lands to the more complete endowment and support of the colleges for the benefit of agriculture and the mechanic arts established under the provisions of an act of Congress approved July 2, 1862; and a bill (S. 2594) providing for an inspection of meats for exportation, prohibiting the importation of adulterated articles of food or drink, and authorizing the President to make proclamation in certain cases, and for other purposes.

The message further announced that the Senat.e agreed to the amendments of the House to the joint resolution (S. R. 116) extending the privilege of the Library of Congress to the members and secretary of the Interstate Commerce Commission.

The message further announced that the Senate had passed bills of the following titles; in which the concurrence of the House was requested:

A bill (S. 2780) for the relief of James Lansburgh and Julius Lansbnrgh;

A bill (S. 3951) to grant to the Mobile and Dauphin Island Railroad and Harbor Company a right to trestle across the shoal water between Cedar Point and Dauphin Island; and · A bill (S. 4278) authorizing the construction of a bridge

Tennessee River at or near Knoxville, Tenn. THE EIGHT·IIOUR LAW.

Mr. BUCHANAN, of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I now call unfinished business of yesterday's morning hour.

The SPEAKER. The morning hour commences at 12 o'clock. Mr. BUCHANAN, of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, when interrupted

yesterday by the expiration of the morning hour, I had called attention to the statute passed i::l 1868, providing that thereafter, in the case of workmen, laborers, and mechanics employed by or on behalf of the Government, eight hours should constitute a le~l day's work, a.nd to the proclamation ~ued thereunder by the then President of the United States, General Grant. This morning I desire to resume my remarks at that point and to call attention to the further fact that on the 11th day of May, 1872, the same Pr~ident ~ued a further proclamation, in which he called attention to the fact that it had been reported to him that that law was not strictly observed by officials of the Government., and in that proclamation he used these words:

Now, therefore, I, Ulysses S. Grant, President of the United Sta.tes, do hereby again call attention to the act of Congress aforesaid, and direct all officers of the Executive Departments of the Government having charge oft.be employment of laborers, ~orkmen, and mechanics employed by or on behalf of the Government of the United States t-0 make no reduction in the wages pa.id by the Gov· ernment by the day to such la.borers, workmen, and mechanics on account of the reduction of the hours of labor.

It would seem that the" language of the statute, supplemented by the language of these proclamations, would make a contract as clear and explicit as it is possible for any contract-to be made between the Government and the laborers, mechanics, and workmen employed by or on its behalf. And that this was the understanding of Congress is apparent from section 2 of the appropriation act approved May 18, 1872 (Statutes at Large, volume 17, page 134), in which the proper accounting officers of the Government were 'directed to take into acconnt in the settlements between the Government and these laborers, mechanics, and workmen the difference in the pay which they bad received for working ei.ght hours as against the pay they had received theretofore for working ten hours. And that statute goes on to provide that-

Tbe accounting officers shall settle and pay for the same without reduction on account of the reduction or hours of labor by said act when it shall appea.r that such was the sole cause of the reduction of wages.

And the act appropriates a sum sufficient for such payment. That was the construction which was placed upon the act by the Congress of the United States. And in pursuance of that act the accounting officers of the Government did audit these accounts and in almost every instance, I believe, paid the difference to the men.

Thus the matter ran along, the Government paying the full amount of wages, until 1877. On the 30th of June, 1877, Hon. R. W. Thompson, Secretary of the Navy, ~ned an order in which he s~tes:

The Department has fixed ~he rate of labor for mechanics, foremen, leading men, and laborers on the ba.Sls of ten hours a day. All workmen electing to labor only eight hours per day will receive a proportionate reduction of their wages,

That order was made directly in the face of the statut.e and directly in the face of the construction of that statute by the Congress of the United States as embodied in the act of 1872. Secretary Thompson

..... ' . ,

supplemented that order by another dated October 25, 1877, in which be required more than eight hours of labor, and still another or~er issued March 21, 1878, in which he uses language to which I call the particular at~ention of members of the House, because, in my judgment, upon this language is based, to a large extent at least, the foundation for these claims:

The Department will contract for the labor of mechanics, foremen, leading men,a.nd la.borers on the basis of eight hours a day. All workmen electing to labor ten hours a day will receive a proportionate increase of their wages.

The commandants will notify the men employed, or to be employed, of these conditions, and they are at liberty to continue or accept employment under them o not.

Under that order the men were still worked bm hours per day; and notwithstanding the fact that in the order I have cited he promised that in such cases the men should receive a proportionate increase in their pay, they have not received one dollar of such increase.

The next step in the history of this affair is to be found in the joint resolution introduced in this House and passed by it May 9, 1878, bu.t which failed of action in the Senate. That resolution, referring to the true intent and meaning of the original act, says it is the true intent and meaning that ''eight hours shall constitute a day's work for all such laborers, workmen, and mechanics," and then it goes on t-0 say in terms as emphatic as it is possible to write them in the English language-

And while the act remains upon the statute-book no reduction shall be made in the wages paid by the Government by the day to such laborers, workmen, and mechanics on account of the reduction of the hours of labor, and all the heads of Departments, officers, and &l{ents of the Government are hereby directed to en!orce said law as long as the same is unrepealed.

This was a construction by the House of Representatives of the terms of the original a{!t and of the resultant rights of the workmen, laborers, ancf mechanics employed thereunder. But no attention was paid by s,0me of the Department officials to this action; and I will say that these abuses arose almost entirely in the War and Navy Departments, where the officers in charge are from the Army and Navy and not from civil life. Things ran along in this way, these men working extra hours without receiving the extra compensation pledged to them by the Secretary of the Navy, until 1883, when Secretary Chandler issued this order, under date of March 28, 1883:

The Department confirms its telegram to you of the 20th instant which was in the following words: "Continue the present eight hours of labor' until otherwise ordered." The hours of labor should be from 8 a. m. to 12 m., and from 1 to5p, m.

W. E. CHANDLER, Secretary of the Na'V1J.

On the 26th of December, 1883, Robert Lincoln, then Secretary of War, issued an order in which he uses these words: . It is, howevei:, my opinion that in the a.bsence of a. public exigency, the con

tmuance of active work at the Government manufa.ctUl'ing establishments for more than eight hours a day is a violation of the intent of the statute and you will please to instruct the commanding officers of the above-named ars~nals accordingly.

It is from this legislation, ta.ken in connection with these orders. with these contracts of employment, I may call them, that these equities in behalf of these workmen, laborers, and mechanics are claimed to arise. They are claimed t-0 arise, so far as the men employed in the navy-yards are concerned, first, upon the express terms of the law of 1868; second, upon the proclamations of President Grant construing the terms of that statute and directing in explicit terms what should be done under it; third, under the contract with the Secretary of the Navy, dated March 21, 1878, ~ued, as I have said, by Hon. R. W. Thompson, then Secretary of the Navy; and, fourth, upon the con· struction placed on that statute by the House of Representatives in the resolution which passed May 9, 1878.

There are to be deducted from these claims the sums which were paid under the act of 1872, and to which I have alreadv referred.

As to the men employed in the arsenals, they claim their equities under the act of 1868, under the two proclamations of President Grant and under the resolution of interpretation of 1878.

In December, 1883, Secretary Lincoln ~ned his order for full payment to them. As to the other features of the claims of the men employed in the arsenals the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. GEST] will enlighten yon further.

These, Mr. Speaker, are the claims and this is the legislation under which these claims have arisen. We come now to the question as to what will be the aggregate amount of the claims if the court shall find that tlfe construction placed npon this ~tatute by President Grant; by Secretary Chandler, and by Secretary Lmcoln, as well as by the House of Representatives, is the true construction.

The committee have been at great pains to ascertain what the aggregate amount would be in such a case. Statements have been made upon this floor as to the vast amount of the sums that will beTequired for this purpose. These statements have been made as the merest conjecture, as the wildest guesses. The committee have relied upon no <'Onjectureand no guesses. They have received official communications from the different heads of the Departments of this Government affording all light in their power upon the subject; and whilst they are not a?Ie, without a careful examination of every one of the pay-rolls, to give the exact amount that will be required, yet they give it in an approximate degree, and, as we believe, nearly accurate •

.• :..

~ ..

'·

...

, 1· •

.....

... ~ .

,.. .

-·

,, ...

·. ' .. --.

8952 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. AUGUST 21,

Toke late Secretary of the Navy, Mr. Whitney, has told us that it will probably cost to right these wronks done to laborers, mechanics, and workmen employed in the various navy-yards of the country the sum of about $3,000,000. The Secretary of War tells us it would require for his Department., ac; nearly as be can approximate it, $800,000, and the Postmaster-General informs us that it would require for his Department, as nearly as he could ascertain, $175,000. The Departments of the Interior and of Justice report that they have no claims. These sums aggregate $3,975,000. If these claims are allowed by the court and if they are paid in full ne man on this earth possesses a scinti1la of evidence that it will cost a single dollar above that sum to meet and liquidate every claim. It may cost less.

It must be remembered also that the time up to 1872 has already been settled for and paid by the Government under the law of 1872. It must be remembered also t bat for a portion of the time subsequent to 1872 the law was observed in these Department.a; for instance, in the War Department the claims will be substantially from June 1, 1877, toDecember26, 1883, and in tbeNavy Department from June30, 1877, to March 20, 1883. And even in the Navy Department this payment would be only for one-half of the time, because by the terms of the Secretary's order the men worked over this time for only one-half of each year.

Now, what does this bill propose to do? And I invite the special attention of the House to the terms of the bill, because its terms differ widely from the terms of preceding bills which have been offered to this Honse by committees in the past. And here let me say that from 1.imeto time seven different committees of the House have recommended the consideration of bills like this in general character, but far more stringent against the Government in detail. .

The bill provicles, in the first place, that whoever as a laborer, workman, or mechanic has been employed nuder the terms of the act of 1868 shall have the right to go before the Court of Claims; and if in the opinion of the court he shall, under t hat act or any existing law, be entitled to the full price of a full day's work for eight hours' labor or service, the court shall adjudicate his claim upon the basis that eight hours constitute a day's work, and that the man who performed the service and presented the claim is entitled to recover the full price for bis work (deducting all that be had already received), if in the opinion of the court-and here is new matter introduced into this billsucb was the meaning of the act of June 25, 1868: or any other existing Jaw.

It leaves the whole matter to the construction to be placed by the court we have erected as to the meaning of the statutes placed upon the statute-books of the country by the Congress of the United States. In other words, these men simply ask this: To be permitted to go to our court in order to have our own court con1:1true our own laws. We'in this section of the bill formulate no basis whatever to restrict the court in its construction. We leave it perfectly free to construe the original act according to its own judgment and bound only by the terms of tha6 act.

In the second section provision is made in reference to receipts, as to which, as I have already intimated, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. GEST] will speak.

What, then, can be the objections to this bill? I will state, 1.fr. Speaker, in the first place, that the objections heretofore made have been that this bill if enacted into law would cost a. large sum of money. I have told you bow carefully the committee have endeavored. to be as accurate as possible a.boat the estimated amount of these claims. But theTe is a. principle which lies behind and beyond all this. Justice should never be measured by dollars and cents. If these men are entitled to anything, they are entitled to whatever the amount may be, be that amount large or small.

But it has been said that there has been a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States which is right in t he teeth of this bill. However much it may have been in the teeth of preceding bills, it is not in the teeth of the bill which the committee to-day presents to yon and asks you to consider. The decision to which reference is made is to be found in 4 Otto, page 400, in the case of Martin vs. The United States.

That was the case of a man employed to do special work at Annapolis, and in that case the court found that there was a special agreement made between Martin and the officers of the Government by which he was to receive $2.50 per day, which amount he received and receipted for in full, and when the court found that fact it found all that there was of the case.

Mr. STRUBLE. Is there anything of that kind in the ca.sesyouare now discussing-an agreement as to a certain number of hours per day fo1• certain pay? -

Mr. BUCHANAN, of New Jersey. Astotheemployes in the navyyard there is not only not that, but there is an express promise of the Secretary of the Navy that they shall have the full amount, and which they have never received. As to the men in the arsenal, in some instances receipts were exacted from them under circumstances which amounted, I am compelled to say, to absolute duress; but as to those matters my colleague upon the committee [Mr. GEST] will speak.

Mr. CANNON. .May I ask my friend a question there tor information'!

, -

Mr. BUCHANAN. of New Jersey. Certainly. Mr. CANNON. Where receipts were not given, why have wt these

parties brouizbt action in the Court of Claims? Mr. BUCHANAN, of New Jersey. In the first place they made a

mist.ake. They depended upon the Representatives of the people to do them justice; and in the next place these claims began, as I stated, in 1877 and they ended in 1883, and there is not one of them as against which the statute of limitations does not now run.

.Mr. CANNON. What is the statute of limitations; six years? Mr. BUCHANAN, of New Jersey. Six years. l\fr. CANNON. Then at any time within six years of the time when

they did the work they could have brought the action and had the question decided in the Court of Claims.

Mr. BUCHANAN, of New Jersey. As I have said, they mistakenly relied upon the justice of Congress. They were poor, and were not swift to enter <'..Onrts or employ lawyers.

M:r. KERR, of Iowa. I would like to ask my friend from New Jersey if it is not the fact that some of them did ·bring suit and were defeated?

Mr. TURNER, of New York. No, sir. Mr. BUCHANAJ..'l, of New Jersey. No, sir; not at all. Ur. KERR, of Iowa. I understand there is such a decieion. Mr. BUCHANAN, of New Jersey. I have the decision the gentle

man refers to and have already called attention to it. It was this: One man brought suit nnrler the circumstances I have stated, and it was shown in that case that be had made a special contract with the officers of the Goverument and received more already than his fellows in similar employment.

Mr. STRUBLE. It bas beensnggested to me to inquire of the gentleman from New Jersey whether it is trne that at the time these men were paid, or any of them, they signed pay-rolls showing the extra hours of labor performed by them? Is that true within the knowled~e of the gentleman that they did this, in that way attempting to protest against the action of the Department in holding them to more than eight hours per day?

Mr. BUCHANAN, of New Jersey. So far as the men in the navyyards are concerned they have always protested against this treatment. As to the exact form of the pay-roll I can not say, but I understand duplicate or 11 protestin~ pay-rolls" were used; but I will say this, that all the pay-rolls are every one of them in the possession of the Government and can be produced at the trial of tbe causes, and whatever effect these pay-rolls may have against these claimants or in their favor can be given full force.

Mr. MUTCHLER. Will the gentleman from New Jersey allow me to ask one question?

Mr. BUCHANAN, of New Jersey. Certainly. l\1r. MUTCHLER. I want to know whether, in his opinion, under

this bill a. laborer who, signed a contract for a certain amount per day can recover.

Mr. BUCHANAN, of New Jersey. I do not understand that it is the course of the Government to compel men to sign contracts of that kind in advance.

Mr. MUTCHLER. Does not the second section of this bill provide tha~such contracts shall be a nullity?

Mr. BUCHANAN, of New Jersey. I have already stated that I a.m not discussing the second section, but that I leave that for my colleague on the committee [Mr. GEST]. I desire to devote nll the time that I can possibly spare to other feature." of the bill, but will say that snch contracts are only to be treated as nullities in certain cases.

Mr. MUTCHLER. Does the court have any discretion at all in pass-ini;!: upon these claims under this bill?

Mr. BUCHANAN, of New Jersey. Why certainly itdoes. Mr. MUTCHLER. Read the second section and let us see. Mr. BUCHANAN, ot New Jersey. This second section, I will say,

only covers in fact the arsenal men, because those were the ouly instances in which these contracts were exacted, and it says that they shall not stand in the way of recovery when, and only when, they are found by tbe court to be inconsistent with the first section of this act and to have been exacted by the officers ofthe Government as a condition of employment or retention in the public service, and that fact must be found by the court as a separate and independent fact in favor of the claimants, or else the court must give full force to those contracts.

Mr. IlILL. Will it interrupt yon if I ask yon a question? Mr. BUCHANAN, of New Jersey. I am trying to get through with

my portion of the discussion in the limited time I have, but I will yield for a moment.

Mr. IIILL. I want to know whether this bill reported here covers these special contract cases; that is, seeks to reimburse them where they were employed under a special contract?

Mr. BUCHANAN, of New Jersey._ I will band tbe gentleman the bill and let him read the second section, especially that portion I have just referred to. We claim that whatever might have been the opinion in the case in 4 Otto, that case does not apply to the ca.c;es covered by the first section ot this bill at lea.st, because the contract made with the men by Secretary Thompson bas not been lived up to by the Government, and on the faith of which contract the men performed the service. But suppose I take the other alternatiV"e, and admit tha.t the

.·

,, ..: .

1890. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-.HOUSE. 8953 :Martin case is in point and decides that these men have no claim. What is the result? The result is that under the provisions of this act the Government will not suffer. If they have a legal case, they should be allowed to go to the court. If they have no case. the court will so decide. By the terms of the bill the court is left, as I have said, without trammel, let, or binderance in the construction of this law. If the case be a precedent against these men the court will know it; but I claim it is not a precedent. It was a. case which arose under different circumstances, and when the court had determined those facts its function ended. All else it said was oat.side the case. But I must hasten on. I am taking more time than I intended to.

It has been sugJ?ested that these claims have been very largely assigned and are now held by others.

I want to say that for rve years I have been making as careful an inquiry into this matter as tis possible for any member of a committee to make, and I have yet to find a single instance in which these claims have been parted with by the original owners. I do not say that such cases do not exist. I havenotdiscovered them; but, on the contrary, I have met dozens and scores of these claimants, and in every instance where I put the question they bad not parted with one dollar's interest in their claims. It is said that they are represented by a. powerful lobby. It is not true. They have had their own committee of workmen here at the Capitol for five years to my knowledge knocking at the doors of this Hoafle for permission to j:CO to a court we have erected and have their cases heard. These workingmen have been paid by the men who ~ent them here. They lived here in a quiet, humble way, as they were compelled to. They are not able to employ expensive lobbyists. They are poor men sent here by other poor men.

These claims vary from $50 to $300 in amount in each case. The claimants are all poor men, and can not afford the appliances which sometimes seem to be so powerful in pushing matters through Congress.

The Government's interest can not be harmed. This is not a case where the attorney of the United States will be compelled to go out and hunt for his testimony through a dozen different States to offset the claims. Every pay-roJJ, with the name of every man employed, with the record of every day and hour he has worked, with the record of every dollar that was paid him, is to-day in possession of the Government of the United States.

Mr. DOCKERY. Assuming that statement of facts to be true, why do yon send these claimants to the Court of Claims if the Government is in possession of the information? What is the use of having this suit?

Mr. BUCHANAN, of New Jersey. Because the Government does not pay. And you know, because yon are on the Committee Qn Appropriations, that there is no appropriation out of which the officials of the Government can pay it.

Mr. BLISS. And the statute of limitations has run. Mr. BUCHANAN, of New Jersey. The statute of limitations bas

run. I stated that a long time ago. As I have said, these claimantB are poor men. Do not let it go out

to the country that you deny to the workingmen, laborers, and mechanics of this land access to your courts for the construction of an act intended for the benefit of workingmen, laborers, and mechanics of this country, and at the same time afford ready access to those courts to the wealthy contractors of this country.

Give these men the same opportunity to be heard in court that would be given to any other man. That ia all they ask, and with less than this they will never be content.

Even as this debate goes on there comes to me this note from a blacksmith in this city, one of these claimants. He says:

We have waited and hoped for many years in vain. To many of us it will be but little, but that little a great help to a poor mechanic with a large family to support.

Do not deny to these men the zight to test their claims in the courts. If the claims are legal and proper they should be paid. If illegal, if not warranted by the law, the court will so decide. I now yield to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. GEST] such time as be may desire.

Mr. GEST. Mr. Speaker, I will endeavor to be as brief in my remarks as possible, fort.he reason that. other gentlemen on both sides of the House, as I understand, desire to speak on this bill. The scope of this bill is simply to send what are called claims under the eight-hour law of workingmen, laborers, and mechanics to the Court of Claims for an adjudication of such rights as they may be found by that court to have. That is as little as can be asked, and it ought not to be refused.

From day to day, time after time, we send peOJ?le with their claims to the Court of Claims. We have scores, and I do not know but that we have hundreds, of bills now upon the Calendar of this House providing that the parties named- may be permitted to go there. This bill is not the outgrowth, but the outcome, of the eight-hour law of June 25, 1868. The bill only contains three lines, and I will read it:

That eight hours shall constitute a day's work for all laborers, workmen, and mechanics in the employ or who may hereafter be employed by or on behalf of the Government of the UnU.ed States.

It is perhaps not worth while now to inquire a8 to what the intent of the law was. The history of the last twenty-two years of this conn-

;.

try shows very clearly what its intent was. The terms of the law itself show what the intent was:

Eight houl"J shall constitute o. d'ly's work for all laborer3, work.men, and mechanics employed by or on behalf of the Government.

What do men work for? They work for money. They work for bread. Is there any sense in saying to a man that yon. will cut his time down to eight hon.rs instead of ten or twelve, or cut it down to four or any other number, and then reduce bis wages proportionately? There is no sense in it. The terms of the law itself must demonstrate, it seems to me, to any man that the intent was t-0 reduce the hours worked, to give time for recreation, time for a man to be with hia family, time for him to read, time for him to become a man instead of remaining a working slave, and at the same time keep his wages at the same sum that had been theretofore received by him. But we are not left to the terms of the law to demonstrate that. At the very time that this bill was before the United :::3tateg Senate an amendment was proposed by the Senator from Ohio [Mr. SHER.MAN] which is in these words:

And, unless otherwise provided by law, the rate of wages paid by the United States shall be the current rate for the same labor for the same time at the place of employment.

That proposed amendment was discussed very fully and at large in the Senate. No man spoke in its favor. Senatol' Morton, Senator STEWART, Senator Sumner, and manyot.hersspoke in opposition to it, and stated that the ground of their opposition was the fact that cutting down the time of the laboring man and cutting his wages proportionately was not doing anything for the laboring man; and so the bill passed.

It was fully understood in both the House and the Senate at the time the bill w~ passed that the hours of labor should be reduced to eight and that the wages should stand unchanged. In .five days after that bill was passed the Senate ol the United States adopted a resolution requesting the President of the United States to direct a.11 the officers of the Government to comply \Vi th it. In fifteen days after that the Secretary of W iu did issue his order. He understood what the law meant. ·

Ur. KERR, of Iowa. Will the gentleman turn to that order? Mr. GEST. Yes, sir. It is General Order No. 46 of the War De

pa-:tment, which I will read: Congress having enacted, June 25, 1868, that "eight hours shall constitute a

day's work for all laborers1 workmen, and mechanics now employed, or who may be hereafter employea, by or on behalf of the Government of the United States, and that all acts inconsistent with this a.ct. be, and the sa.01e are hereby, repealed," all the officers of the Army and others in the military service having civilian laborers, workmen, and mechanics under their charge will be governed accordingly. Hours shall be so regulated as to agree, as far as possible, with the hours established in civil work in each locality. Watchmen, clerks, messengers, 1md others whose services mn.y be necessary at any and all hours ar~ not considered to be embraced within the lerma of the law. In cases of great nec.-essity, as in military operations. where men are on extra. duty, they must perform the necessary service regardless of bout's; but, in estimating their extra-duty pa.y, eight hours will constitute a working day.

That is the order of the Secretary of War issued in 1868. Mr. HILL. Was that law supposed to be applicable to soldiers and

sailors enlisted in the Army or Navy, or only to others employed by the Government?

Mr. GEST. I have not understood it so at all, but I can not say as io that. The gentleman himself and other gentlemen here can constme the language of the law as well as I can. The law says "workmen, laborers, and mechanics." Now, twenty days after this order of the Secretary of War was issued not the least particle of attention bad been paid to it in any arsenal throughout this country, So on the Hlth of May, 1869, the matter having been called to the attention of the President, he issued a proclamation on the subject. I believe that proclamation was read by my collea~ne on the committee, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. BUCHANAN], but I will read a. portion of it a~ain. It recites the fact of this law having been passed and of its violation, and then it goes on to say:

Now, therefore, L Ulysses S. Grant, Preaident of the United States, do hereby direct that from and aft.er this date no redaction shall oe made in the wages paid by the Government by the day to such workmen, laborers, and mechanics on account of the reduction of the hours of !a.l:fbr. ,

That is President Grant's construction of it. The same subject was presented to the Attorney-General of the United States, now a Senator from New York (l\Ir. EVARTS]. His opinion on the subject will be found in the report, and it is t-0 the effect that there should be no re· duction of wages by reason of the reduction of h,ours of labor; that that was the intent of the law.

In May, 1872, General Grant, then President of the United States, was compelled to issue another proclamation, again calling the attention of the military authorities throughout the country to the infraction of this law, anrl reiterating what he had said in his proclamation of May 19, 1869. Up to the date of this second proclamation in 1872 these understrappers, these gilt-edged, brass-mounted martinets of the Army [laughter] had defied the Congress of the United States and the President of the United :::3ta.tes, and had compelled the men under their direction at all these arsenn.ls to work ten or twelve hours a day instead of eight hours, the day's work established by the law. A few days after that second proclamation both Houses of Congress passed a bill

I.

-i - .. . ,.,

~ ......

·'

/ ..

·.

...

:..

·.

I:..

l

. -·

-; ..

\ . ........ - .. ---' . ._

: .


t.o pay the men the money which they had earned and of which they had been robbed.

Mr. McCORMICK. Will the gentleman permit a question for j.nformation?

Mr. GEST. Yes, sir. Mr. McCORMICK. Are we to understand by the provisions of the

second section of this bill that it is to have the effect of abrogating contracts between the employer and the employes?

Mr. GEST . . If the gentleman will call my attention to that point later I shall be very glad to an&wer bis question. The act that was passed by Con1rress on the 18th of May, 1872, was in these words. I read it, so that every member present may have it fully in mind:

Sn:c. 2. That the properaccouuting officers be, o.nd are hereby, authorized and required, in the settlement of all accounts for the services of workmen, la.borers, and mechanics employed by or on behalf of the Government of the United States between the 25th day of .Tune, 1868, the date of the act constituting eight hours a day's work for all such laborers, workmen, and mechanics, and the 19th day of May, 1669, the date of the proclamation of the President concerning such pay, to settle and pay for the same without reduction on account of the reduction of the hours of labor by said act, when it shall be made to appear that such was the sole cause of the reduction of wages, and a sufficient sum for ea.id purpose is hereby appropriated out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated. (See Statutes at Large, volume 17, page 134.)

Appropriation act. approved May 18, 1872.

This is the bill that was passed by both Houses of Congress and signed by the President of the United States to rectify the wrong that had been committed and to pay these workmen, laborers, and mechanics the money out of which they had been defrauded. The bill provides that these men shall be paid up to May 19, 1869, the date of the President's proclamation, because evidently Congress thought that after the President's proclamation these men who run the Army and the Navy, these men whom the Government of the United States has fed aml educated and paid, would obey the proclamation of the President. That doubtless was the reason why the bill was limited t-0 that date.

But those officers did notobey the law. They went on until, in 1872, three years afterward, the President was compelled to issue another proclamation and instruct these men. these officers, these agents, these creatures whom we.have made, to obey the law. And a few days afterward the bill was passed.

Thn.t is not a.IL On .May 9, 1878, this House passed a joint resolution in these terms:

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United Slates of America in Congress assembled, That according to the true intent and meaning of the act of Congress apprpved June 25, 1868, entitled "An act constituting eight hours e. legal day's work for all lo.borers, workmen, and mechanics employed by or on behalf of the Government of the United States," eight hours constitute a day's work for all such laborers, workmen, and mechanics; and while the act remains upon the statute-book no reduction shall be made in the wages paid by the Government, by the day, to such laborers, workmen, and mechanics on account of the reduction of the hours of labor; and that all the heads of Departments, officers, o.nd agents of the Government are hereby directed to enforce said law as long as the same is unrepeated.

That re.solution was passed in 1878, after the so-called Martin case had been decided. It is true this joint resolution did not pass the Senate; but it indicates the intent of this House. Why it did not pass the Renate I do not know; I have not followed up the matter to find out; but it indicates the sense of the House of Representatives on this subject: that these men should be paid for the time that they had worked above and beyond eight hours a day.

We will go along further in this matter. In 1886 a bill of this character was before the Committee on Labor. Hon. John J. O'Neill, who was then chairman of that committee, appeared before President Clevel.And and asked him what his views were on the su~ject, t.o which the President responded January 23, 1886, in the following language:

I believe that the law is a sound one and a good one, and that it should be enfo1·ced to the letter. I have no information regarding instances of its violation or evasion, but if such in.stances are presented to me I will aee that the abuse is remedied and the full spirit of the law is enforced, which I understand to be to pay workmen in the Government employ for eight hours' work, daily, what is paid outside of the Government employ for a full day's work. The Government can not afford to set the e.xample of non-enforcement and non-observance of its own enactments.

Mr. :BUCHANAN, of New Jersey (interrupting Mr. GEST). Mr . Speaker, I shall be compelled to reserve one minute of my time. I will inquire how much time I have remaining?

The SPEAKER. The Chair thinks there are only two minutes remaining.

Jli!r. BUCHANAN, of New Jersey (to Mr. GEST). You have one minute more.

l\Ir. GEST. Mr. Speaker, np to the present time I have talked only &bout the intent of this law. This is the :first occa.sion during the present session on which I have occupied any time.

A MEMBER. You can not help that. Mr. GEST. No, that can not be helped. [Laughter.] I do not

want to occupy time unless I have something to say; and I have some· thing to say on this question. If I had the time, I could show the House that this bill fa correct, that it is honest and right. The men in the navy-yards have been cheated and defrauded. You have beard my colleague on the committee, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. BUCHAN AN], read the order of a former Secretary of the Navy, showing that men were employed with the express stipulation that they should work for eight hours a day; but they were compelled to work

. , ' ' :·

ten hours a day and have not received a dollar for the extra two hours of daily work. The same thing was true at the arsenals. The men were compelled to sign a so-called contra.ct. They were told in snb· stance, "You si~ this contract or get out; notwithstanding the fae~ that the President and the Congress of the United States have sai4 that in all Government employment eight hours shall constitute a day's work, you must sign this con~ract."

Mr. MASON. As I understand, they had t.o surrender and sign the contract or else lose their places.

Mr. GEST. Yes, sir. Now, does the Congress of the United States propose to stand here and permit the officers and agen~ of the Government to commit such acts of fraud and tyranny?

It bas been said, "Ob, well, they got good pay-just the aame pay as other men in similar employment." That is no answer. If you as an individual bad said to your agent, "Employ men for me at eight hours a day and give them a full day's pay," would you sustain him in disregarding your orders?

The SPEAKER. The time of the gentleman from New Jersey [!\fr. BUCHANAN] bas expired.

Mr. BUCHANAN, of New Jersey. But, Mr. Speaker, I said expressly I desired to reserve one minute of that time.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Iowa [Mr. KERR] is recognized.

[Mr. KERR, of Iowa, addressed the House. See Appendix. J Mr. LA.CEY. Before leaving this subject, Mr. Speaker, I would like

t.o offer an amendment to the bill, simply to be pending, and have it printed in the RECORD without reading.

The SPEAKER. If there be no objection, that will be done. Mr. BROSIUS. Mr. Speaker, there is an amendment pending al

ready to the bill. The SPEAKER. The amendment the gentleman refers t.o relates

to the bill in the morning hour. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from !own? Mr. GEST. I would like to have the amendment read. The SPEAKER. The consent renders it a pending amendment, the

Chair will state. Mr. BUCHANAN, of New Jersey. Let it be printed, so we can see

what it is. The SPEAKER. Consent, then, is given only for printing in the

RECORD, but not that the amendment shall be pending. It is printed as an amendment to be offered hereafter. Th~roposed amendment is aa follows:

Add tiie bill the following proviso : "P - · ed, That it. shall be unlawful for any attorney to demand or receive any

fees foi: services in such suits or collecting of such claims exceeding 5 per cent. of the amount of &ny such claims; and payment of such judgment.a shall only be made to the cla.imantlnperson and not to any agent, assignee, or attorney."

COMPOUND LARD.

The SPEAKER. The House resumes control of the special order. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized.

Mr. BROSIUS. I reserve the remainder of my time. The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has twelve

minutes of his time remaining. Mr. McCLA.MMY. Mr. Speaker, I had fully intended to reply fa

extenso to the eloquent remarks of tpe gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. B&osrus],who addressed the House in his opening speech on yesterday afternoon.

Mr. LANHAM. I rise to a question of order. The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it. Mr. LA.NHAM. We are very desirous of hearing the gentleman

from Noi:th Carolina, but there is so mnch confusion. Mr. McCLAMMY. Why, I moved down here because I wanted you

to hear me. [Laughter.] Mr. CARUTH. Get a little farther towards the middle of the Hall

and we all can bear you better. ?\Ir. McCLAMMY. WeU, there are so many convert.a following me

around I do not know where to stop. (Laughter and applause.] The SPEAKER. The gentleman will stop until we procure order

on the floor. [Renewed laughter.] Mr. McCLAMMY. Now, Mr. Speaker, beginning anew, it was my

intention to follow the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania. in the fervent appeals he made on the floor of the House on yesterday afternoon when he displayed the flags in behalf of the American farmer. But I am knocked out. [Laughter.] I spent a very restless night and I find myself physically unable t.o answer him. I wooed the gentle goddess of sleep, and she would not come to me. [Laughter.] I staid awake all night.

I knew this was going to be a big question; I had comprehended that from the very beginning. I was a ware that it was the most immense question that bad been presented to the consideration of the American Congress.

A MEMBER. Excepting the election bilL Mr. McCLAMMY. Oh, yes; the componnd-lard bill is vastly big

ger. [Laughter.] I knew that in the consideration of this question the Lodge bill would pale into insignifirance. I hate. to say this, Mr. Speaker, and I hope you will excuse me, but I honestly, religiously,

•,

... · . ' ~ .. ·. .. ,. . 1890. CONGRESSION .AL . RECORD-HOUSE. ..8955 conscientiously, scrupulom1ly believe that when the Am~ricau people come to consider the question presented by this bill that even the rulings of the Chair and the counting of a quorum will be forgotten. (Lau~hter.] But I did not know that it was as broad as it is until my dear friend from Pennsylvania dropped out all the sweet eloquence that fell from his lips on yesterday evening. [Laughter.] Why, sir, there are times in the history of every man in which language and thought equally fail him as means for expressing not merely the sentiments of his heart, but his surprise.

My friend over there says-and that wru the burden of his songthat thirty years ago these people that made pure refined larR adopted as a trade-mark the head of the boar, and that two years ago they were knocked completely out, but still kept as their trade-mark the sign of the boar. That is what knocked me out altogether. [Laughter.] Years ago down in the State of North Carolina-G<>d'sfavoredcountry [laughter and applause]-when they manufactured tobacco, in their iniquity-and I must here recall to myself the poetic, religious, trae lan_gaage of Bill Arp that," In Adam's fall we sinned all"--

1\Ir. ALLEN, of Michigan. That is Dr. Watts. Mr. McCLA.MMY ( contiuuin~). They ~ctually, and as a matter of

fact, adopted as a trade-mark and sign of the Durham tobaccothehead of the bull, and that is what kept me awake. [Laughter.] I want to know if this thing is so sweeping in its character that when they knock out the boar the bull has got to follow. I am not prepared to speak to-day, because I did not sleep last night. But the gentleman concluded in poetry, and I am not prepared to repeat poetry to-day. [Laughter.]

I wooed the muse; I knelt to her. I got mighty lHtle out of her, but wha.t I got I will give you:

You may break, you may shatter the lard-tub if you wil!-

But if yon just listen to the argument before the Agricultural Committee in the Fiftieth Congress and find out what lard is, what it is made of, how it is made, and the manner of things that enter therein, returning to poetry again, you will find that-

The scent of the whole hog will hang round it still.

[Laughter.] Now, Mr. Speaker, before this discussion closes I am going to con

vince this House that this bill ought to pass. I will take no more tim but will yidd to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. MASON]. [ plause.]

I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. l\IASO~. Mr. Speaker, this is a serious question to d to

the people whom I repr1::sent on this floor. There are very few times in my life when I can not afford to smile, but on this occasion I desire to present to the House of Representatives, the body of which I have the honor of being a member, some serious questions for fair play and fair consideration. This isa fight between the packers of impure laid and the packers of refined compound lard. It is a trade fight and has no place in Congress. And before I enter into the full discussion of that question I wish it understood now that I am in favor of branding every article in the market for what it is. I am as much opposed to food adulteration as any man on the floor of this Hou.se.

There is hardly anything that is brought into my family and put upon my table, from the sugar and the pepper and the vinegar, but what is adulterated more or less, filled up with cheaper substances; and when they charge us wit.h standing here defonding fo1ud and counterfeiting, they charge us with what they know to be false. The statutes of Illinois compel the marking of the article we make. Millions of pounds of it are made each year and sent into other countries, and they make a market for the farmer's lard of this country. And yet this bill if it passes and becomes a law, strikes down every possible chance t~ export lard or lard com'{)Ound from this country. And I want it understood now and for all time to come that I am not here ro defend counterfeiting, but I am here to defend the man who manufactures an article, and I am here to defend the people who want to eat that article, a clean, healthful food product. And the more hog's lard you take out of it and the more cotton-seed oil you put into it, the finer and purer it is for the human stomach.

The fact of this adulteration has taken possession of the people with regard to food products and has raised a great cry, and properly so. There is indignation all over this country that our food is being adulterated and the people deceived; and these gentlemen who are manufacturers of lard, who find a competitor in compound lard, join in the cry of'' Stop thief!" to hide their own iniquities, in the pressing and the passage of this bill. I want to say farther, before taking up this bill, that I am in favor and my constituents are in favor, not only of regulating, bat of prohibiting the sale of articles of food that are deleterious to health; but no man dare rise upon this floor, in the light of the evidence of the last ten years of this century, and say that cotton-seed oil, a pare, healthful vegetable oil, is not one of the best articles of food tbatbave been discovered within the century. We have here certificates from physicians saying that they give it to patients whose stomachs are unable to assimilate other food. Gentlemen are inclined to smile about that, but that is true. It is a mere prejudice

•'

that some of you people have against it who have not been far enough from home and do not know the size of the sky. [Laughter.]

Cotton-seed oil is a healthful food product. It is found that mixingit with lard makes a healthful food product. The lard sustains it, and so does beef stearine. I have used it in my family for more than two years and would prefer cotton-seed oil; and it has become the poor man's food. It is marked for what it is, and I want you gentlemen who are getting your speeches ready to howl for the laboring man in tbe next four days to understand that the working people are not asking for this bill. They are opposed to placing a tax upon a clean, healthful food product. It has been one of the songs that have been sung here since the opening of Congress, about the poverty of the farmer. You would think, to hear some of these gentlemen talk, that the farmers were a set of serfs in this country. I visited one not long ago and he was kicking about hard times. His cellar was full of apples and potatoes and be had plenty of grain in the barn; and when I asked him what was the matter, be said, "Well, times are bard."

Mr. HEARD. What part of the country was my friend visfting this year where he found good crops of apples and potatoes or anything else?

Mr. MASON. I was not visiting him this fall. [Laughter.] No man ought to try to spoil a good story in that way. People talk about the poverty of the farmer, and they are going to tax the poor laboring men of my district to help the farmer. Gentlemen, have you ever seen a farmer, or known of any, who went to bed hungry? Have you known them to stand with their wives and children out in the storm, with the landlord and the constable after them? Have you ever seen them take a little coffin in their laps and go alone to bury their only child because they had no friend to hire a carriage for them? Yet the farmer is the only poor man in the country, we are told.

The man who stands at the wheel, far away from the sunshine, away from the free air of heaven, the man who works ten or fourteen hours a day, the man who leaves his children before daylight and only sees them again after the sun has gone down, that man must be taxed for a clean, cheap fol)d product to help the farmers of this country, when there is not a farmers' organization in the country that asks it or dema ds it, you "friends" of the uoor man are taxing bis food, rais. the price of the thing that lets his children live, not to protect man

faeturers from the competition of foreigners, not in justification of any tariff system, but taxing the home productions, saying that the people in my district shall not eat the product of the Southern farmers.

We have been charged with sectionalism that we have felt we were not guilty of. We feel it now. Not a single farmer of the South asks for this bill; but by this bill yon propose to tax out of existence one of the cleanest and healthiest products known to civilization, and force people to buy the tilt.by and disgusting products of the vats of Chicago, St. Louis, and Boston. You talk about Chicago having an interest in this. It is not Chicago, but it is the principle of the thing. The manu· facturers of lard in Chicago who use dead pi~s that died on the wayto the slaughter-pens are not here opposing this bill. They are rather friendly to this legislation, and when we ask you to put in the regulation for all la.rd, you say "Oh, no; only the kind of lard that comes into competition with the lard lobby that stands back of this bill pr~ing it to an issue."

Now, let me say to you, and I desire, Mr. Speaker, to emphasize but one fact, we want to regulate all this. We believe it should be regulated. The State of Illinois has passed a statut.e already saying that any man who makes lard with any other article must call it "compound lard." This law proposes that we shall call it "compound lard." It says that we can pay $25,000 or $30,000 for changing our brands, and when we mark "lard compound,, to keep out of the penitentiary under our statute in Illinois your statute will dr~ve us into the penitentiary because we hav~ done what the law compels us to do. The people demand a regulation, and it can be done by a very simple bill, the bill that I have offered as a substitute, which gives pure food and which does not marshal the Republican party nor the Democratic party in favor of any adulteration in food.

We have in our State passed a law which says that t.hings must be marked for what they are; that there shall be no more masquerading in vinegar, that there shall be no masquerading in sugar, and that skimmed milk no more shall masquerade as cream; but that everything must stand before the people for what it is; and you, by this report of the Committee on Agriculture, say, "Stand back! We defend the adulteration of every article that goes on the table of the American people except the adulteration of lard." "Consistency is a jewel," but I have not found it tu the room of the Committee on Agriculture.

Not a single pure-food bill has been recommended by that committee, and not a single petition is on file in that committee that does not call for a pure-food bill; but instead of that they have reported a bill which is for the benefit of the four or five lard-makers in Chicago, St. Louis, and Boston. •

I was very much surprised that the gentleman from Pennsylvania felt obliged to attack the personal character of l\Ir. Fairbank. It ought to be enough to destroy that gentleman's business, and his property, which cost him bis li(e's work, and make it worth absolutely nothing, without trying to tear down and destroy the reputation for

·. . \

. ;

. \

..

. . ' •'.

...

.·

I '

·.·

I

·_:: _·'

-.

.. ~ I

-.

. _,

,- · .. . ":. ·_·l ... ·


commercial honor that Mr. Fairbank enjoys in all the markets of the w~. . .

The evidence of Mr. Fairbank that he read from, taken by it.self, may look badly, but it jsgarbled in this, that the contextwaanotread. This lard was sold as refined lard for years, and all the people who bought it understood, in all the markets of the world, what it was; and when a protest went up from the packers of this country 1ilr. Fairbank destroyed his trade-mark, destroyed the dies that were worth over $20,000, and that, too, without any law to compel him to. It is enough to destroy his trade, without endeavoring to destroy his character as a. man. He stands with his trade destroyed and his trade prospects impaired. He marked his goods as "lard compound," exactly what they are, and these gentlemen who came here to support this bill two years ago said to the three or four men who manufacture this compound: ''Gentlemen, if you will go and change your brands and mark this lard ' com pound,' we will pack our grip-sacks and go home. ''

. Mr. Fairbank proceeded to do so. He went home. He changed his br:'l.ncl. He marked the product "lard compound.'' It is right also to say that I believe that that change was made by reason of the agreement with the people who were before the Committee. on Agriculture; but there bad not been a law passed at that time in Illinois, and no law had been passed here at the time he agreed to make that change. It ought to be enough for his character and standing to know he did that without being compelled to do it, and thathe marked bisgoodsexactlyforwhat they are and never has tried to deceive the trade.

Now, if I had time I would like to read some of the evidence of Mr. Fairbank on that subject, but I do not care to take up the time of the House. I hardly know the gentleman when I see him. I do not think he would know me if he were to meet me on the streets of the city of Chicago. He does not live in my district. He has no votes in my district that I know of; but I do know that he bas a standing and reputation in Chicago a.s a splendid business man and christian gentleman. It is a very easy thing for the gentleman from Pennsylvania. [Mr. BRosrus], surrounded by the protection given members of Congress, to assail the moral character of men who have not a chance to reply.

That is a wonderful power that is placed in the hands of a member of Congress, and it 8eems to me that a delicate nseof that power would be much more becoming to the gentleman who used it so badly yesterday. It is an easy thing, I say, to strike a man whose hands are tied, but it is not a. brave thin~ to do.

Mr. HENDERSON, of Iowa. Before the gentleman passes from that point will he state when the Illinois law to which he referred was passed?

.Mr. MAS.ON. It was ~assed at the last session of the Legislature. I bav~ a copy of it here.

:Mr. HENDERSON, of Iowa. Does it prohibit false branding? Mr. MASON. Yes, sir; it says that the article must be branded

''lard compound;" and it provides a severe penalty Jor failing to comply with the law, when anything is mixed with the lard. Oar manufacturers do comply with that law, but it does not add to the price of the article in the market.

Mr. BROSIDS. Will the gentleman state whether the Illinois law does not also requh:e the percentage of the ingredients to be stated?

Mr. MASON. I do not know but it does. I am willing that a pro· vision of that kind shall be put in this bill. I am willing that a Jaw shall be passed requiring Mr. Fairbank aud every other man engaged in this business to mark on the outside of the package what percentage is cotton-seed oil, what percentage is beef, and what pereentagft is lard, or any other ingredient, with a severe penalty if it is not done; but there is no necessity for taxing this article. ThA Governmentdoes not need the tax, and the only effect of it will be to destroy the business or to greatly increase the ccst of this article to the consumer.

Mr. HILL. What power has the Government, except under the internal-revenue law, to regulate this matter?

Ur. 1\IASON. Why, that is the simplest thing in the world, if my colleague will permit me to explain it t-0 him. Each State regulates it.s police matters for itself; or if any State has not pride enough, or energy enough, or wisdom enough to make it.s own police re~ulations, certainly Congress is not the place to make them tor it. But this object can be attained by an amendment to the interstate-commerce law prohihiting the shipping from one State to another of any goods that are not marked for what they are. I will support a bill of that kind. I will support a bill which will allow the Government to have surservision over all these things, but not any proposition which pats an internal tax upon a home product which tax must eventually come out of the poor people who consume that product.

.Mr. ADAMS. So far as the article is produced in our State, it is already under the regulation of the Illinois statrite.

Mr. MA.SON. Yes; and I think 90 per cent. of this article is produced in Illinois and Missouri. I do not know whether they have any law regulating the matter in Missouri, but if they have not they ought to have and they can have.

Mr. MORGAN. It is estimated that at least 90 per cent. of all the u compound" lard produced in the country is so branded.

Mr. LA.CEY. Will the gentleman from Tilinoifl tell ns how the Illinois statute can protect the people who use this article in other States?

...

Mr. MASON. We are willing to pass a law here that will protect the people in other States, just as yon did with yonr "original-package" bill. We are willing to pass a law providing that no article manufactured in one State shall be shipped into another unless it is marked or branded for what it is. But you gentlemen a.re not satisfied with that. Yon want to destroy this business by taxingjt out of existence.

Mr. MORGAN. Let me call the attention of the gentleman fronl. Illinois to another feature of this bill, which has the same design. The bill provides that this article shall be put up in certain prescribed packages of prescribed sizes, the object being to prevent it from being shipped in boxes or crates.

Mr. MASON. Yes, I am glad the gentleman spoke of that. That provision is for the sole purpose of preventing this article from being shipped in boxes and crates; its object is to break up the business.

Mr. HEARD. According to the proposition of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. MASON], if the interstate-commerce l:::i.w were amended as he suggests it would have the effect of preventing the shipment of this product from the State where it is manufactured into any other State.

Mr. MASON. Unless it was marked for what it is, and that is all you gentlemen pretend to want.

Mr. BEARD. Of course you do not claim that such an amendment would have any effect upon the product when used in the State where it was manufactured.

Mr. MASON. Certainly not; and we should not try to regulate that matter here. Every State should be allowed to make ita own police regulations. That is our theory in all other matters; why should it not apply in this case?

Mr. HEARD. I only wanted to know how far the gentleman claimed that the purpose of this bill could be carried out by an amendment to the interstate-commerce law.

Mr. MABON. The substitute that I have offered, whfoh is known as the Paddock pure-food bill, does Jor every article of food what this bill pretends to do for lard. It establishes a bureau in the Agricultural Department., and there are more petitions from the farmers of this country for the passai;i:e of the pure-food bill than there a.re for the passage of the Conger lard bill.

Mr. HILL. As I understand my colleague's position it is this: He has no objection to any law that will apply alike to all industries or to all commodities, but what he objects to is having this article singled out and placed under the internal-revenue system.

Mr. MASON. Yes; but I am willing to golurthertban that. lam willing that Congress shall single out compound lard and, while allowing each State to make and to enforce its own police regulations, shall so aruend the interstate-commerce law as to prohibit the shipment from one State to another of any such article unless it is branded for what it is.

Mr. HILL. The gentleman admits, then, substantially, tbatcompound lard should be placed under the internal-revenue system together with other food products.

Mr. MASON. Notat all. It is not necessary t.o tax this commodity. The Government does not need the tax.

l\Ir. MORGAN. Put it under the commerce clause. Mr. MASON. Put it under the commerce clause. Let each State

provide that manufacturers of" compound lard" must mark it for what it is. In Illinois we have already passed such a law. That is the first step. Second, it we try to ship it from Illinois to Iowa, _or to New York, or any other State, let the United States law intervene and prohibit such shipment unless the article is properly stamped and branded. That we have a perfect right to do. The Paddock bill, which I have introduced here, provides that it shall not interfere with the police regulations within the States, but shall simply apply ~o articles of food manufactured in one State and shipped to a!lother. In that way you can have a complete regulation of this whole traffic without raising the price of the product to the poor people who wish to consume it

Now, I wish to refer for a moment to these brands. The law of Illinois prescribes the length of the letters which must be used; and when my friend from Pennsylvania [Mr. BROSIUS] yesterday held up this label [exhibiting a label] he said, with tears in bis voice: "But they retain the bog's head." That Mr. Fairbank always used. He sacrificed everything except his trade-mark; and there js not a gentleman on the other side of the Honse who can not read the words ' 'lard compound'' in this label farther than he can see the hog's head. That is another evidence that Mr. Fairbank is a pirate and that the people engaged in this business are thieves, because voluntarily they mark the product for what it is! Mr. Speaker, reputation is not character; and if the reputation of Mr. Fairbank as painted yesterday by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. B&osrus] were wandering around the streets of Chicago, nobody who knows the character of Mr. Fairbank would recognize it.

But enough of that. I want now to call the attention of the House to the proper amendments, which I think ought to be allowed to this bill.

Mr. CONGER. Before rou leave this matter of the label, will yon allow me a question ?

Mr. MASON. . Cert.ainly. Mr. CONGER. I understood you to say that the statute of Illinois

..:

:.. -- ·. .-

.. 1890. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 8957 .~

compels these dealers to brand this cotton-seed lard as "lard compound."

Mr. MASON. Yes, sir; that is it exactly. Mr. CONGER. How does it compel them to brand the article which

is sold as" lard compound," but which has no lard whatever in it? Mr. MORGAN. That is cottolene. Mr. MASON. Yes, that. is cottolene. Mr. CONGER. Will the gentleman explain to the House why it is

that Mr. Fairbank is selling all over this country a product branded " lard compound" when it bas not a particle oflard in it?

Mr. MASO~. He is not doing anything of the kind. :Mr. CONGER. I ca.n show that be is. Mr. MASON. I can show that he is not; and that ends the question

for the present. Here is the brand [exhibiting a label] that is used on the product

known as "cottolene." Here is the beef in the cotton-field ! Mr. CONG ER. There is not a pound oflard, I suppose, in the pack

ages that are marked in that way. Mr. MORGAN. Not a particle. Mr. MASON. And therefore it is a cle·aner and healthier product.

[Lau~hter.] These gentlemen here should go back and study this question.

Mr. Speaker, I desire that these amend men~ shall be considered as pending so that I can speak to all of them. I ask unanimous consent; I suppose there will be no objection.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. MASON] asks unanimous consent that certain amendments which are at the desk be considered as now pending.

Mr. MASON. I can make my speech much shorter in this way; the amendments can be voted. on whenever the House is readv.

The SPEAKER. If there is no objection, the amendmentS will be read.

Mr. MASON. I do not care to have them read. I want to speak to them and have them pending, so that they can be voted on when the House is ready. I will say to the gentleman from Pennsylvania that there is not one of these amendments that is not calculated, in my belief, to perfect the bill. Some of them, I am satisfied, the gentleman will consent to.

.Mr. BROSIUS. I can not know--The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Illinois can reach the result

be desires by having the amendments voted on. The Clerk will read the :first amendment.

Mr. MASON. Wait a moment; that is.not my request .. The SPEAKER. The Chair so understood the gentleman's request. Mr. :MASON. The Chair misunaerstood me. I wish to have the

amendments pending, with leave to address my argument to them. In this way I can condense what I have to say and save the time of the House. I do not propose to make any dilatory motion or to do anything for the purpose of delay.

Mr. BROSIUS. I desire to reserve any points of order on the amendments. There is an amendment already pending to the bill, and per-haps- .

The SPEAKER. If the point of order is reserved, it excludes the amendments tor the present.

.Mr. MASON. I ask unanimous consent to have the amendments pending. I can not see the least objection to that.

Mr. BROSIUS. I can not tell-whether I desire to make a point of order on the amendments unless I know what they are. -

The SPEAKER. Any amendment which maybe pending will have to be voted on after the previous question is ordered, unless the House should vote on it -previously.

Mr. CONGER. I rise toa parliamentary inquiry. If unanimous consent should nowlJe given to have these amendments pending, then I would like to know whether when we reach the hour of 4 o'clock on Saturday afternoon it will be in order to have · a vote upon each of them.

The SPEAKER. Each amendment pending would have to be voted upon. J

lflr. CONGER. That might necessitate the callin0 of the roll forty or fifty times.

Mr. MASON. Oh, no; I do not want anything of that kind. Mr. CONGER. For that reason I should object. Mr. l\IASON. Very well, then; return the amendments to me. Mr. CONGER. The offering of these amendments to the pending

bill would afford an opportunity to the opponents of the bill to keep us here voting two or three days. There would be no limit to the time that they could dP.lay its passage.

Mr. MASON. Mr. Speaker, I give notice now that I desire to offer the following amendments, and I wish to be heard on them. I do not understand, in the :first place, by what rule I am excluded from offering them. I understand the ruling of the Chair to be that only one amendment can be pending.

The SPEAKER. Only one can be pending. There is one now pending. It can be voted on, however, and of course will give room for another.

.•

.-I ... ,..

Mr • .ADAMS. With the indulgence of my colleague, I desire to submit a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. MASON. Certainly. Mr . .ADAMS. By what proceeding can my colleague insure the right

to have a vote on any one of these amendments? -The SPEAKER. By getting the House to sustain him. Mr. ADAMS. In what? The SPEAKER. By securing a vote on the amendment already.pend

ing, disposing of that, and then take up the next one, and so proceeding until he has di<1posed of the various amendments he wishes to offer.

Mr. ADAMS. Then it would be necessary for my colleague to move the previous question on the pending amendment or else lose all chance of getting a vote on any one of these amendments, in case the gentlern an from Pennsylvania in charge ot the bill chooses to shut him out by keeping the proper number of amendments pending so as to pre· vent any new ones from being offered.

The SPEAKER. But the House has absolute control of the mat-ter by a vote on the amendments under the operation of the previous question.

Mr. MORGAN. Then would not that occupy all of our time set apart for debate in voting on amendments? I hope the House will consider the amendments of the gentleman as a whole and let ns goon with the debate.

The SPEAKER. Objection has been made to that. Ur. MASON. Well, Mr. Speaker, I propose to offer these amend

ments, and I trust to the fair play and sentiment of common honesty in this House to give me an opportunity to be heard on them, and also to girn me a chance to have the members vote on them before the bill is finally put upon its passage. Suppose we do take another day in its consideration; we are going to be heard, and the House ought to give me an opportunity when I say that I have important amendments to be offered in good~faith to get them before the House for consideration and not suppress in this manner the right of amendment. I consider, Mr. Speaker, that any man who has got an ounce of gray matter in the upper part of his anatomy will concede the fairness of my propasition. [Laughter.]

Mr. BUTTERWORTH. Let niesuggesttothe gentleman this plan: That of course if he offers his amendments now the Honse will have an opportunity of hearing them and also his discussion and explanation of them; and if they commend themselves to the favor of the House, there is no doubt that during the consideration of the bill_ they will be voted in.

1'11r. MASON. That is just what I want to do. I propose to submit the amendments to the House as a part of my own remarks.

In regard to the amendments I shall offer I would say this: That without any intention of flattering tbe Committee on Agriculture this is probably the m!.'St bungling piece of legislation that has ever been brought out from any committee-room of the House within my knowledge and expetience; and I say this not because the gentlemen upon the floor who bring it forth are not able and competent, but because they have been too busy in attending to other matters of more importance-the silver bill, for instance. [Laughter.]

Several mem hers rose. Mr. MASON. Have I the floor, Mr. Speaker? [Laughter.] The SPEAKER.. The gentleman has had it nearly an hour. Ur. MAJ::iON. Well, I did not think I had it so long. I propose the following amendments, Mr. Speaker; but :first Jet me

state something of the pendency of this bill before the committee and the House. I did not know it was pending in the House until after it bad been reported from the Committee on Agriculture.

A MEMBER. It was not. Mr. MASON. The bill was pending when it was introduced. A

bill was introduced some months ago. Now give me your attention and let me show yon how it came out of the committee. It was introduced some months ago, what is known commonly as the Conger lard bill. We bad repeated hearings before the committee in regard to it. We were prepared to fight that bill at every step. We were ready in case the child should ever be born to meet the issue presented and prevent it from becoming a full grown man. It came out of the committee. This bill was introduced on the 28th of July by the gentleman from Iowa, read twice, referred to the Committee on Agriculture, and ordered to be printed. On the 30th of July it was reported back to the Honse from the committee. -

I have stood here all winter ready to meet and anxious to meet that bill, not only myself, but fifteen or twenty other gentlemen who occupy the same position in regard to it, and the first intimation that I had that the committee had shifted their plans and changed the bill was presented by the fact that the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. BROSIUS] reported the bill to the House of R.epresentatives, having taken down to the committee-room a quorum and passed the bill out.

And we now have it, gentlemen, before· us, although we have never bad an opportunity in the committee to offer an amendment to it. They went to the Internal Revenue Department (and by a mere chance I heard they were there) and got the Commissioner to take it up and bear the questions presented and decide them; and the opponen~ of

_.

.-. . -

;_,

...,· ,'

J"

._

·-

. ,

~.

--. ,,

:

.. ·

. '

·· ..

:' . :

~ .

.·

. \ . ' ... , ....

•. - 1. ,'

·- I -· • - I•• ~ ..


the bill were never heard at alL A more perfect star-chamber proceeding was never had in any piece of legislation on this floor.

Mr. CO:N"G ER. Will the gentleman yield for an inquiry? Mr. MASON. Well, my time is rather limited. The gentleman

will have his own time. Mr. CONGER. I will let this come out of my own time. Mr. MASON. Very well. Mr. CO~GER. I wish to ask if you have not had the same oppor

tunity to meet this bill that you had to meet the bill No. 283? Mr. MASON. We have if you give it; but if you order the previous

question at 4 o'clock on Saturday and do not give a chance to offer amendments, then I say that we have had no chance to meet you in the Agricultural Committee; we have bad no chance to meet you in the committee-rooms of the House of Representatives; we had no opportunity of a hearing before the Commissioner of Internal Hevenue; we have no opportunity hefore the House of Representatives; and the men who are opposed to the act had no opportunity whatever to know anything about what was being done with it, not one, and the only people who passed upon its merits were the two or three who bad it in charge and the gentlemen interested in lard manufacture in the large cities throughout the country.

Mr. CONGER. But, so far as the Committee on Agriculture was concerned, you had the same opportunity to ~mend this bill before the House that you would with reference to the other bill.

Mr. MABON. Certainly; but it is a different bill. Mr. MORGAN. If you will allow me to make the suggestion, this

bill was brought into the Committee on Agriculture with the report ready, before it bad ever been submitted, that I was aware of, and was put throu~h in five minutes .

l'llr. McCLA.AUtfY. And came out again with the force and effect of a committee report.

Mr. CONGER. There were no changes in the bill at all. Mr. MORGAN. There was no opportunity given to consider or dis

cuss the matter. ..Mr. MASON. I will have to decline to yield any further, as my time

is alreadv too short. I desire to offer another amendment. I desire to take the~bill out of the license plan. In a bill known as the McKinley bill we have abandoned the license system. I have a letter here from the Commissioner of Internal Revenuewhorecommendsthatthewhole license system be taken out. This is what he said in his letter to me:

It bas been suggested that section 3, relative to licenses, be stricken out as inconsistent with the present internal-revenue system.

Now, I wa_nt avoteupon that. Therearelotsofgentlemen who may be in favor of this bill, who will vote to amend it to strike out the license system. The tax that you put upon it in the way of a revenue stamp is bound to protect the people a~inst any fraud. This license system is simply to annoy the small merchants. To be sure the licenses are small, but the idea is simply to keep the retail merchant from going into the business at all, for the reason that they will have to procure these licenses. I shall ask for a vote upon that amendment.

I want an amendment to the first section of the bill, inserting the word "healthy." I do not believe any one will object to that, in the definition of lard. The bill provides, that for the purposes of this act the word ''lard '' shall be understood to mean the food product usually known as lard, and which is made exclusively from the fresh fat of slaughtered swine. I de ire to insert there the word "healthy."

Mr. FARQUHAR. Healthy swine instead of slaughtered swine? Mr. MA.SON. I do not mean to insinuate that the swine can be

' healthy after it is slaughtered; but I think we all understand by that that the pork mnst be from swine that are healthy before they are slaughtered. I believe that the members of this House woul~ be willin~ to insert the word "healthy" and I believe that the manufacture.rs of lard would be opposed to it.

Now, to show some of the other inconsistencies of this bill, Mr. Speaker, I wish to ha>e the bill amended, if it is bound to pass, so that it may conform to the Illinois statute. The Illinois statute says the packaJres must be marked ''lard compound," and to change these brands would cost thousands of dollars. Is there any justice in thab?

Mr. BROSIUS. Will my friend allow an interruption right there? Mr. MA.SO~. Certainly. Mr. BROSIUS. I think the gentleman does not intend to be unfair

in his interpretation of the statute of Illinois. Will he permit me to read the statute of Illinois?

1'l'J r. M.ASON. You can read it in your own time when you ha.>e the floor.

A .M~!BER. Let him read it now. Mr . .MA.SO:N". Very well; read it now. Mr. BROSIUS [reading]: In Illinois it is a penal offen.se to mix foods or compound them, except under

the appropriate name and notice that it is mixed iitstamped on each package, roll, or parcel. Butter must not be mixed with oleo, suine, beef-fat, lard, or other foreign substance, without stamping the article with the true and appropriate n11.1:ne and the percents.ire in which ingredients enter into the composi· tion. (Revised Statutes, pai{es 419-50.)

Mr. MA.SON"~ That is not the statute I refer to at all. Mr. BROSIUS. Then I beg the gentle~'s pardon. Mr. HILL. Will you i·ead the Illinois statute if you have it there?

Mr. MASON. I have sent for a copy of the Illinois statute. I had a copy of it a few days ago, but I have not the last edition here. I had a printed copy in an argument which was cited from the last revision, and it provides that when you mix any article with lard it shall be marked "lard compound." That is the statute. If I am mistaken about it I have been misled by others who sent me a copy of the statute. But I have no doubt that I am correct.

Then, Mr. Speaker, suppose there was no statute upon the subject; what :faiTness, what honesty is there in saying that we must change our brands, and call it "compound lard," when we already call it ''lard compound"?" Does it look like a fair, honest effort to compel us to obey the law? These things were known to this committee. What fairness or justice is there in that? Does it advise you any better as to what you are buying because it says ''compound Jard" than it would if it said "lard compound?" Is it not simply to levy blackmail upon the men that are rnnning this business, to compel them to pay out money without any necessity?

Mr. Speaker, I am more anxious to get an expression of the House npon the arqendment which I have offered, and which I think will be adopted, than I am to continue my argument further, and for the purpose of getting a vote on the amendment I desire to move the previous queslion upon the pending amendment offered by the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. McRAE].

The SPEAKER. If no gentleman desires to debate the amendment the question can be taken without ordering the previous question.

Mr. BROSIUS. Mr. Speaker, a parliamenta.ry inquiry. I have no disposition to offer obstruction to what is in accordance with order. My inquiry is whether it is in order to move the previous question on the pending amendment before the time comes when the previous question is ordered on all amendments under the rule.

The SPEAKER. The Chair thinks iu is. :Mr. BROSms. Very well. The SPEAKER. The question. is upon the amendment of the gen

tleman from Arkansas, if no one desires to debate it. Mr. McRAE. I desire to say one word on the.amendment before the

previous question is ordered. Mr. UcCLA.MMY. I would like to have the amendmentread. The SPEAKER. Without objection: the amendment will again be

read. The Clerk read as follows:

Add to section 1, the following words : "And rendered in open kettles, the process used by farmers and butchers."

The SPEAKER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment. If no gentleman desires to debate it, the question can be pnt without ordering the previous question.

Mr. McRAE. I desire to say one word with reference to it, bat I can do so after the previous question is ordered. I do not desire to take up time by ordering the previous qnestion, if I may be allowed to make a short statement.

Mr. BROSIUS. If a vote ia to be taken upon this amendment., I desire to say a word in opposition to it.

Mr. McRA.E. Say that ten minutes be allowed on each side. Mr. BROSIUS. I cnre for but one moment. I think it is hardly

to be expected that such an amendment as this would pass. Mr. McRAE. You are mistaken. Mr. BROSIUS. If such an amendment was made to this bill it

would exclude all modes of rendering lard except oQe mode that was in use a hundred years ago, and will exclude all modes that may be discovered hereafter--

11-Ir. McCLA.MMY. And would be in the interest of the American farmer.

Mr. BROSIUS. I therefm:·e do not think: it ought to pass. Mr. CANNON. In other words, if such an amendment as this goes

on this bill it gives no chance for any regulation whatever. Mr. BROSIUS. Certainly. Mr. STEW ART, of Texas. Will the gentleman allow me to ask him

a. question? Mr. BROSIUS. Yes, sir; if it is pertinent. Mr. STEW ART, of Texas. If this amendment is adopted, does it

not inure to the henefit of the farmer, who makes his lard in open kettle?

l'IIr. BROSIUS. Oh, not at all. Mr. BUTTERWORTH. I understood the gentleman from Illinois

[Ur. l1Aso~] to have the floor for an hour to discuss this bil I, and he moves au amendment, and this discus <:.ion is in that hour. Kow, does this come out of the time of the gentleman or is it to oscillate and ricochet about and he hold the floor? Now, he wants a vote on this amendment, and I want to know whether or not this comes out of the gentleman's time.

Mr. MASON. I suppose not. l\fr. BUTTERWORTH. I understand ib does. Mr. MA.SON. I am willing to admit that it does not. [Laughter.] .Mr. McCLA.Ml\iY. I have control of the time, and I would give

him such time aa be needs. Mr. BUTTERWORTH. I would like to have a ruling upon that

point. The Chair will see that it places the matter in a peculiar situ-

. ' .· . '.

1890. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 8959 a.ti.on, as the gentleman could have an hour and could pursue this course, indefinitelv extending his time.

The SPEAXEI( The gentleman from Illinois announced that rather than go on with the discti.ssion be would be willing to have a vote on the amendment. That indicated a willingness on his part to do business and to cease debate. The Chair so understood it, and in endeavorinir to facilitate his wishes the present l!!tatns has arisen. The gentlem0au from Arkansas desires to be heard in regard to his amendment, and suggests that ten minute.s be allowed on each side for debate, the previous question to be considered as ordered upon that amendment.

Mr. BROSI US. I do object. . Mr. BUTTERWORTH. With the understanding that it comes out

of the hour of the gentieman from Illinois. The SPEAKER. His hour has' expired. Mr. 1\IASON. I did not have an hour. I bad as much time as I de

sired. Mr. McCLAMMY. And he can have all I can give him, if neces

sary. Mr. BR}'SIUS. I am willing for a vote ou the amendment, but I

object to the ten minutes' discussion. Mr. MASO~. If the gentleman does not want to allow this amend

ment to be discussed for ten minutes on each side how can it be understood?

Mr. RROSIDS. A parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. This parliamentary situation might ensue if we proceeded in this way, namely, an amendment is offered, and as only one can be pending at a time the nrevious question is moved upon that amendment. Debate is lmd upon it and an hour consumed. When that is over, another amendment may be offered. There being no amendment then pending the previous question may be moved upon that amendment and another hour consumed in discussion; and thus, in offering amendments, one at a time and debating them, though briefly, may consume the entire time between this and 4 o'clock on Saturday afternoon.

The SPEAKER. That would involve a discussion of the bill, which would be consideration of the bill. It is a part of the consideration of a bill to amend it or to offer to amend it.

~Ir. BROSIUS. Tha.t is very true. I ma.de the inquiry simply for information.

Mr. HERBERT. Will the gentleman from Illinois permit me to make a suggestion? ·

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the proposition for ten minutes' debate upon this question and then a vote?

There was no objection. Mr. McRAE. Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to this bill, and I hope it

will be defeated unless materially amended and changed. Its friends talk Jong and loud a_gainst fraud and deceit, and yet the bill itself is a fraud in that it pretends to be a revenue bill, when in fact it is a bill to suppress the manufacture of "Jard compound" or " compound lard." It is an effort to use the taxing power of the Government to strike down one industry, that of "lard compound," manufactured from lard. beef fat, and cotton-se~d oil, admitted to be a pure food product, and build up its rival that of" prime steam lard," which, it is alleged, is sometimes made from bogs which were diseased or in a state unfit for slaughter, and that as a rule, it is charged, is made from the filthy and objectionable portions of the hog, which no one would eat with a knowledge of the facts. These two great industries have been heard at great length by the Committee on Agriculture.

'l'he testimony was reduced to writing and has been printed. I have it here, and if the half of it is to be believed there ought to be some system of inspection over both, so as to protect the people against the alle<l'ed cheats and swindles. I think the States are able to give all the n~ces ary protection, but I would not object to so modifying this bill as to prohibit the transportation from one State to another of either '

1 lard compound" or "prime steam lard" until branded and marked so as to show what it is and what it is made of. We have the undoubted right to do this under the commerce clause of the Constitution. I am inclined to think that we ought to do it, and we might embrace any other food product or article of commerce between the States where fraud in the manufacture is alleged. I am opposed to all kinds of fraud and deceit and will go as far as anyone to suppress them, but we should be fair and treat all the industries alike.

I am informed that the manufacturers of Jard compound are perfectly willing and, in fact, do brand their manufactures so as to show just what they are. If they do :not they should be made to doso. We know that ·cotton-seed oil is a pure vegetable oil and will stand the test of the closest inspection. It has never been condemned by any fair board of health or competent physician as unhealthy. That is all the manufacturers of steam lard ought to want. It is all they pretended to want during the Fiftieth Congress, as will appear from the statement of their representative before the Committee on Agriculture of the Senate which I will here quote:

Senator PLUMB. Your law in Massa.chusett!.' is all right so far as that State is concerned; you are satisfied with ths.t rut I understood?

Mr. KIM.BALL. Yes, sir. I want to say emphatically to the gentlemen on the other side that if we could have these goods branded what they are, if I could know that, I would take the next train for Boston, and not spend another minute here, if there was not a cent of tax. 'Ve have to have a bill for a starter,

,.

but we do not ca.re a penny for the ta,.x: if every individual who sells these goods would sell them for what they are. (See record of hearings, Fiftieth Congress, page270.}

It this be true, there is no use for this bill with its system oflicenses, · 1

taxes, and penalties. Sin0e that time I understand that the principal manufacturer of "lard compound" bas changed his brands irom "refined lard'' to'' lard compound,'' ata cost of $20,000. The people still use it and, in many instances, prefer it to the product called ' ' prime steam lard·" and because of this fact the fight, supposed to have been settled by the branding, has been renewed, and it is said that it is done in the interest of the farmers. I emphatically deny that the fight is made by or for the farmers or that it is in their interest. It will not benefit them and they have not asked for it. It is the pork packers who have asked for it. The farmers of my section of the country, both t>lack and white, have sent numerous petitions here against it. They know what it means. The colored cotton-growers, who now have a ready market for their cotton seed, are more interested in the defeat of the bill than any other class of farmers.

It will ruin this market for the sale of cotton-seed and deprive them of a cheap, wholesome food product. Resides, I hold that the farmers who grow cotton have just as much right to protection as those who raise hocrs. If the Government needs the money-and I am inclined to think that if this Congress goes on much longer at the rate it is now increasing expenditures it will need it-then let us tax both industries for the raising of revenue. I am convinced that the manufacturers of ''prime steam lard'' are imposing upon the country in attempting to make their fight in the name of the farmers. Nobody knows better than these manufacturers that they, and they alone, will be benefited by the :i-issage of this bill. I have proposed the pending amendment for the purpose of testing the sincerity of those who favor the bill and pretend to be the friends of the farmers.

Their votes upon this amendment will settle the question as to whether they want to aid the farmers who raise the hogs or the rich manufacturers who make 11 prime steam lard" out of the whole hog. The eflect of the amendment if adopted will be to require all imitation of lard, lard compound, and prime steam lard to be subject to the provisio~s of this bill so far as the tax, license, and branding are concerned, but will exempt all lard rendered in open kettles by the process used by farmers and butchers. Noone charges that the farmers and butcllers, who make after the old way much of the lard for our home market, have ever been guilty of any fraudinrenderingit. I mean by this amendment to make lard rendered after the old method, from the leaf and other pure fat of the hog, the standard for pure lard and so far as we can to give a preference to it.

Nobody fears that the ladies of our country who make lard for our farmers will ever be guilty of such fraud as is charged against tliese rival corporations; they will never consent to use the fat of diseased ho<l'S or anything else unwholesome. Adopt this amendment. and thus eli~inate the hog-grower from this fight. When that is done, let the war go on, if necessary, eaeh fighting under his own colors. If the verdict of the people in the end is against the use of cotton-seed oil, then I shall not complain and the farmers from the cotton States will not complain. All they want is an open field and a fair fight. I do not know anything about either of the ILanufacturing concerns referred to in this debate and I take no stock in the abuse that they heap upon each other, but I do want the farmers to understand that it is a fight between rival industries inspired by avarice, "the basest and most selfish of human passions."

Let us make haste to assure the farmers that they may go on in the future as they have in the past, making the fat ot their bogs into lard without interfereuce on the part of any internal-revenue officer or with-' out license, ~md that they are not at the mercy ot any set of men or corporations for a market. Let us in fact protect them against all fraud and impurjties in the manufacture of lard compound and "prime steam lard" which may come in competition with the pure lard which they make for sale.

Mr. McCLAMl\IY. Your amendment is in their interest and will accomplish what they ought to have. ·

Mr. McRAE. I think it will, and for that reason I have presented it and hope it will be adopted by the House. I reserve the rema,inde.r of my time until I hear from the othE.r side.

Mr. BROSIUS. I yield five minutes to the gentleman from Missouri [l\Ir. HATCH).

l\Ir. HATCH. l\Ir. Speaker, I do not think it is necessary to occupy five minutes, or more than one minute, to show the effect of this amendment. The gentleman started out with the declaration that the amendments he intended to offer were to be offered in good faith. If the rest of bis amendments are like this be might simply have confessed--

Mr. l\IcRAE. I have at present none but this. Mr. HATCH. I am speaking of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.

MASON). Mr. MASON. I wish the gentleman to understand that I did not

offer the- pending amendment. I have been busy preparing my own amendment while this discussion has been going on.

Mr. HATCH. I misapprehended the situation. I understood that the amendmtJntjnst read was an amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois.

',,,

' , .. •' M• ~

. "

..

--

-.

·.

.!

--

.....

I .:

~ w ".

·: I

: .· : , ,_

..

- ~. .. .

..

( - . ..... ... ··' \ .. -

8960 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. AUGUST 2i,

The SPEAKER pro tempore (1\!r. GROSVENOR). It was offered by the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. l\lcRAE] and printed in the RECORD yesterday.

Mr. HATCH. Well, the effect of it would be simply this: It is an ai;nendment which, if adopted, would not only kill the bill, but the bill as passed by the Honse would prohibit the manufacture of lard in the United Stat.es except ·in open kettles, and the gentleman knows, if he knows anything on the subject, that not 10 per cent. of the lard that is made in this country is made in open kettles.

Mr. McliAE. It does not prohibit the manufacture of any kind of lard, but will subject to a tax "prime steam lard," just as you propose for "lard compound."

Mr. HATCH. The gentleman has not read the first section of the bill.

Mr. McRAE. Yes, I have. Mr. HATCH. Or be does not understand its language. In that sec

tion pure lard is defined; and the gentleman proi>oses to add to that de~ition the words ''rendered in open kettles,'' so that nothing can be considered pure lard unless it is rendered in an open kettle over the fire. Such a provision would not only prohibit the manufacture of lard, bnt would destroy absolutely the value of the hog product in the United ~tates, because the i;nost valuable part of that product that we export I~ the lard_; and tha~ IS ~de by the steam process in every packing estabhshment ID the. Umted ::3tates. Ninety per cent. of all the lard product of the country IS made by the steam process, and every particle of your compound lard is made in the same way; not one onnce of it is made in a kettle. You might just as well prohibit the manufacture of lard as put on au amendment which will absolutely destroy the value of the bog product ol the United States.

The gentleman talk3 about protecting the farmer by this amendme~t. He could not s~rike a more deadly blow at every farmer in the Umttld States who raises a hog for sale. It is absolutely absurd to ta~~ about the Hon_se e?U:rtaining for a moment the gentleman's prop· os~tion. Defeat this bill if you please; but as to the idea of putting this amendment on, I have really no patience to discuss it further.

Mr. McCLAMMY. Before the gentleman takes his seat will he pardon a question?

Mr. HATCH. Certainly. Mr .. McCLA.MMY. Does the farmer export or -does the packer?

That IS one question; and, furt.her, I would like to know whether the price of butter is any higher now than ib was before the passaue of the oleomargarine bill.

0

Mr. HATCH. The gentleman has already confessed to the House that be is not himself this morning, either mentally or physically as he did not sleep last night., and therefore he can not understand-'

Mr. McCLAMl\IY. l want you to help me. Mr. HATCH. The gentleman knows that the market which the

farmer has for his hogs is with the packer, and without that market hogs would not be worth the acorns that they eat.

Mr ~fcCLAMMY. And the packer bnysjust as low Bs he can Mr. McRA.E. Mr. ~peaker, ~he gentleman from Missouri [Mr.

HATCH] as usual questions the right of any body else except himself to speak for th~ farmers. I am ~ot surprised at the statements made by the gentleman from Pennsy l vama [Mr. BROSIUS J as to the pending amend. ment, but I am surprised at the statement of the gentleman from Missouri. He ought to know better; but be either does not understand the purpose and effect of it or misrepresents it. He bas evidently given bu.t littl~ attention to it, although it was offered on yesterday and was printed m to-day's RECORD. Whether he bas patience to discuss it or not we will see that be has an opportunity to vote upon it.

I repeat that the effect of it, if adopted, will be to exempt from inspection, branding, and taxation all lard made from the fat of hogs rendered in open kettles as is usual by farmers and butchers. It will not have the effect to prevent the manufacture of any kind of lard whatever. All other substitutes and compounds will be subject to the remaining provisions of this bill, modified as they may be so as to make them applicable to all alike. The tax may be reduced or the bill changed so as to only provide for the branding. These matters can all be looked after when this amendment has been adopted, if it is. I can ?n'!Y move m:~e amen~ment at· a time, and it is hardly fair to say that ~t IB ~o~ C<?nsIBtent with some other section of the bill. We will make it so if it IS a~reed to. Gentlemen complain that it destroys the purpose ~f the bill .. As I understand the purpose-the destruction of a ~reat mdus~-1t does. The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. HATCH] m effect admits that any industry coming within the provisions of the bill would be destroyed. ·

The trouble about the bill is that its purpose is wrong and unless it can bemadejustandfairitoughtto be destroyed. Gentle~en tell us that the process used by farmers is old and to some extent out of use. That is true, bnt it is clean and free from fraud. All of us who know anything about .the f~ms know.that ID:uc? of the lard used by our own people is made m thIS way and is sold m Jars and tin buckets to the country merchant~ and to the grocers of the towns and cities, and by them retailed ~o ~h~ir castom~rs: The people know that it contains no filth and that it is JUSt what it IS sold for. They know that it has been made from the pure leaf fat of the bog a~d is fit for biscuits and the best of bread.

They do not use it with the dread that it lms come from the vats of some heartless corporation. If we will compel these rival corporations t? brand their own products we will have . more of such lard. The time was when we had no other, and then there was no complaint. It you are for the farmers in fact show it by voting for this amendment. If you do not, then let us hear no more from you about them in this contest.

Mr. REILLY. I ask that the first section of this bill be read with the words proposed to be added by the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. McRAE]. I think this will demonstrate that the argument of the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. HATCH] is correct.

The Clerk read as follows: Be it enacted, etc., That for the purposes of this act the word "lard" shall be

under~tood to mean t.he food product usually known as lard, and which is made exclusively from the fresh fat of slaughtered swine and rendered in open kettles, the process used by farmers and butchers.

Mr. ALLEN, of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, in the five minutes ren;ia~ning for the discussion of this question I desire to call the at.tent1on of the House to the weakness of the amendment of my friend from Arkansas [Mr. McRAE]-! was going to use another word. That amendment would make this first section apply, as I understand, to lard rendered by farmers and butchers. Now, my friend must know that in his own district there are a great many people who are neither farmers nor butchers, but who occasionally kill hogs and rendci;. the lard. Under the gentleman's amendment these persons would not be reached.

Several MEMBERS. Oh; that is a mistake. Mr. ~icRAE. The amendment does not require that the person

rendermg the lard shall be a farmer or a butcher, but simply that he shall adopt the process of farmers and butchers.

Mr. ALLEN, of Michigan. The object of the amendment is plain enough. It is to kill the bill. The farmer does not render his Jard· he se~ls his pork after the hog is killed to the packer or dealer, and th~ lard IS made, not by the farmer, but by others. The farmer simply asks that in selling that which is pure and wholesome he shall not be compelled to compete with people who are banking upon his pure products.

Mr. McRAE. And he wants to be protected against Squires & Co., as well as Fairbanks & Co.

l\Ir. KELLEY. I would like to ask if the gentleman fr.om Arkansas would not permit an amendment to his amendment, and make it read '' iron kettles.'' My friend from Iowa. here says that it is unhealthy to.render fat in brass kettles, and there may be some mistake by these tailors, lawyers, and others that the gentleman from Michigan speaks about that might get them into trouble.

Mr. STOCKDALE. The gentleman from Iowa is not a very aood chemist, I apprehend.

0

The SPEAKER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the gentleman from Arkansas.

The question was taken; and on a division there were-ayes 50 noes 61. '

Mr. McRAE, Mr. McCLAllllIY, and others demanded the yeas and nays.

The SPEAKER. As many as are in favor of ordering the yeas and nays will rise and stand until counted.

Mr. MASON. I hope the gentleman from Arkansas will let us have a vote on the other amendments--

Mr. McCLAMMY. ~o; this is the important amendment, This is the ''proof of the puddmg."

l\1r. ALLEN, of Michigan. I give notice that we are not going tQ have the time of the House consumed iu voting on amendments and that we are going to treat this bill as others have been treated u'.nder the special order of the House.

Mr. MAS~N. Welf, I do not know t?-at you have any special right to serve notice on me.

Several members rose. The SPEAKER. If gentlemen will reflect for a moment they must

understand that debate can not go on while the demand for the yeas and nays is bein2 considered. ·

Mr. MASON. I am not debating, Mr. Speaker. The SPEAKER. T~e <?hair did not address himself particularly to

the gentleman from IllmoIS, but several other gentlemen were discussing the question.

The question is on ordering the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. The question was taken; and there were-yeas 65, nays 102, not

Toting 160; as follows: YEAS-6.5.

Adams, Bankhead, Earwig, Belknap, Bland, Blount, Brickner, Bunn, Burton, Oa.ndler, Ga. Carlton,

Catchings, Cheatham, Cla.rke. Ala. Clements, Crain, Crisp, Culberson, Tex. Dockery, Elliott, Ellis. Featherston,

-·

Forney, Frank, 6Hbson, Ha.yes, Henderson, N. C. Kelley, Kinsey, Lanham, Lehlbacb, Lester.Ga. Mason,

--

l\.foClammy, .l\fcCreary, McDuffie, l\Icl\fillin, McRae, l\loore, Tex. Morgan, l\Iutchler, Oates, O'Neill. Pa. Owen, Ind,

,,

_, , . - .

._

1890. CONGRESSIONAL· REO-ORD-HOUSE. 8961 Peel, Price, Robertson, Rowland, 8a.yers, Shively,

Allen, l\lich. Anderson, Kans. Atkinson, Pa.. Atkinson, W. Va. Baker, Banks, Bayne, Beckwith, BerKen, Bingham, Bliss. Boothman, Bowden, Brookshire, Brosius, Browne, Va. Butterworth, Bynum, Cannon, Carter, Caruth, Ca.swell, Ola.ncy, Clark, Wis. Cogswell, Comstock,

Skinner, Stewart, Tex. Stockdale, Stone, Ky. Taylor, Ill. Tillman,

Tucker, Turner, Ga. Turner,N. Y. Vandever, Wallace, N. Y. Wheeler, Ala..

NAYS-102. Conger, Houk, Connell, Kerr ~Iowa Cooper, Ind. Lacey, Culbertson, Pa. Laidlaw, Darlington, Lane, Dingley, Lansing. Dorsey, Lester, Va. Duunell, ~la.rtin, Ind. Evans, McCormick, Farquhar, McKenna, Flick, McKinley, Forman, l\loffitt, Fowler, l\loore, N. H. Funston, Morrow, Gear, Iorse, Gest, Nledringhau.s, G rosYenor, Norton, Hall, O'Donnell, Hansbrough, O'Ferrall, Hatch, Owen::i, Ohio Haugen, Post, Haynes, Pugsley, • Heard, Quackenbush, Henderson, Iowa. Raines, Hill, • Randall, Hitt, Ray,

NOT VOTING-160.

Abbott, Dalzell, Lee, Alderson, Dargan, Lewis, Allen, Miss. Davidson, Lind, Anderson, Miss. De Haven, Lodge, Andrew, De Lano, Magner, Arnold, Dibble, 1\Iaish, Barnes, Dickerson, l\lansur, Bartine, Dolliver, l\fa.rtin, Tex. Belden, Dunphy, l\fcA.doo, Bi~gs Edmunds, McCarthy, Blanchard, EnloP, :McClellan, Boatner, Ewart, l\IcComas, Boutelle, Finley, McCord, Breckinridge, Ark. Fitch, Mile!'!, Breckinridge, Ky. Fithian, Milliken, Brewer, Flood, Mills, Bl'ower, Flower, l\Iontgomery, Brown, J.B. ~isseuhainer, Iorey, Browne, T.l\I. Gifford, l\I.orrill, Brunner, Goodnight, l\Iudd, Buchanan , N. J. Greenhalge, Nute, Buchanan , Va. Grimes, O'Neall, Intl. Buckalew, Grout, O'Neil, Mass. Bullock, Hare, Osborne, Burrows, Harmer, Outhwaite, (,'aldwell, Hemphill, Parrett, Oampbell, Henderson, 111. Payne, Candler, Mas;;. H~rbert, Paynter, Oheadle, Herma.on, Payson, Ohipman, Holman, Penington, Clunie, Hooker, Perkins, Cobb, Hopkins, Perry, Coleman, ICennedy, Peters, Cooper, Ohio Kerr, Pa.. Phelan, Cothran, Ket-0ham, Pickler, Covert, Kilgore, Pierce, Cowles, Knnpp, Quinn, Craig, La Follette, Reyburn, Cummings, Lawler, Richardson, Cutcheon, Laws, Rife,

So the a.mendment was rejected.

Whiting, \Vilkinson, 'Vilson, ,V, Va..

Reed, Iowa. Reilly, Rowell, Russell, Simonds, Smith, Ill. Smith, W. Va. Spooner, Springer, Stockbridge, Stone, Mo. Struble, Sweney, Taylor, E. B. Taylor, Tenn. '.rhomas, •.rownsend, Pa. Venable, \Valker, Williams, IU. Williams, Ohio Wilson, Mo. Wright, Yardley,

Rockwell, Rogers, Rusk, Sanford, Sawyer, ~cra.ntou. Scnll, Seney, Sherman, Smyser, Snider, Spinola, . tahlnecker, Stephenson, Stewart, Ga. Stewart, Vt. Stivers, Stump, 'ra.rsney. Taylor,J.D. 'l 'hompson, '£ownsend, Colo. Tracey, 'l'urner, Kans. Van Schaick, Vaux, WaddiU, Wade, "' allace, !lass. Washington, \Va.tson, Wheeler, Mich. Wh ltthorne, \Vlckhnm, \Vike, Wiley, \Villcox, \Vilson, Ky. \Vilson, \Yash. Yoder.

The following pairs were announced until further notice: Mr. OSBORNE with Mr. MILLS. Mr. PICKLER with Mr. DICKERSON. Mr. MILES with Mr. SPINOLA. Mr. MILLIKEN with Mr. ABBOTT. :Mr. KETCH.Al\! with Mr. CAMPBELL. ~Ir. REYBURX with l\Ir. TRACEY. Mr. TOWNSEND, of Colorado, with Mr. ENLOE. Mr. PAYNE with Mr. BUCHAN.AX, of Virginia. Mr. LODGE with M:r. ANDREW. Mr. CRAIG with Mr. OUTHW AITE. Mr. SNIDER with Mr. BOATNER. Mr. COLE::UAN with Mr. MARTIN, of Texas. Mr. SHERMAN with Mr. WILEY. Mr. GIFFORD with 1\fr. HARE. Mr. BREWER with l\Ir. HOOKER. Mr. LAIDI,A w with Mr. ALLEN, of Mississippi. Mr. MORROW with Mr. WHITTHORNE. J'tfr. McCo~s with Mr. Gmso:N". Mr. WHEELER, of Michigan, with ?tir. COBB. Mr. ATKIKSON, of West Virginia, with Mr. ALDERSOX. Mr. EWART with Mr. TU.YP. Mr. VAN ScHAICK with l\fr. PARRETT. Mr. ARNOLD with Mr. MAGNER. Mr. SCRANTOY with Mr. STAHLNECKER. Mr. TuCKER with Ur. GREENHALGE. Mr. PETERS with Mr. MANSUR~

XXI-561

Mr. GROUT with Mr. FITCH. Mr. BOUTELLE with Mr. HERBERT. Mr. CANDLER, of Massachusetts, with Mr. STEWART, of Georgia. Mr. WILSOY, of Kentucky, with Mr. PERRY. Mr. MCKENNA with Mr. CLUNIE. . 1'-Ir. BELDEN with Mr. FLOWEB. Mr. DE LANO with Mr. DUNPHY. Mr. STEPHENSON with Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. LIND with Mr. PIERCE. Mr. NUTE with Mr. BARNES. Mr. STEWART, of Vermont, with Ur. BLA..c~CHARD. l\Ir. PERKINS with Mr. KILGORE. Mr. SMYSER with Mr. SENEY. Mr. FINLEY with Mr. CANDLER, of Georgia. Ur. w ATSON with Mr. Mc.A DOO. Mr. JOSEPH D. TAYLOR with Mr. BRUNNER. Mr. HOPKINS with Mr. COWJ,ES. Mr. SANFORD with Mr. RUSK. Mr. MOREY with Mr. McCARTHY. Ml'. WRIGHT with Mr. GEISSENHAINER. Mr. THOMAS M. BROWNE with Mr. w ASHINGTOX. Mr. FLOOD with Mr. DARGAN. . Mr. DE IIA VEN with Mr. BIGGS, on all questions except bankruptcy

and national-bank legislation. Mr. STIVERS with l'ifr. COVERT, until J:'riday next. Mr. SCULL with Mr. KERR, of Pennsylvania, for the rest of this

week. Mr. w ADE with Mr. p A YNTER, for tlie rest of this day. Mr. ROCKWELL with l'ifr. COTHRAN, on this vote. Mr. w ADDILL with Ur. v AUX, on thi<t vote. Mr. TARSNEY with 1\Ir. LEE, on this bill. Mr. HARMER with !fr. ANDERSON, of Mississippi, on this vote. Mr. CALDWELL with Mr. YODER, on this vote. Mr. BUCH.AN AN, of New Jersey, with Mr. MONTGOMERY, on this vote. Mr. HENDERSON, of Illinois, with l\Ir. BRECKINRIDGE, of Arkansas,

for the rest of this 'day. JI.fr. FLICK with Mr. FITHIAN, for the rest of this day. Mr. EVANS with Mr. RICHARDSON, for the rest of this day. Mr. McKENN A. Mr. Speaker, I am paired with my colleague [Mr.

CLUNIE], but in accordance with nn understanding with him I have voted upon this question.

Mr. ATKINSON, of Wes(; Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I am paired with my co11eague [Mr. ALDERSON], but, not regarding this as a political question, I have voted upon it. I believe if he were present be would vote as I do.

Tbe result of the vote was then announced as above recorded. Mr. MA.SON. Mr. Speaker, I desire to offer another amendment-1\fr. BROSIUS. :rtfr. Speaker, I would like to inquire as to the di-

vision of time and as to the order of recognition. The SPEAKER. Any gentleman in favor of the bill who desiresto

be recognized will be recognized first. Mr. BROSIUS. I yield half an hour to the gentleman from Mich

igan [MF. ALLEN]. Mr. ALLEN, of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, the questionsiii.volved in

the discussion of this bill are not new. Attention was called in the Fiftieth Congress fully to the subject-matter of this }>roposed legislation . Congress gave heed to the question not from any demand on the part of men engaged in the trade, but because of the deliberate and thoughtful action of the farmers of this country aa formulated in their various organizations; and this bill is the result of their action, as shown by such orgauizations, notably the National Grange, which called for this legislation years before it was agitated here.

So much for the rea.son why the bill is here. We are told by my friend from Illinois [Mr. MASON] that there is no demand for this legislatfon, and instead of being a benefit to the farmer it would prove and iB intended to be a curse to the consumers, who are his constituents . . He refers to ~he tax of 2 mills a. pound upon aU compounds of lard. In answer to that, sir, I say that the lard compound can be produced and sold at a profit for two-thirds of what lard can, or at the outside three-fourths. The article can be put on the market at three-fourths the costoftbepurelardandpaythetax besides. Hence, if gentlemen engaged in this business are desirous of "feeding the constituents" of my·friend, who are not able because of their weakness "to carry the coffins of their little ones to the cemetery," all in the world he has to do is to get his other constituents to "come down" with a part of their 100 per cent. profit U})On their goods.

Now my friend states that this is intended as legislation against the Southern farmer. He "pleacls guilty" to such adverse legislation and calls a halt. In other words, he is "marching to the music of the Union /1 upon a.11 bills until he reaches one where somebody in Chicago wants him to go the other way.

Mr. BLAND. Perhaps he thinks the South ·is not a part of tha Union.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Michigan declines to yield. Mr. ALLEN, of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I would gladly yield,

but I decline for two reasons. First, I am easily nonplused [laugh· ter]; secondly, I have but little time.

(

. ...

-.

..

.·

' .

. ·

•I

.:.·

...

/

'j'",· -::

/ ~-,

I • •

8962 CONGRESSIONAL 'RECORD-HOUSE. .A .. UGUST 2l,

Mr. Speaker, it is not true that this bill can in any way, shape> or manner affect the man who produces cotton if what is claimed for the oil is true. Why? Because we have the evidence of experts all over the country, introduced by gentlemen engaged in its productiol,1, that cotton-seed oil is in all respects superior as an article of food to hog's lard, and hence it is absurd to suppose, if these gentlemen have brought this article, raised upon Southern farms, to such a perfect state, that by any possibility we can injure the Southern farmers by compelling the people of the United States when thev use cotton-seed oil to use it 'without the adulteration of bog's lard.

But that is not all my friend finds fault about. He charges here that the packers oflardmake use of the hogs that diein transit upon the cars and that they are made into lard for consumption. What proof have we that "lard compound" does not contain the same unfit ingredient Y What evidence have we that it also is not made from animals dying in transitu? It is absurd to make such an argument and undertake to defeat this bill upon any such proposition.

Another argument my friend uses at this point is that we ought not to undertake to ruin Mr. Fairbank. Mr. Speaker, I do not think we ought to use names here. I do not, except a-s I am compelled to by what the gentleman has said. I have not a derogatory word to say about them; but when my friend talks about ''impoverishing" a great firm, because forsooth they may have to pay something to change the brand on their goods and because they may ha>e to pay 2 mills a pound tax upon their products, is to talk an absurdity to intelligent men.

Now there are two parties to this contention, and the object of this bill is to protect one against the other. Frrst, are these men who are engaged in making lard compound, a compound made up of lard, cotton-seed oil, stearine, and possibly other ingredients. That is the one party, and they brand their product "lard compound" solely and only for the purpose of having the people of this country buy it as and for la.rd. On the other hand are the producers of the bogs in this country. Fifty millions in number is the product yearly. It is an industry that as far as dollars and cents are concerned outranks the business of cotton-raising.

This industry lies at the foundation or the prosperity of the farmers north of the Ohio and west of Buffalo. Itis a question of some importance to them, then, whether it shall be interfered with by unfair and misleading competition. No-w, we are told that this cotton-seed oil is healthy. We are told furthermore that the farmers who favor this legislation do not know what they want. One witness in the Fiftieth Congress in bis testimony laid down this proposition relative to the men for whom I speak, the farmers of my district and State and the Northwest, to wit:

Ifwe consid&r that we can make au article that meets the demand of onr trade, fulfills tlle wantR of tradll, and is pure and wholesome and valuable, and can pnt in 50 to 60 per cent. of cotton-seed oh, and harden it with 20 i1er cent. of lard to make it fum, it meets the demand of our trade. That is all they (the consumers) want. "'\Ve know what they want better than they do themselves.

Again: If we choose to sa.y we are willing to put in our brand of refined lard only abont

20 per cent. of lard, we consider it perfectly fair to do it. If that is true that the compound is 80 per cent. cotton-seed oil

and only 20 per cent. lard, why do they not brand it, if they propose to be honest with the people, as " cotton-seed oil compound Y" Why do they attach the word "lard" to it Y It is done, sir, for the purpose of selling the commodity as and for lard, and by so doing they are defrauding the farmers of this country of a market they otherwise would have.

The farmer can not afford to pay a tax upon his lard. That is the '

1 raw material," so to speak. It must go from him to the consumer ati cheaply as possible in order to bring him any profit. If it is true that we a·re bound to protect the industries of the United States, it follows that this industry, which is so important a factor in the prosperity of all farmers, is entitled to protection first. Sir1 he, the farmer, for years bas been cheated by putting upon the market that which is not lard for lard; and the product he had to sell illegitimately depressed in price because of such competition.

In the Fiftieth Congress the men engaged in manufacturing this compound took the bold ground that they bad a perfect right to put this article upon the market as la.rd, and if the people found out there was anything else in it, it was because those people were shrewd enough to do so ; and they, the manufacturers, were not bound to disclose it. Bnt after the investigation that took place then, when the attention of the country was called to the fact that this compound had superseded the pure article to the extent it had and when public indignation bee;an to manifest itself, then they, in order to avert the threatened legislation, said, "We will brand this as 'lard compound."' Uptothattime,Mr. Speaker, thesevery parties had branded that compound as "refined lard." 'Vill my friend from Illinois dispute that T

Mr. TAYLOR, oflliinois. I decline to beinterruptecl. [Laughter.] Mr. ALLEN, of Michigan. They bad branded what was not lard

as "refined lard" and sold it to the people of this country for what it wns not. Did that affect the farmed Certainly; because the product that they called'' Refined lard" was made far more cheaply than pure lard could be, and by that the farmer was cheated. It is exactly as every farmer in the United States who ~ised wool was

( I

'.

cheated by the false and fraudulent invoices made of woolen goods imported into this country under another name, the tariff upon which was lower than the law permitted on woolens, and we were compelled here to pass a Ia.w to correct the evil that had depressed the price of every pound of wool grown in t.his country for years anu years. This is but another example of how the farming community has been swindled and robbed and cheated by taking that which they produce or have the right io produce and making an imitation and putting it upon the market for the genuine.

Take co~ton-seed oil. Why, gentlemen from the South, you know that every quart of cotton-seed oil to-day is controlled by the cottonseed-oil trust, and the farmer of the South takes just exactly what this "combine" gives him and no more. You are doing him no justice by fighting this bill. And, Mr. Speaker, the National Grange of the United States, representing the farmers of every State in this Union save two, in its annual convention, after deliberu.te discussion of this whole question, ha.a for yea.rs demanded this le~isl::ttion.

Mr. KELLEY. I would like to ask the gentleman now tho national granges could have asked for the passage of this bill for the last two or three years, when it was only introduced in this House on the 26th of last July .

Mr. ALLEN, ofMichigan. If my friend bad paid attention to what I said in the beginning, he would have understood that I tolu him and the House that this bill is the result of agitation and discussiou upon this whole question by the farmers themselves for years l>ofore the bill was brought into the House. They are the anthors of this bill, not we. They demanded this legislation before the gentleman himself knew the difference between lard and cotton-seed oil. [Laughter.]

Mr. KELLEY. I do not know it yet. [Laughter.] .Mr. ALLEN, of Michigan. And any man who thinks that the farm

ers do not know what we are doing in this Congress upon this question is wofnlly deceived. What do we ask in this bill Y Simply .that a man who proposes to sell "lard compound" shall label it, so that people shall know what they are buying. We simply say that the great industry upon which the prosperity of the farmers of this country so largely depends shall not be imperiled by false goods thrown upon the market; that people shall not be inveigled into buying for lard that which is not lard; that t.here shall be no ''false lights along the shore" to lure the consumer or wrong tho producer, if by legislation we can prevent it.

When men sell something for lard which is not lard, they thereby, to that extent, wrong the man who sells pure lard or fattens pork for the purpose of selling it to manufacture into lard for the market. They deceive the public also to that extent, and this law simply steps in and not only says that any man who engages in that business shall let the people know what he is selling, but also in order to enforce the law it is further provided that he shall pay enough tax upon this article to pay all expenses and bring the matter withiu our jurisdiction, for that is all the tax is levied for, and gentlemen know it very well. •

It is in evidence, Mr. Speaker, by the experts who have testified in relation to the subject, that this compound can be produced from 5 to 10 per cent. cheaper than pure lard can, and is it any hardship to compel these men to label their goods as what they are, and require that after labeling them they shall pay the expenses that may accrue because of the necessity of having laws to protect consumers who want honest goodsf

It is not necessary, sir, to expend much time upon this question. I will say to members of the H(\l).Re, as I have already said to my friend from Kansas [1\Ir. KELLEY], that this bill is not of our originating. In passing it the House of Representatives will be but keeping pace with the demands of the people, who run ahead of us iu this as they do upon all the great questions affecting the entire country; for to-day, Mr. Speaker, it is the rule and not the exception that the people of this county who are engaged in farming, while they lead isolated lives, are as well read and understand what is going on and what they want as well as the denizens of the city, and oftentimes a good deal better. Although gentlemen who oppose this bill may claim that they know better than the farmer what he wants, I deny it. The farmers not only know what t.hey want, but they are not very backward in expressing their wants this year. [Laughter.]

Mr. Speaker, agriculture has been depressed. That is true. Ilnt in spite of all the obstacles the farmer bas had to contend with, in spite of all the various combinations that have been mado against him, the census will show that he has been able, by his increased knowledge, by his industry, by his thrift, to forge ahead many degrees beyond the point where he stood in 1880. But, sir, that does not absolve us from the duty we owe him to lift any burden tba.t unfairly rests upon his shouldersl and when you allow any combination to be put upon the market that is an imitation of his products and permit it to be sold without putting the buyer upon his guard, you are to that extent cheating the farmer of that which belongs to him. If a~riculture becomes depressed the evil effects are felt everywhere, an<l it should not be subject to competition from imitation products sailing under a false flag and assuming a false name.

In conclusion, I want my friends who are opposed to this bill in the interest of "lard compound" to tell me and tell the country, if

; , '

I '

,. . . ·. . ·.~

1890. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 8963 this product is so superior an article, why they do not brand it ''cotton-seed-oil compound." Why do they stick to the name "la::.-d," unless by so doing they are improving the · chances of selling their waresf 15 it not clearly an attempt to get the trade of those who want fard by r13presenting that this "compound" is 1ard when it is something elseT

It is for these reasons, sir, that this bill should receive the sanction of the House of Representatives. It is because this industry is vitally necAssary to the welfare and prosperity of the farmers. It is been.use he, isolated as be is, can not compete with vigorous organized opposition with great capital behind it. It is because the people of the United States when they purchase an article of such.universal nso as lard are entitled to know what-they are buying.

Gentlemen talk about the cost of the label. My dear friend from Chicago [.Mr. MASON] trots out this label of Fairbank & Co. and pleads with us not to pass this bill because of the expense to which it will subject this gi·eat firm to change it. Shades of Crresus, the elder Rothschild, and Commodore Vanderbilt! The idea of talking about any little expense of that kind affecting men who are worth their millions and who have increased those millions by bringing into competition wit.h the product of the farmers of this country a commodity that is not represented to be what it is. For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I ask that this bill shall be passed as reported by the committee. [Applause.]

Mr. !I.A.SON. Will the gentleman tell me how anybody will be benefited by changing the words " compound lard" into "lard compound T"

Mr. ALLEN, of Michigan. That is not all the1·e is in the bilL Mr. MASON. That is one of the things. Mr. ALLEN, of Michigan. Yes, that is one of the ihings; and so

far as that provision goes it is good enough. The benefit to the farmer from the passage of this bill will be that his product will be taken out of the field of competition with a bogus commodity which is gaining place and favor by sailing under a name which belongs to the farmer's product alone, lard. That is the way the farmer will be benefited. We simply want you to abandon your false pretenses so far as this commodity is concerned. [Applause.]

:Mr. BROSIDS. Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that a number of gentlemen on both sides desire to make remarks on the pending bill, I ask unanimous consent that we take a recess at 5 o'clock this evening until 8 o'clock, and that the evening session be exclusively for debate on this bill.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. B:&osn:;s] asks unanimous consent that at 5 o'clock to-day the Honse take a recess until 8 o'clock, the evening session to be for debate only Ut>On the pending bill. Is there objection? The Chair hears none.

Mr. BROSIUS. I now yield fifteen minutes to the gentleman from Iowa [lir. HENDERSON].

Mr. MASO~. Before the gentleman from Iowa proceeds I desire the Chair to answer a parliamentary inquiry. I wish to offer amendments to this bill, and are we to understand now that the offering of amendments and the discussion for and against those amendments will come out of the time allowed to the opponents of the bill?

The SPEAKER. Discussion of the amendments is a part of the discussion of the bill.

Mr. l\1ASON. I am perfectly willing that the time occupied by the opponents of the bill in discussing these amendments should come out of the time in opposition to the bill; but the time occupied by members in opposing the amendments should not come out of the time allowed to the opponents of the bill.

The SPEAKER. According to the custom of the House, the time woilld be equally distributed--

Mr. MASON. Very well; that is all right--The SPEAKER. Or rather the distribution of time might have some

reference to the number of persons wanting to speak-the amount of opposition. The G"hair supposes that the object of the distribution of time in an assembly like this is that, so far as possible, all views may be represented in the discussion.

~1r. :MA.SO~. Thus far, Mr. Speaker, I have bad no chance to have one of my amendments voted on. Now, I ask, when will the time come when I can present an amendment?

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [l\fr. BRosrns] had one hour, which he employed in favor of the bill; the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. McCLAl\fiIY] had an hour, which was occupied against the bill. At the end of that time, the gentleman from Illinois [.Mr. MAso~] suggested that he would like to offer some amendments; and the Chair, in ordel' to facilitate the proceeding, suggested that the amendments already oftered should be voted on. After that, the other side claimed the floor, on the ground that they were entitled to their second hour; the Chair accorded that to them; and after'that he Chair will recognize the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. McCLAMl\IY] who, by consent of the House, is entitled to control the debate on that side of the question.

Mr. HERBERT. Will the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. MASON] allow me a suggestion?

Mr. MASON. Yes, sir. Mr. HERBERT. The parliatnentary difficulties in which we are

:... -·

involved show simply that any bill which we really want to consider properly ought to be considered in Committee of the Whole; I therefore suggest that the gentleman move we go into Committee of the Whole, so as to consider this bill as it ought to be considered.

Mr. CONGER. Regular order! , Mr. BROSIDS. I have the tloor, l\Ir. Speaker.

The SPEAKER. To whom does the J,tentleman yield? Mr. BROSIDS. I yield fifteen minutes to the gentleman from Iowa

[Mr. ~DERSON]. Mr. MA.SON. Just one moment. As a question of privilege I wish

to correct a statement I made; it will not come out of the time of the gentleman from Pennsylvania. Inreferringto the statute oftbe State of Illinois I fell into an inaccuracy. While I stated the substance of the statute-

Mr. BROSIUS. Mr. Speaker-Ji:Ir. MASON. I consider that I have the right to make this correc

tion as a matter of personal privilege. Mr. BROSIUS. If it does not come out of my time I do not object. Mr. MASON. I do not intend to enter into anydiscussion, but only

to make an explanation for one moment. The SP EAKER. The gentleman will proceed. Mr. MASON. The Illinois statute provides that the mark on the

package may be either "compound lard" or "lard compound." Quoting the ad from memory, I said that the dealer was confi.aed to the words 11 lard compound.'' I only \vished to call attention to this slight inaccuracy into which I fell, not then having the statute before me.

l\Ir. BUTTERWORTH. What is the date of that act? Mr. MASON. June 3, 1889. Mr. HENDERSON, of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, in the consideration of

the pendin~ bill no question is raised as to the power of Congress to enact the law presented by the Committee on Agriculture. That matter was thoroughly gone over in the consideration and passage of the oleomargarine act, which, so far as it has been tested, has been sustained by the courts of the land. It is only a question of policy whether Congress should or should not exercise this power as to lard· adulterations and false branding. I believe, sir, that this is a case that demands the exercise of our legislative functions in the manner contemplated in the bill before us.

Mr. Speaker, all nations, especially back in the Dark Ages, have plundered each other without regard to the ethics involved. The further back in history you go the more freedom you find in the plundering of each other by nations, and often with pecuniary advantage. The highwayman profits financially when he relieves the honest traveler of his pocket-book and appropriates the contents; but when it comes to citizens ofa common country plundering each other I can not see where it is in any degree defensible; and when it is demonstrated that high-handed pluutler has been going on here between our own citfaens for years past, it is no wonder that we find ourselves flooded with petitions asking for redress and demanding protection. I am against the highwaymen in any form.

My friend from Illinois (Mr. MASON), whose gifted powers of speech I never appreciated more than I have done this afternoon, when he would actually tear the clouds from the heavens and make sunshine when. it does not exist, becomes pathetic in his denunciation of food adulteration. I wish that those for whom he appeals felt as he does upon the question. I wish that they acted on that line of thought. But they do not; they have not done so.

The gentleman tells us that they have abandoned their false brands and now sell these commodities under their true colors. When did they experience this wonderful change of heart Y Not, lli. Speaker, until the American Congress had the whole gan(J' of them by the throat, choking them until they were turning black in the faces and until the Illinois legislature had the paddle raised to pummel them in the re~r did they experience this conversion.

Mr. GEST. That is so. Mr. HENDERSON, of Iowa. That is the truth of it. But for the

movement demanding the putting down of this highway robbery, for I will call it nothing else, these new brands, wonderfully new, would not to-day have been exhibited in their perfection and beauty by the gifted gentleman from lliinois. But the farmers of this country, the consumers of this country, and their Represe11tatives on this floor do not intend, l\Ir. Speaker, to be deceived or driven from this present line of action by this exhibition of the brands that these parties are now using. We intend that they shall continuet;.\ use them, and that no masked highwaymen shall again take the road of commerce to plunder the people who wish to use pure lard or the farmers who produce it.

But my friend from Illinois pleads for the laboring men, and puts them eloquently in antithesis to the farmers. That was entirely unnecessary. It occurred to me as he drew that beautiful picture of the laboring man and how he was suffering, if he referred to the Armours and the Fairbanks and other men of that class engaged in this business who have in years past amassed millions upon millions at the expense of the people and the laboring people of the country, bow they would chuckle over that description of them as laboring men. If he did not mean them but had reference to the toilers in Chicago, in Dubuque, and in other cities, then I say to my friend from Illinois, reserve yoar tears and your eloquent and pathetic appeals,

. -, ;

•.

·~

'• -

<.! J ...

I •

...... . '

I ..,,,. .........

.' ... .· '·

I I •

, .....

.·.

'• .

· ..

...

... - ' \ I '

·'


for they are out of lllace in defending men wno have been charginJ,t your laborers and mine from 3 to 4! cents per pound more than the vHe cow pound offered for sale was worth. Are these the men or the privileges that my gifted friend defends here f ·

snu~ it out, and ne~ther can you arraign the laborers fa the shops agamst the farmer Ill the field. They both want fair play and just treatment, and they intend to have it.

My friend from Illinois rMr. MASON) says that the cotton-seed-oilC?mponnd lard is the food of the poor man. If the poor men of my mty want to buy that lard who objects. I do not, bat I want them to know what they are buying, and so do they. [Applause.]

[Here the hammer fell.]

Ent he says this legislation is not demanded by the fa1·mers of the country; that they want the pure-food bill. !don't knowhow it is with the other Representatives of the people, but I have had petitions from over fifty Alliances from the Third district of Iowa, from which I come, and in every instance, I believe, they named in con-nection with the words ''pure-food bill'' the Conger bill, and they INCORPORATED DATA ltEFEllRED TO BY MR. IIE?\"DERSOX n· Iilll mm.ARK.

know what it means. They are not asking to load us up with all of Some of the articles used in the so-called ''pure refined family the evils that confront us, and there are plenty; but here is a high- lard," as proved before a committee of Congress: \vayman, armed and equipped with deadly weapons from top to toe, Co~on:seed oiJ, sesame oil, vegeta.hle oils, mineral oils, starch, and they want us to throttle him. We will take care of the other causnc lime, alum, carbonato of potash, salt, potatoes potsto flour villainM as we proceed. chalk, plaster-0f pn.lis, baryta. ' '

This is the bill that my farmer constituents have petitioned for, 'Yat.er is used as high as35 per cent. in the adulterated compound, and the petitions themselves will verify the statemont. And that is while m pure leaf lard there is but three-tenths of 1 per cent. not all. Mr. August Post, secretary of the Farmers' Alliance of my l\fr. :Fairbank admits that he uses from 50 to 60 per cent. of cottonState, ancl secretary also of theNa.tional Allianceof the United States, seed oil and only 20 per cent. of lal'd, and complacently told the was here but a few days ago in the interest of this legislation, and committee that he knew better wh11t tho consumers want than they he told me with -his own lips that it wa~ this Conger bill that the do themselves. farmers he represented were for and wanted. Don't let my eloquent It was also shown in evidence before the committee, as proof of friend from Illinois throw dust in the eyes of any Representative .• the use .of false mixtures, that in 1886 Chicago shlpped "lard" (so This bill now before us is what is petitioned for, is what is demanded ·called) m excess of receipts 267,500,000 pounds. by the farmers, and is what is needed by the country. Amount of bogus lard mado in United States, 320,000,000 pounds

But, Mr. Speaker, how quickly the time flies. I wanted to touch annually. upon the frauds upon the "brands," to describe the articles that Mr. BROSIUS. I yield ten minutes to tho gentleman from Ten-euter into t:Uis articlo; but I see that I will have no time to enter nessee [Mr. Hourr]. int<> these details. I will take the liberty of incorporating into my Mr. HOUK. Mr. Speaker, I never dreamed that I would live to see remarks something on this subject, but I want to refer here to the the day when so much eloquence could be evolved from the hog and brands. cotton-seed oil. I shall "\'ote for this bill somewhat on the principle of-

Now, all that we want is fair play. I do not care who meets me I do not like thee Dr Fell for a business duel or a friendly att:wk or an intellectual battle; I The reason why i ca~ not tell. want him to come in his own face and form, and I will measure Th s th" · 't h" h I d t lik swords with him as best I mav with what poor powers nature bas . ere are ome .' mgs m I w ic o. no c very. much, and given me. • which I shall mention. I re~er to. the machin.ery of t!:1e bill. I very

My farmers do not ask to injure the cotton-seed interests of the muc~ regret to cast any vote lll thi~ Honse which contmnes to enlarge South. They welcome the prosperity of the South. They hear with an~ fasten upon the country the mternal-revenue system that now joy the announcement made lJefore the Committee on Agriculture by exISts. ~ · . . . . the gentleman from .AJabama [General WHEELF.R] that twenty-eight ~he ~ecess1bes for revenue with which to :pay .pensions .and other millions annually come into the pockets of the Southeru_farmers from obligations ot the Governme~t see~ to reqmre it;s retention for the the demand for cotton-seed oil; but when he said that tha~ demand present. I prefer to bear the ills of Its temporary existence rather than was created by the lard-makers, the farmers open their ears and are fly to others of a more ap:gravated charact~r. However, the system startled. Twenty-eight million doll:us of cotton-seed oil O'Oin(J' into bas ceased to bear so heavlly on the people smce they have become actbe lard of the North, and that, too, under false colo1·s, co;ceal~ by customed to. its ma;nner of execnti.on. I had hoped when this Confalse bPands. gress came mto bemg that before it should have concluded its labors

Professor Wiley, the chemist of the Agricultural Department, says the entire machinery of the internal-revenue system, top;ether with its that of twelve different packages, which came I believe from AI- seemingly inconsistent laws, would be wiped from the statute-books of mour or Fairbank, l forget which, eight of them were branded this country; butasitnowappears, forthereasonswhichlhavtistated ''Prime refined famiJy lard." Wha.t delicious adjectives they get there is no po~ibility but that this policy must be maintained at least bold of! "Prime," ''refined;" and in order to touch the hearts of for some years to come, therefore I waive the objection which I have the p~ople t,bey cal~ it "family" la.rd. One of them was branded stated, and shall support this bill, notwithstanding I would prefer to ''Cho1ce_refined family fa.rd." It makes your m'!uth water almost see its provisions involving the main purpose carried out through some to read it. One was called ''Pure refined family lard,'' another other policy or process of machinery. "Pr~Ife refined leaf lard," and one of them was labeled "Compound It has been sugj!ested, in fact stated, on the floor of the House that lar~. . . . . this was somewhat of a fight between the negro and the hog, because,

No,,., Mr. Speaker and fe}low _Representat1ves,1t is _th~s mask that as is claimed, the interest of the negro in the cotton-growing portions wo obJect to. ~ut your tuo on its o:vn b.o~tom, and if It can cross of the South is to raise the value of cotton-seed oil as against the natthe sea well be it for you, and we will ~eJoice; but do not come and ural lard of the hog, and I have been privately upbraided for takin turn ~ur tub over when _we are paddlmg n!ong the best we can. sides with the hog, that is, pure lard of the hog, against the colored man~ That. is what '!e demand, only that and nothmg more. !Jere .we a~e The explanation has been that about all the colored ma.n had down told m t~e. ev1d~nce that of t~e 50,00~,000 of ?ogs raised m this South was his cotton-seed. that his em pl h · 1 dl d all country it 1s estimated that their value IS deprecia.ted 80 cent.a a hog. h. oyer or 18 an. or usu Y Some put it as high as $1, some as low a.a 40 cents. . had~ mortgage on e"!e1yt mg else that he had except hIB .cotton-seed,

I have the testimony here of William Ryan & Sons, of my own and if. we en~cted_this law we ?woul~ d~stroy th~ last vestige .that was city and State, pork-packers, and most honorable and well informed left hi~. Now, 15 th.a~ true: If it IS, Go? pity your policy down men. l\Iy friend from Illinois [Mr. MASON] says it is only a fight South m the cot~n-raIBmgregions,. If that IS true, then~ suspect the between the pure-lard men, tho leaf-lard men, and the compound- mome~t you legIBlate cotton-seed mto a valuable co~moditythe IandJard makers. That may be so from his stand-point, but I do not lord will place a mo~tgage on that, and the negro will not have even .know anything but the farmers and consumers in thiB contest and cotton-seed to call ]us own. they hold the whip that will lash me to duty if I am derelict 'in it, . Mr. ~TOCKDALE. . J?o you mean to say that what you have stated and they are not compound-lard makers. Here is what Messrs. Ryan IS true m the cotton-raismg States? & Sons say: :Mr. H<?UK. I do not ~o:w; I have been priva~ely told that it was, It will take from the -value of the hoga of Iowa eicrbty cents apiece aucl in one and that if I voted for thJB bill I would vote to rum the colored man.

year will cost the ho!! and corn raisers of Iowa $2,400,000. ' I have devoted more than a. quarter of a century of my life in trying to I do not intend to remain silent and see hands now worn with b~tter his.coll:dition, and God forbid tbat I should do anythin~ aga.ins~

cutting coupons by the million wringlng this amount out of the him at thIS tm~e. I only _refer to th31t because I have been mf~rm~d farmers of my State without entering my solemn protest and ap- that I was placing myself ~n t~at att!tude, and .I am only answermg m pealing to my colleagues in this Honse to stand by me for their pro- ad~an~e the argumen~ which L5 to be made agam~t those w~o v?te f~r tection. I want to say to the gentleman from Illinois, and to all of this bil~. But there IS a1:1other m~tter that I desire to men~on m thig j·oa, that the time has gone by for sneering about the farmers. The conn~cbon. That th~re 1s great discontent am?ng the farmmg classes far~e_rs of this country are _reade!'S and thinkers and they are or- ?f thlS country there lS no do~bt. Tha~ there IS much.good reason for gamzmg, and I a.m glad of it. I tell you that with every form of it I am ready not only to admit, but clmm as an established fact. capital organized-the dressed-beef combine, the national-bank as- That there is rea1 cause for much of it there is no doubt. Dut do socia.tiona, the railroad combinations, the shoe-makers, the laborers, gentlemen consider? I hope if they have not already considered they those employed in the Government Printing Office, most of them will take it under serious and prayerful consideration, that during the meeting m secret-it is time for agriculture to organize, and for discussion of the tariff bill on this floor there was not a speech ma.de yoars I have advised them to do it; and the good effect of their or- on the Democratic side that did not tell the farmer that he was a bankga.nization is being seen to-day and felt in this Capitol. You can not rupt and ruined man. While there is some truth in what was so often

.-

'J .. \ ,

1890. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 8965 dwelt upon it was exaggerated to unreasonable proportions. I want to sug~est to some of my friends on the Democratic side that the sermons which they preached during the discussion of the tariff bill have caused such a state of things in some instances and in some localities that the places that know some of them now will soon know them no more forever-certainly not in the aext Congress. The cry of mortgage, of poverty, of distress by onr Democratic friends throughout that discussion has had very much to do with the exaggerated condition of the farming interests of this country. You Democrats agitated, agitated, you exaggerated, and the farmers have taken you at your word. You sowed the wind and the country is nowreaping thewhirlwind.

The exciting and delusive subtreasury scheme of foJly and deceit wa.'i introduced in the United States Senate by a seemingly solemn and Redate Democratic Senator, who, after he bad set the leaven to work, rushed forward to try and stop its fermentation.

Ent I am for the bog, and we have a variety of them in my part of the country. I always have a fellow feeling for the hog, even when I see bim in bad associations. We have the Woburn bog, the Berkshire, the Poland-China, the Red Jersey, the Mountain Ranger, the Guineapig, the Razor-Back, and the wild hog. This last class, I presume, sprang from the herd part of w hicb ran down a steep place into the sea and were choked.

Mr. STOCKDAI~E. They were drowned; not choked. i\Ir. HOUK. They were not droWl.led; they were choked. !IIr. MORSI;;. They were not electrocuted, then? :Mr. HOUK. No, sir; that highly civilized method had not then

been invent~d. But to the question of the real troubles of the farmers. I have Yery great sympathy with the farming class of this country. I have engaged in e\ery character of labor almost known to mankind. I have hoed corn; I have plowed in the field; I have lived among farmers; I was pn.rtly raised on a farm, and have been somewhat familiarwith the farming interests all my life; and in my deliberate judgment, while we may pass this hill and the several bills which have al ready been passed and will be passed in their interest, not a single one of them will accomplish that for the farming elements of this country which the legislation of the Repnblican party in other branches and on other measures will accomplish if you will give it a little time in which to work out its results.

Already the sil \Cr bill is enhancing prices both of silver bullion and all other products of the earth. 'l'he Treasury notes with which the bullion is purchased, a legal tender for all debts, public and private, and the gold and silver which it is provided shall be coined with which to re<leem these notes, will soon be forced into circulation and be found among the .people in the various channels of trade and commerce. This will make moneyplenty, anditseffectswill beequallypotentand beneficial in furnishing a market to the farmer and in moving bis crops, leaving plenty of currency in every community where a surplus has been produced to enable the debtor to meet the demands of his creditors :ind restore prosperity where depression now prevails.

.Mr. Speaker, in my opinion the tariff bill-which I hope will materialize before long and become law-when it shall have been passed into law and business shall be adjusted according to its provisions, will, in conjunction with the silver bill and other legislation, accomplish very mnch more towards removing the evils of which the farmers complain. Tbe passage of the river and harbor bill, the anti-trust bill, the antilottery bill, the meat-inspection bill, and this bill, in addition to those I have mentioned, coupled with the pa.ssage of three hundred public acts, fifty of which are of national importance, not to speak of the many hundreds of private bills which have sent millions of dollars from the Treasury into circulation among the people-the effect of all thi'3 will soon be felt by the depressed farmers, and contentment will reign where discontent now exists.

Why, l\Ir. Speaker, the silver legislation that the Republican party has enacted during this Congress, if it were to do nothing else, would stand a.s a monument to the patriotism, the wisdom, and statesmanship of th~ Republicans for a generation to come, in contrast with the shortsightedness and want of policy on the part of our opponents on the other side of this Chamber. ·

Now, Mr. Speaker, this bill is simply intended to draw the line between pure hog-fat lard and that bogus compound made of cotton-seed oil, perhaps a little lard, n.nd other ingredients, and imposed on the public as "refined lard," when the only element of refinement which it possesses is that it conc;ists of a mixture of inferior elements of grease and cotton-seed oil.

If these greases must be compounded and sold, let their true character be known to the purchaser by a brand showing just what they are. My constituents raise bogs and produce pure lard, and among other reasons why I shall vote for this bill is, because I belitive it is to their interest and in accordance with their wishes, as expressed in their petitions which they have forwarded to me, and I have had properly re-ferred, praying for its passage. ·

In order to define my position towards the farmers and their organization I here reproduce a letter which I recently had occasion to write

. \ .

to the secretary of an Alliance in the district which I have the honor to represent. It is as follows and speaks for itself:

KNOXVILLE. TENN., August 4, 1890. W. A. 8Dll'SON, Esq.:

MT VEAR Sm: Yom note and circular letter containing certain resolutions of the Farmers' Alliance of Loudon County, though bearing date some time ago, only reached me yesterday, having been forwarded from 'Washington. My reply at present must be informal and somewhat general, partaking very much of a. personal letter too. personal and political friend. This is the case for the i·eason that I have been nominated by the Republican party as its candidate in the Second district of Tennessee for the Fifty-second Congress. The Farme1·s' Alliance was no doubt orl'lanized and bas for its objective purpose lhe betterment of the agricultural mdustries of this country, and, if kept in the sphere originally intended, there can be no ~uestion of its possibilities for good to that noble clo.s.s on whose wisdom, intelligence, and industry rests the prosperity of every one of the diversified business interests of the whole people everywhere in this broad land.

Agricullure is the basis of f!Very other industry, but is nevertheless interdependent on the other industrial developments which have made this the richest and most prosperous nalion on the face of the earth. What would become of agriculture if we had no manufactures, no miningdevelopments, no railroads, no steam-hoats, no ships or ship-building, no traffick:ers, no mercantile establishments, no one engaged in any of the innumerable channels of trade and commerce? Need I pause to draw a picture of the stagnation, yea, the revolution, in the march of progTCSS which such a state of things would certainly precipitate? I am one of those who believe that every class of labor, every trade, and every avocation now existing or likely to be evolved from our untold and illimitable resources should have absolut.ely equal opportunities under fair and im-partial laws. ·

The laws should apply alike to the owner of the soil and the hired man who may plow in his field. The laborer in the mine and workshop should have tho equal protection of the law with the members of the company which gives him employment. And so of all the multitude~ of vocations and business pursuits which ma.ke up the life-work of the American people. Believing as I do that the Republican party has demonstrated, through a long course of administraLion of the National Government, that it rules in the interest of the people, I haYe given it my unqualified allegiance and point to its platforms and the ful· fillment of its pledges by wise and judicious legislation as the guide-board for my political action. While I ha ye great respect for the farmers who compose the membership of the Alliance, and have no objection to or war to make on that organization so long as it a.dheres to what I under!ltand t-0 be its original design, to wit, the promotion of agriculture, I can not nevertheless make any pledges inconsistent with the principles of the Republican party.

In my deliberate judgment the settlement of the silver question by the Republican party, over the bitter and persistent opposition of the Democratic party, will result in remedying most, if not all, of the evils to avert which the Farmers' Al.J.i.ance sprang into existence. The recent silver bill passed by the Republicans stands out as the one and the only piece of legislation in all history whereby the people of any country were to be supplied month by month with a currency equal to gold in constantly increasing quantities.commensurate with the demands of trade and needs of the people, and pl"Oviding to force jnto circulation every dollar of siker produced in the inexhaustible mines of the United States.

The wise and equitable legislation of the Republican J?llrty in building up and establishing the policy of a.protective tariff and the revl!lion of our ta.riff laws and reduct.ion of revenue now in process of accomplishment on the lines of the l\IcKinley bill will supplement, strengthen, and enlarge the beneficial results ot tlie settlement of the silver question, and greatly add to the general prosper· ity of the people.

The liberal and patriotic pension legislation of the Republican party, the anti-trust law, and the many other wise measures to which I can not now ta.ke time to refer, will prove the cap-stone to the pyramid of Republican financial policy, which will give to the people an abundance of good money, the circula,.. tion of which will remove the depression in agricultural products which caused the or'1:anization of the Farmers' Alliance. I believe the Republican party is the best and only political organization in existence which can promote the welfare and build up the interests of the farmers, I believe the Republican party has done, is doing, and will contic.uei to do more for the promotion of agriculture than it is possible for any other political organization t-0 accomplish.

\Vhile I fully recognize the possible usefulness of the Farmers' Alli1mee. and commend the farmers for striving to better their condition, I do not recognize the wisdom of permitting Democratic dema.gogaes to prostitute that noble org11.11ization to the base use of restori11g, maintaining, and keeping a.live Bourbon Democracy, which otherwise would fall to pieces by reason of imbeci!Hy and corruption. And just here I would call your attention to an importnnt fact. For more than a quarter of a century the Democratic leaders have from time to time resorted to every cunning and device known to the ingenuity of the human mind in order to sap the foundations. undermine, and if possible make inroads upon and destroy the magnificent Republican majority of East Tennessee. In all their efforts of the pa.st utter failure has rewa1·ded their labors.

God forbid that it should be said that the Republican farmers ofEastTcnnesscc, after ma.king a history for devotion to principle which has immortalized them in l!tory and in song, 11.t last yielded to t.he deceitful wiles and hypocritical blandishments of Democratic demagogues, and blotted out their glorious record by givfog allegiance as they supposed to the Farmers' Alliance, when in fact it bad been distorted into a recruiting camp for the Democracy. \Vh:iteverdis· satisfied Democrats may do in other sections, there i'l certainly no occasion for Republicans to forsake thefr party and contribute to the success of the .Oemocrncy in Tennessee. It is natural that Democrats in South Carolin!\ and other Bourbon States 11.nd sections ehould seek to reform or ove.rthrow the regular Democracy. Wherever the Democratic party has ruled it has been unwise, unpatriotic, oppressive, extravagant, and corrupt.

Eight Democratic treasurers have but i·ecently pl u udered their people. Nor should the stealing of the Democrntlc cashier of the House of Reprcsentativc3 be forgotten. Democratic Legislatures have enacted unjust and infamous laws, such as the registration law, the Dortch hnv, requiring a lit.emry Rnd educational qualification for voters, and the Buchanan policy of e:rncting the prepayment of a. poll-tax in order to ·exerci'le the right of suffrage. Tho Democratic party bas placed burdens or t~xation on the people a.nd pluudered them of t.hcir rights until they have become grievous to be borne. Long suffering and Impatient in submission to wrong, the Democratic masses have become rest.less and discontented with their party. Hence it is natural for them to seek to throw off tho yoke of political bondage and assert their independence of the Bourbon Demo· cmtic olig·arcby.

But the Republican masses ru·e satisfied and cont.cnted witli tho lcgislntio:i nnd administration of their party. Indeed the Republican ruasse!3 nre not onlf satisfied, but are well plea!!ed with the policy and rule of their party. Henc~ there is no reason or occasion for them to seek some other experiment.:i.l party policy. They ha.Ye confidence in their pa.rty, believe in its principles, and will stand by its policies, feeling and knowing that the only hope of delivemnce from tbe evils indicted upon the people under the Democrat.le rule is to place the Republican party in power in those States and sections where Democratio

·.

I I

.·, \.

--

.. -.

·.

, .

• I

.... .... :

"':: • I

,,

' .

.-

·.

•'

.. -:

• I

:. A . .. ..... ~

·1 \ '


maladministration has wrought ruin and brought distress. Give to Tennessee Republican rule to co-operate in harmony with the national Administration in applying Republican principles and policies to the varied business interei•ts and industries of the people, 11.nd thereby will be found a remedy for whatever evils exist and retard our material prosperity. Now, my dear sir, this is not intended ns a spec~fic response to the resolutions inclosed with your note, because, having been nominated and thereby made a partisan Republican candidate, it becomes my duty to discuss a.II public questions in\·olved in the contest and implied in my acceptance of a Republican nomination.

It is my purpose, when the campaign shall have opened, to publicly discuss from the11tump and otherwise all the vital and living issues in controversy before the people. However, I wish to congratulate you and the Farmers' Alliance of Loudon County on the general conservative tone pen·adingyour resolutions, a majority of which, a~ least, I ha>e advocated ever since I have been in political life. Yonr alliance is to be commended for not insisting on the extreme and impracticable measures in its resolutions, as bas been the case in some distant localities.

'Vhenever the farmers' interests have been involved in any measure pending before Uongress since I have bad the honor of being a member I have invariably cast my vote in the way that my judgment taught me was the best calculated to promote his interests, nod if re-elected I shall continue to labor and >ote in the same way. I am ready to answer for any vot~ which I have given on any measure and give the reason for my action. ,

I believe, howe>er, that the interest of no one class can be separated from and be made independent of all others; nor do I believe that the Farmers' Alliance 'Would attempt to e.xpect a. policy detrimental to the general interests of the mass of the people, composed of all classes of the diversified business of the country.

A few days ago I received a. letter from a prominent member of the Farmers' Alliance whom I personally know to be a man of sense and character while what he writes shows him to be possessed of a spirit of fairness and to be guided by a genuine patriotism. I fasert it here w show the sentiments of the representative members of the Farmers' Alliance in loyal and patriotic East Tennessee. It is as follows:

TWINVILLE, TENN., August 16, 1890. DEAR Sm: I have just read your letter to l\Ir. Simpson, of Loudon County,

pertaining to matters connected with the Farmers' Alliance. - Of course I can only guess at the contents of l\Ir. Simpson's letter, but if he supposes that members of the Farmers and Laborers' Union are under any obligations to any church or political party he is woefully behind.

I am a charter member of one of the oldest unions in Anderson County, and challenge any man or set of men for the merest speck of proof that a Republican is under any obligations, for instance, to support Mr. Buchanan for governor.

On the same principle no Democrat will be e.xpected to oppose Mr. B. There is no politics in the order and we all understand it. I think I voice the

sentiments of the Republicans who belong to the union when I say they will all, with hardly any exception, vote the straight Republican ticket in November. When the time comes that I am expected to vote the Democratic ticket because I am a member of the order I shall sever my connection with it, which lean Llonorably do.

I am aware of the fact that certain Democrats who live in this Congressional district and who never felt the pleasing effects of a. victory in their lives are ftattering themselves with the vain hope that they can use the Farmers and Laborers' Union to mar the handsome, rotund majority which the Republicans of this district always manage to secure and which brought so many pangs of distress to the Democratic heart.

Success to the Farmers and Laborers' Union while it keeps aloof from politics, and may God destroy it when it seeks to further the interests of the Dem· ocrs.ticparty ! Always an unflinching Republican.

This letter~ and others like it which I am receiving daily, shows the conservative and patriotic sentiments ofthe leading Alliance and farming elements of my secj;ion of the country, and as long as that organization operates on these lines it is capable of great good.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. MAsoY). The time of the gentleman has expired.

Mr. BROSIUS. I ask unanimous consent that all gentlemen who have .spoken or who may speak upon the bill have permission to extend their remarks in the RECORD,

Mr. BUCHANAN, of New Jersey. I hope that this request will be extended so that gentlemen who may not have the op!>ortunity to address the House may have permission to print remarks in the RECORD.

Mr. BROSIUS. I will be glad to modify the request to that extent. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania

asks unanimous consent that all gentlemen desiring to print remarks in the RECORD upon the pending bill may ha>e permission to do so. Is there o~jection? The Chair hears none.

/ Mr. KERR, of Iowa. I rose to object, and I do object unless the remarks be printed shortly. I do not think that they should be allowed to come in four or five months after the debate, as I have seen in some instances.

Mr. BRO::)IUS. I will ruodify the request so that they shall be printed within five days after the close of debate. I now yield ten minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. FomIAN].

(Afr. FORM.AN addressed the House. See Appendix.]

Mr. McCLAMMY. I now yield twenty-five minutes to the gentleman from Tera.s (Mr. STEWART].

Mr. MASON. Will the gentleman yield to me to offer an amendment to be voted upon some time to-morrow, with the understanding that we sha.11 not vote upon any of the amendments this afternoon?

:Mr. STEW ART, of Texas. I understand that the gentleman simply wishes to offer an amendment so that it will be pending, and I yield to him for that purpose only.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the amendment.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. If there be no objection, this amendment will be considered as pending.

Mr. HILL. Do I understand that that will come up this afternoon to be voted upon?

l\Ir. MASON. I ask unanimous consent that it be regarded as pending.

The SPEAKER JJro tem.pore. The amendment is pending and can be voted upon whenever the House so decides.

Mr. CONGER. I suppose that if anybody gets the floor and moves the previous question it can be voted upon this afternoon?

The SPEAKER pro tempore. It can be voted upon at any time the House may order.

Mr. MASON. I asked unanimous consent that it be considered as pending, not to be voted upon this afternoon.

A MEMBER. I object to that. The SPEAKER pro te?npore. Objection is made to the request oi the

gentleman from Illinois. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. STEW.A.RT] has the floor.

Mr. BLOUNT. Mr. Speaker, I should like to know whether the amendment is pending or not.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. It is pending, to be voted upon whenever the House shall so order.

Mr. STEW ART, of Texas. This bill may properly be called the ":E'irst fruits of a great error," for it is certainly a sequence of that anomaly in Congressional legislation known as the ''oleomargarine bill,'' of which it may be said no more outrageous perversion of the taxing power of this Government has ever been perpetrated by Congress. This bill, however, is far worse than the precedent which has been established for its authority. The oleomargarine bill doubtless gave protection to the farmers to some extent, for butter is almost exclusively made upon farms, but this bill will give no protection to the farmers, and will only inure to the benefit of those engaged in the manufacture of hog's lard.

If I had previously entertained any doubt about this bill not being in the interest of the farmer, but solely in the interest of the manufacturers of lard, that doubt would have been removed by the discussion and vote upon the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. McRAE]. It is not in the interest of the farmer, but is in the interest of pork-packers and manufacturers of lard.

And again it was charged, and perhaps with truth, that oleomargarine contained ingredients which were unclean and injurious to health; but "compound lard," I understand, is composedofpurelard, beef-fat, and cotton-seed oil, and no one claims that either of those articles is unclean or deleterious to health. But if "compound lard" was injurious to health or unfit to be used for food, the remedy should be found in the police powers of the States, and not in Congress.

The friends of this measure know this to be true, and in order, if possible, to confer upon Congress jurisdiction they have made it a revenue measure, a matter of additional taxation upon the people. They claim that the mingling of cotton-seed oil and beef-fat with lard is a great fraud, and that the taxing power of this great Government should be invoked to prevent and suppress it.

In every debate upon the tariff that bas been had in tbia House for many years pa.st, some one bas adverted to what the great jurist, John Marshall, said about the taxing power-how it may be so used as to destroy the rights of property and to roh persons of the fruits of their labor-but I venture to say that John Marshall, with all his well grounded fears of the abuse of that power, never once conceived that it could be used for the purpose of preventing or suppressing a fraud. That discovery was made by that distinguished body of constitutional expounders, the Committ-ee on Agriculture. This bill not only proposes to levy a tax, but a protective tax.

Mr. FUNSTON. Will the gentleman yield for a question? Mr. STEW ART, of Texas. No, I can not yield now. The gentle

man must excuse me. I have but a few minutes aUowed me, and I have not the time to spare. I say it is a protective tax, and what does it protect? It is a tax npon one American industry for the protection of another American industry, and, worse than all, it propo es to levy a tax for the protection of an industry of onf\ section of this Union to the prejudice and detriment of an industry of another section of the Union.

The report of the Committee on Agriculture which accompanies this bill boldly asserts that the tax imposed may be used for the benefit of one industry to the damage of another. I read from the report as follows:

It was also insisted before your committee that reveuue is not now needed and the passage of the bill can be justified on no other ground. It i!! believed that the revenue derived from such a law can be prnfitably used. If we h11.ve an excess we can relieve some honest trade and lay under C'lntributon those who need re traint and regulation. Congress, in selecting subjects of taxation, will, if practicable, secure incidental benefits in connection with rev1mue. We are not required by any constitutional mandate to lay our revenue duties so that no benefit to the public will accompany the collector on his rounds; that it b1·ings a double blessing is greatly in its favor, and yourcommHtee believe it to be a wise policy to collect revenue where regulation is needed for the public protection.

'• The Clerk read as follows: "

Amend section 7, line 3, by striki14r out the following words: "Not before used for the purpose."

This is candid to say the least; but whoever dreamed that such · a system of taxation should be devised and carried into effect by Con· gress? Where it will lead no man can foretell.

. ·-

. , I ..

- . .. ,.r -..

j J. .. ",·· i·

I ... I ..

- " ~-

1890. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-'HOUSE. 8967 For the imposition of this tax the well worn and thread-bare excuse

given by protectionists will not avail, for it can not be said that it is for the ''protection of American labor against the pauper labor of Europe.'' Such is not the case.

It can only he for the protection of invested capital in one section against invested capital in another section, for the protection of the labor of one section, and discriminates against the labor of another section. Howanvone on this sideoftheHon~ewhomaintainsthattaxation should be levied for revenue only can vote for a bill of this kind and Jnaintain bis Democratic record is a mystery perfectly incomprehensible to me. [Applause on the Democratic side.]

I do not know bow much revenue this bill, if it becomes a law, will yield. From the last annual report of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue I find that the oleomargarine tax in one year brought into the vaults of the Treasury $894. 247. 92, nearly one million of dollars, and not a dime of which was paid by the manufacturers or vendors of oleomargarine, but every cent of which was paid by the consumers, by those whose throats were greased by the compound. Lard is an article of far greater necessity than butter or oleomargarine. It is more largely used and will produce a much greater revenue, and it is sad to think that the greater portion of the tax provided for by this bill will be ground out of the poor-those least able to pay it. Instead of doing them good, the supporters of this bill propose to tax the bread in their months, to take from their earnings several millions of dollars to benefit a few wealthy manufacturers of lard.

In the very able and exhaustive report made upon the pending bill by Hon. JOHN H. WILSON, of Kentucky, it is shown that this measure did not originate with the farmers. He says:

Who first proposed any legislation in Congress upon t1ie subject of lard? The earliest known bill wa! presented by Hon. Mr. DAWES, in the United States Senate, December 19, 1887, Fiftieth Congress, first session (S. 650), by request of .lobn I'. Squire, a pork-packer in Bo3ton. (See page '9 of the hearings of the Fifty-first Congress.) 1.'he proceedings before the committees of both Houses show that the prominent advocates of lard legislation appearing before said committee as promoters thereof were as follows:

Page 47, Mich. Ryan, pork-packer, Cincinnati. Page 61, Joel A. Sperry, pork-packer, New HaV"en, Conn. Pages 68 and 266, John Whittaker, pork-packer, 8t. Louis, Mo. Page 101, E. A. Bartm1m, pork-packer, Bridgeport, Conn. Page 230, William S. Harvey, pork-packer, Kansas City, Mo., and Philadel-

phia., Pa. • Page 102, U.S. Epperson, pork-packer, Kansas City, Mo. Page 246, 0. W. Thomas, pork-packer, Louisville, Ky. Page 265, M.r. Morrison, pork-packer, Cincinnati, Ohio. Page 2'17, W.W. Kimball, pork·pncker, Boston, Mass. Page 258, C. G. Cryer. pork-packer, Baltimore, Md. Pages 119 and Z17, W. L. Hill, pork-packer, Boston, l\Iass. Page 330, John C. Hately, pork-packer, Chicago. Page 348, William Kirkwood, pork-packer, Chicago. Among the prominent petitions, letters, resolutions, statements, etc., favoring

the bill we also note: Page 8, Cincinnati Board of Trade. Page 8, Chicago Board of Trade. Page 15, Francis Whittaker & Sons, pork-packers, St. Louis, Mo. Page ill, St. Louis Live-Stock Exchange, East St. Louis, Ill. Page 107,Louisville Board of Trade. Same page, Boston Chamber of Commerce. Page 116, Plumb & Winton, pork-packers. Bridgeport, Conn. Page 1(18, William Ryan & Sons, pork-packers, Dubuque, Iowa. Also, John P. Squire & Co., Boston, Mass. Des Moines (Iowa) Packing Company. International Pa.eking Company, New York City. Chicago Live-Stock Exchanze. Jnmes E. Booge & Sons, pork-packers. Sioux City, Iowa, etc. The foregoing seems to us to be as choice an assortment of pork-packers,

combines, and stock-yards representatives as can be gathered in the length and breadth of these United States. These are the men, we take it, who, when they can, squeeze the last cent of money out of the hog-raiser and the ho~-seller. These are the men who through their "eveners" and adjusters at the stockyards and at the packing-houses "dock " the honest farmers most arbitrarily on every drove of hogs they buy, and these are the men who appear before the Congress of the United States as manufacturers of "prime steam" lard, as explained in the foregoing pages, which they say the Government must not touch, and as advocates for the enactment of this particular measure which they say is solely in the interest of the downtrodden farmers.

The object of this report is to state as distinctly and frankly as possible our mistrust and suspicions concerning the ultimate results which may accrue if this bill (H. R. 283) becomes a law. We a.re free to say that we hesitate to believe a bill which will benefit the a.,,.<>Ticultural interests of the United States, the farmer, and the ho~-raiser can emanate from such a source. If there is any possible chance of any le.rd legislation of this kind adding 32 cents to the value of every hog in the United States, we are satisfied in our own mind that that 32 cents will accrue to these gentlemen of the slaughter-houses and of the stockyards, and not one cent of it will ever reach the farmer, in whose interests it; is claimed this bill is proposed.

I know it is said that the farmers are clamoring for the passage of this bill. How clamoring? By means of petitions gotten up by the pork-pack~rs and manufacturers of prime steam lard, with printed captions. Here is one of them, which I will insert in the RECORD:

Petition in fa¥or of pure lard. To the .. 1bnerican Congress: ~he undersigned citizens of --, in -- county (--Congressional dis

trict), in the State of--, would respectfully-urge the earliest possible adoption of the bill to prevent lard adulte1·ation reported favorably from the Committee on Agriculture of the Fifty-first Congress, and known as the Conger bill.

These petitions, coming from different States and from all parts of the country, are precisely alike · and must have emanated from the same source. They were made to order, and doubtless at the instance of the manufacturers of lard, and were circulated among the farmers,

;,-

. . '

, .-

many of whom have been beguiled into signingtbem because of their seductive title, which reads: ''Petition in favor of pure lard."

The farmer naturally favors pure lard as he favors all pure tood products. Farmers live by honest industry. They are honest people and believe in pure food, and in signing these petitions they doubtless thoughtthey were advocating pure food. They acted honestly, but they little.knew, at least in my section of the country, that the greatest injury inflicted upon the farmer comes from the :pork-packers and lard manufacturers of this country.

I quote again from the report of the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. WILSo:Y], a member on the other side of this House. He says:

In our opinion the greatest injury to the farmer and his bog cro1> comes from the unscrupulous methods of the pa-0king-houses and stock-yard buyers, methods which the honest farmer would not employ and could not if he wonld. A considerable proportion of the lard consumed in this country is purchased direct from the farmers and from the small butchers. Such lat:d is, as a rule, pure, sweet, and clean, prepared only from suitable parts of the animal, and rendered in an open kettle. But when the farmer offers it for sale he is met at once by the competition of the prime st~am lard, made by the packing-houses in large tanks under high steam pressure, in which practically the whole hog is stewed up. This method of manufacture injures the farmer in at least three ways:

I. It competes with and limits the sale and depress~s the price of his homemade lard.

2. It degrades the standard of American lard, to the injury of our foreign commerce.

3. It transforms into so-called "lard" those portions of the animal which ought to be thrown away or sent to the glue factory or soap factory or fertilizer factory, or properly branded so as to enable the purchaser to know what kind of so-called lard he is purchasing.

It is evident that if lard were made by the packers as it al ways used to be made, and as it is now made by the farmers, more hogs would be required to supply the present demand for la.rd, and the price of hogs would be hi'1;her.

I can add nothing to what the gentleman from Kentucky has said in his report. His statemeuts are true. This bill is not intended for the protection of the farmer, but for the protection of those who are engaged in lthe manufacture of what is called "prime steam lard," the most villainous stuff that ever entered the stomach of a civilized human being. I never knew until I investigated this bill how the article known to commerce as lard was made. I had supposed that it was clean, but now my stomach sickens at the sight of any article of food which I may suspect contains or bas been about lard. In Bulletin 13 of the United States Department of Agriculture, division of chemistry, part 4, page 406, we are told how the toothsome delicacy lard is made. It says:

.Prime steam, Zard.-The prime steam lard of commerce is made as follows: The whole head of the hog, after the removal of the jowl, is used for rendering. The heads are placed in the bottom of the rendering tank. The fat is pulled oft of the small intestines and also placed in the tank. Any fat that may be attached to the heart of the animalis also used. The ba.ckfat and trimmings are also used.

This lard is passed solely on inspection, the inspect-Or having no authority to supervise rendering establishments in order to secure a prooer control of the kettles. According to the printed regulations any part of the hog containing fat can be legally used.

Since much uncertainty exists in regard to the disposition which is made of the guts of the hog, I have bad the subject carefully investigated. Following are the results of th-e study :

Guts.-The definition of the term as used by hog-packers is: Everything inside of a hog except the lungs and heart, or, in other words, the abdominal viscera complete. The material is handled as follows:

When the hog is split open the viscera are separated by cutting out the portion of flesh surrounding the anus and ta.king a strip containing the external urino-generative organs. The whole viscera a.re thrown on a tl\ble and divided as follows: The heart is thrown to one side and the fatty portion trimmed off for lard. The rest goes into the offal tank, or sausage. The lungs and liver go into the offal tank, or sausage. The rectum and lar~e intestines are pulled from the intestinal fat and peritoneum, and, along with the adhering flesh and genito-urinary organs, sent to the trimmer. All flesh and the above-mentioned organs are trimmed off, and the intestine proper is used for sausage casings. The trimmings, including the genito-urinary organs, are w~hed and dumped into the rendering tank.

The small intestines is also pulled from the fatty membrane surrounding it and 11aved for sausage casings. The remaining material, consisting of the peritoneum, diaphragm, stomach and adhering membranes, to~ether with the intestinal fat, constitute the "guts," which are seen undergomg the process of washing, which is usually conducted in three or four different tanks. As the "guts" pass into the tlrst tank the stomach andperitoneumaresplitopen,and also any portion of the intestines which sometimes adhere to the peritoneum. After receiving a rough wash they are passed from ta.nk to tank, when, after the third or fourth wash, they are ready for the rendering tank. The omen tum fat is cut from the kidneys, and the kidneys, with a little adhering fat, go into the rendering tank. Spleen and pancreas go into the rendering tanks, as do also the trachea, vocal chords, and <:esophagus.

This statement is made by a Government officer, one who is disinterested and who bad investigated the subject in the discharge of official duty, and for no other purpose than to ascertain the truth. It is not such testimony as the chairman of the Committee of Agriculture on yesterday branded as false.

Mr. l\IORGAN. Which 1\Ir. Bartel stated in his testimony and for which he was so bitterly denounced on the floor of this House during this debate.

Mr. STEWART, of Texas. Yes, that is so, and he is confirmed and corroborated by the report from the Department of Agriculture.

Nor does this report from tbeDepartmentof AgriculturestandaloneJ.. for it is abundantly sustained by other testimony, by the sworn statements of many witnesses as to the manner of making ''prime lard" and "prime steam lard," and their te&timony is enough to cause the banishment of lard from every kit.chen in the land. I would greatly

~ .

..

-.

"

•,

. \ :.

.... ,

..

·.

.. • .. f . .

-·

' '·· \. ' > .....

. ,

·.

·,

. '•

.. -


prefer "cotton-seetl oil" to prime lard or prime steam lard ·or any other Jard e.xcept that made by a farmer.

Mr. CONG EH. But you want to brand it, do you not? The SPEAKER. The gentleman's time ha.s expired. . l\lr. UcCLAl\U1Y. I yield three minut~ longer to the gentleman

from Texas. Mr. STEW ART, of Texas. With these authentic reports going out

to the world is it any wonder that France, notwithstanding the efforts of our minister, Mr. Reid, 'Should retuse to use the hog products of this country? Is it any wonder that Bismarck recently, and the German Government now, should object to the introduction of these products into Germany?

I repeat, what the farmer most needs is protection from the packinghouses and the manufacturers of lard so called, and I feel that all the people in this country need such protection. If it were indeed the object of this bill to protect pure lard from traud ulent compounds sold as lard, why does it not contain some provision requiring such packinghouse products as steam lard or prime steam lard to be marked and branded, so as to inform the consumer of the nature of the article he purchases?

I believe the UcCla.mmy bill does make such a provision, but this bill does not so provide; it only makes war upon cotton-seed oil-a far cleaner and more wholesome article than the fat of any animal.

Mr. Speaker, the cotton plant is the mo.st wonderful production in the vegetable kingdom; it furnishes raiment for m:m and food for both man and beast, and discoveries are being frequently made showing that it bas some new Talue. But I haTe not time to speak of the uses to which it may be applied; but if its use can be made the cause of taxation, and it be subjective to such burdens under the pretense of preventing a fraud, the adulteration of food, it may be expected that the wool-growers of this country will eomplain of its mixture with wool. Those who wish to buy "all wool and a yard wide" 'vill seek protection by taxation against such a fraud.

If this Government must by taxation protect the ·stomachs of the people, why not by the same means protect their backs? So after ~ll it may be that cotton will cease to be king and become the serf of the grunting hog and bleating sheep. [Applause.] There is no necessity for this bill. It is not demanded by the farmers of this country, and it is unjust in all its provisions and has not one single reedeming clause in it.

If not in violation of the letter of the Constitution, it is certainly violative of the spirit of the Constitution. The framers of our organiQ law never once thought of conferring upon Congress the taxing power for any such purpose, and to pass this bill is simply to follow a bad precedent for a bad purpose. I say that it is time to call a halt upon this character of legislation; that we should leave such matters to be regulated by the police powers of the States.

We ought to obey the Constitution. We ought to call a halt in this character of legislation, and return not only to the letter but to the pirit of our organic law. And I appeal t.o men who sit with me on

this side of the Chamber, the bed-rock of whose political faith is strict construction of the Constitution and adhesion to it under all circumstances, to oppose this bill. In tal-iff discus.gions and in other contests you 11ave often boasted of this faith. Adhere to it now; let not a miserable hog cause yon to depart from it. I can not understand the Democracy of the man who supports this bill, and I fervently hope that I may never understand such Democracy. [Applause.]

Mr. McCLA:MMY. I now yield to the gentleman from Alabama. [Mr. OATES].

Mr. OATES. l\fr. Speaker, it is alleged t!iat the manufacture of compound lard is an evil of such stupendous magnitude and importance as to invoke action by Congress and legislation to depress it, or at least to putitunderthe control of the Internal Revenue Bureau of the Federal Government, and by this means practically to suppress it as a competitor of hog lard in the markets of this country. From what ource emanates this complaint 'I Evidently from those who are in

terested in producing hog lard. This compound has become a competitor in the markets of the world

with the hog lard; and because of that competition the ho~-lard men of the country seek the enactment of this legislation. It 1s claimed that every article of commerce, every food product which is put upon the market, ought to be sold for just what it is, and no fraud permitted to be perpetrated upon the public by selling adulterated compounds under the name of pure food products. I agree to that proposition. Is this bill the best method of preventing thatf Is it the vnly method of dealing with it; to discriminate against the compound by putting a tax upon it!

Let na examine this question. It it said by some that the ~ax is small. That is true; but in the aggregate it is considerable. Is it not competent for Congress to devise other meaDB to require the manufacturers of compound lard, or any other food product, to brand it for what it is, stating its ingredients, so that there is no imposition possible to be practiced upon the public, an<.1 in this manner remedy the complaint witboutim;I!osing anytaxT To be fair to allofourindustries you must not put a rider on one and make it carry extra weight iu the race with all of the rest by paying a duty f It is as unfair as it would be in a race between a thoroughbred and a scrub to require the

l~tter to carry a two hundred pound rider while the thoroughbred car r1es but a feather-weight or no rider at all. Such unfairness would be hooted off of the race course. If there is one thing more shocking to the average American than another it is partiality and unfairness. This bill is an utterly unfair discrimination.

Every indnstry of the country is entitled to a fair chance in competiti'?n with all of its rivals. I voted and spoke against the bill imposrng a tax upon the manufacture of oleomargarine for the same reasons which impel me to oppose this. Itdidnothave theeffectof increasing the price of dairy butter to the producers, as wns expected by its friends, and I am satisfied the result has clearly shown that. It has only had tho effect, with reference to the manufacturers of oleomargarine, of crashing oat all of those who are not able to stand up under the tax, and has caused a great monopoly to be established in the manufacture of this :nticle.

Now, here is a. proposed repetition of the same or similar legislation, the inevitable effect of which will be, if enacted into law, not to totally destroy the manufacture of compound lard, but to crush the smaller establishments now in the competition; and the whole business will be left in "the hands of one firm. In other words, you establish a monopoly which will increase the price of their compound to cover tJie tax and increased expenses which this bill makes necessary to the manufacture.

All excessive taxation; all taxation which has for its object the p~otecti~n o.f ~u industry.beyon~legitimate ~ompetition, finally culmrnates m, if it does not immediately ei;tabbsh, a monopoly. This favoritism, this class legislation, is the cause from which the country is now suffering in m:tny respects, and it is the source from which emanates much of the j ast complaint that we hear from the farmers of the country. •

l\!r. IDLL. Is the gentleman aware of the fact that 90 per cent. of the compound lard manufactured is manufactured by two firms, Armour & Co., and Fairbank & Co. . Mr. OATES. I know there are not many. lean notcousont to be mterrupted, for the reason that I have not time. I like to be interrupted when I have time. It is a courtesy I like to extend to gentlemen.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the people of my State are principally an agricultural people. I believe some petitions in favor of this bill have been obtained from them, as they can be from any country, from any State, for any proposition however absurd. But, sir, these petitions which seem tohavebeenprocured byl\fr. WedderburnoftheGran(J'e ?rg~nization, in the main from tboaghtless persons or those who a~e md1.ffere11t to results, I know do not represent the wishes of tbe substantial citizens of Alabama, of either the white or the colored race. I hold in my hand a. dispatch of recent date which speaks for the agricultural association of my State, which is composed of the most intelligent, enterprising, and representative farmers. It rends a.s follows, viz :

Hon. W. C. OATES: UNION SPRINGS, ALA.

We respectfully request that you will Lring every possible influence to bear towards defeating the Conger bill, but request that you will not oppose Senator Paddock's pure-food bill .

I. F. CUL VERl Preaident Alabama State Agricultural Society.

A .• T. WE.EMS, Prerident Bullock County Farme1·s' Alliance.

I previously received a similar protest from the convention of the Farmers' Alliance of the district I have the honor to represent.

I also have quite a number of petitions, as well as resolutions adopted at a meeting of colored citizens in the county of Dallas which has perhaps the largest colored population of any county i~ the Stat~ ~f Alabama, protesting against the passage of this bill. I ha~e pet1t1ons here from that race, men who are >otcrs, in the counties of Limestone, Morgan, Lawrence, Colbert, Dallas, and Mont~omery, numbering a ~reat many hundreds. In order to show the House that these petit10ns are not gotten up in the ordinary way w~ find he~e a thing I :i;iever saw in a. petition before; attached t~ this batch 1s an affidavit made by t.he man who was most active in getting these up, to t0he effect that he either had the signers read it or he carefully read the petition to them, and explained it before any of them signed it. This is duly sworn to and subscribed before a United States commissioner and has the seal of his office attached o that there is nothing bogus about these petitions. ' I desire to incorporate in my remarks the body of one of these peti

tions, which. will speak for itself in a most intelligible manner. It shows that these people understand their interests in opposin"" this bill:

0

.To the honor®Ze Houst of Repreaentatiues, United State1 Oongrtaa, Washington, D. 0.:

Your petitioners beg to show that they are colored citizens of the collnty o! --, Stat~ of .Alabama, enp;aged alm<Mit entirely in agricultural pursuits, and dependent on the results of their own labor, either us renters Ol'sharecropper~ for tho meager roturns pertaining to the la.boring people in this country. Furthermore, that their principal crop is cotton, and that after tbe lancUortl's lien for land rent and supplies for making the crop is paid there is little if anytbinrr left for the po'?l' farmer exeep~ the e6ed, which c~tom has usually permitted them to sell for their own benefit, it.a proceoos eapplymg the little rnady mone:v they have for the purchase ofe.ny of the comforts and really many of the necess1tries of life.

Your petitioners furth~ show that the cotton-seed-oil industry of this s1>ction a.i~ fords a ready and remunerative market for their cotton seed, a.ncl tha.t any legis. lation that in any way ha.ropers or binders the cotton·seed oil industry must and

-~

I ' )- .

1890. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. - '· 8969 will bear harshly upon them as producers, and they therefore most strenuously and earnestly protest against the pending legislation proposing a tax on what is known as "compound lard" and of which cotton-seed oil is largely a component va.rt.

Your petitione:-s are largely poor men, struggling with hardships and adverse conditions

1 ancl feel that they have a ri~ht to ask of an American Congress, legis

lating for the whole people, that no legislation be enacted imposing an excise ta.x that will of necessity e>entually come out of their pockets, and which at the same time tends, in a certain eense, to largely increase their expenses of 1i ving, by burdensome impositions levied on a sweet and wholesome substitute for bog lard and hog products, of which they, as cotton-raisers, are much larger consumers than producers.

Your petitioners further show that there is now before your honorable body a bill known as the '' Conger bill, " which they most earnestly pray t-0 reject, ex:copt 8-0 far as it may prQvide for such regulations as will insure t-0 the consumer a pure and unadulterated article of food in general with all similar products.

And for this and 11uch other relief as your honorable body may be able to afford your petitioners will ever pray.

These poor colored laborers are quite right when they say that the cotton seed yields to them the greatest measure of clear profit. Iii costs the greater part of the fiber at present prices to pay the expense of its cultivation, gathering, and marketing, especially if the laborer has to rent the land on which it is produced.

This bill proposes to tax compound lard, and cotton-seed oil being very largely used in its manufacture will be conespondingly taxed, and the compound, which is cleaner, more healthful, and less expensive than hog lard, will thereby be made to cost the poor men who use it more than it costs them now. Rere is presented a test of tha sincerity of the friendship of the Republican members of this House who voted for the Lodge-Davenport election bill under the pretext that it was necessary to secure to the negro the right to vote and have his vote counted. This bill affects his material interests. It is a meat-and-bread question with him, and of far greater importance to him thau voting. Republican members will secure bis right to vote the Republican ticket, but when his material interests are involved he appeals to them in vain for assistance. In a contest between the negro and the hog they take the side of the hog with a few honorable exceptions.

Mr. CONGER. Does that petition say auything about any bill except the lard bill T Does it include the Butterworth bill too f

Mr. OATES. No; it does not. Mr. Speaker, they know full well that one of the most important

constituents of compound lard is cotton-seed" oil, and that when a tax is imposed upon that product it necessarilly falls upon cottonseed oil just to the extent that it goes into the compound. And it is nonsense to tell those people that a tax imposed upon cotton-seed oil adds to the price and puts money into their pockets. They do not believe- it. I do not believe that the taxation of an article renders it more·valuable or cheaper to him who has to buy it or consume it or use it.

This food product has been proved by the very highest authority to be a most healthful and cleanly product. It is sold cheaper than the pure lard, and the80 poor laboring men in Alabama and all over the South engaged in raising cotton desire the compound and wish to get it as cheaply as they oan. They do not want it taxed and the tax a:dded to the price at which they ~o~ld otherwiso buy it, and that is the necessary result when the tax is imposed. It is all wrong wherever there is competition, for Congress to interpose in our do: mest.ic industries in favor of one and against the other. Now that the precedent has been set in the case of oleomargarine, if this bill be passed there will not be two sessions of Congress before some other rival industries will appeal to Congress to take sides and enact a. similar law, and it will go on ad infinitum. It-is internal protection or rather internal partiality, as between rival industries. '

Here men are governed by their interests as elsewhere and we find member~ representing di~tricts where there are large products of bog lard m favor of the b1ll, and the consumers where it is not produce~, who desire the compound, which comes cheaper, opposed to the bill.

And you will find this true in evory case where tbero is a conflict between industries when Congress is called upon to act· and the result wil~ ~epend enti~ely upon which ind_ustry_ has th~ greater number of friends on this floor. The quest ion will not be decided upou principlen of justice and equity at all, but intorest . Interest alone will de~_ide it. This fact sh~uld make thoughtful members of CongresH hesitate to enter upon this character of legislation.

In my judgment, Mr. Speaker, it is cont-rary to the soundest principles of legislation for the Congress to interpose and take side::i in a~y such conflicts .. It is not consistent with the soundest principles 1-)f the party to which I belong. I have here a paper fnrnis~ed to ree by a member. of this House, but emanating from one of the rivals! ¥essrs. Fairbank & Co., manufacturers of compound lard, conta.mrng some most excellent extracts from various platforms adopted in the State of Missouri. It does not make any difference from what source they emanate if they ar~ true and sound. I wish to read ~ome of them as a part of. my remarks, for I folly indorse the sentunents they express. It strikes me that the same are strictly applicable to the measure now before the Honse. In the platform adopted by the Seventh district of Missouri (represented by Mr. NORTON), August 8, 1890, it is said:

We, decl!lre ~at the power of Congress to levy and collect taxes is limited by ibe Uov:;titution to the needs of the Government, administered upon principles of the atriotest economy and the most rigid honesty, and we denounce all taxa-

/

-,.,

!Jon imf.osed for other than government.al purposes, whether through the tariff or mterna -revei:iue sy~t~~~· as ~constltut!o?-al, nnne~es~ary, unjust, oppressive, and ~estructiv~ of mdividual nghts, legitimate busme s enterprises, and commercial prospenty.

This also, in the district so abiy represented by my friend [Mr. HATCH], adopted on June 17, 1 90. The fift.h clause reads as follows:

Tb.at we demand that all taxation be confined to and kept within the legitimate reqmrements of the Government economically administt>red; aud we deuounce ~ny and all s.vstems tha.t _t.ake from !he labor of the country more revenue tllan is neces~ary fo~ th_e Jegit~ate req~rements as unjust, unequal, oppressive, , and destructive of mdividual rights, basmess enterpris11s, and commercial prosperity.

Aud then, in 1888, a resolution adopted in the Eighth and Tenth Congressional districts, reads as follows:

We declare our opposition to all attempts at taxation by the strong arm of the Go•ei:nment, u_nder any pretext whatever, no matter whether through a system of ~z:iE or the rnte!'Ilal revenue syst~m of taxation, which has for its obJect the buildn_:ig up of one ii:idustry by crnshmg out another; the robbing of one m order to enrich another-it being a. perversion of the Constitutionjof onr country in which all citizens are plaeed on an equal footing. '

In the State platform of 1886 the following language appears: Mr. McCORMICK. What State T Mr. OATES. The State of Missouri. That tho authority to levy and collect taxes and duties on imports was intended

to ; es.t in the General Government tlte power of raking the money necessary to meet its el...-penses, and i8 by the 11xpress terms of the Constitution limited to the purpose of paying the expenses and obli~tions of the Government.

'1.'e ther~fore deprecate the prostitution of the taxing power under any pret ext or gm.se whateYer to objects and purposes other than the purpose of raising rev_enue, or to the purpose of effecting indirectly legislation as to subjects over which Con~ess has Jio control, as such legielation tends ilrovitably to consolidation and a aestruction of the rese1·ved rijithts 1of the States, and that the building up of one industry by a taxation or at tbe expentie of another, is foreign to the true aims of a free governm~ut, in which all the people, as t-0 their legal rights, stand on an absolutely equal footing. ·

The SPEAKER pro tmnpore. The time of the gentleman has expired. Mr. OATES. Will the gentleman from North Carolina yield me

about five minutest · Mr. McCLA.l\fMY. I yield five minutes more to the gentleman

from Alabama. Mr. OATES. In the State platform adopted at St. Joseph, Mo.,

on June 12, 1890, the following language is used: The Democratic party of Missouri, in convention assembled, declares its re

newed and unfaltering faith in the principles of the party as the only security of republican government, the perpetuities of the liberties of the people, the supremacy of the G~ne~al Government in. the exercise of a.ll the powers delegated t-0 it by the Constttlltion, the reserved rights of each and every State in the Union, as to all such powers not so delegated, or by the Federal Constita.tion prohibited to the States; opposition to olass legislation, monopolies and trusts· eqrutl and just taxa tion of all classes, without favor or distinction, fort-he mere' support of the Government, which should protect life, liberty, and property alike. On the main· ten:mc~ of these just principles depend the perpetuity of our free and enlightened rep~bhcan form of government, and the general welfare and the happiness, pros· per1ty , and freedom of the people.

These are very sound Democratic principles, ancl, in my judgment, they are not only applicable to the proposed legislation before the House, but denounce it as wrong and undemocratic. Here is a proposition, not for the purpose of raising revenue, yet it is an exercise of the taxing power. The taxing power is invoked for a purpose. What is that purpose f To raise revenue f Why, it was not designed to raise revenue, but to protect hog lard against injurious competition, and to secure the· people against imposition in the sale of compound for hog lard.

'I'be advocates of this undemocratic bill confess that Congress has jurisdiction and power to pass it only because it comes under the taxing power, which the Constit ution confers on Congress. For what was that power conferred Y There can bo .. but one answer, and that is expressed with great force and perspicuity in the Democratic platft forms I have just read-to raise revenue necessary to the proper ad.ministration of t.he Government. The exercise of the taxing power for any other purpose than the raising of necessary revenue is therein denounced as a prostitution of the power. The Democracy of Missouri did itself the honor of proclaimin(}' a pre-eminentlv wise and l?atrio~ic principle in the ~ollowing lang~age: "The building up ~I one mdustry by a taxation, or at the expense of another, is foreign to th~ true aill!s of a free government, in which all the people, as to thetr legal rights, stand on an absolutely equal footina-." I, sir, favor equal rights to a:ll and special privileges to none.

0

. I do no~ see b.ow De.mocrat~ who favor this bill can escape from the dilemma m which this doctrme of the party places them. This bill invokes the taxing power; and if there is no necessity for it, if the revenues of the Government be sufficient, then it is an abuse of that power. I believe that it is conceded by all-the facts al'e staring all men in the face-that there is no necessity for an increase in the amount of revenue. The most difficult problem has confronted ns for years of how to get rid of the surplus revenues annually collected. This bill is clearly within the letter of the Constitution; but if there be no necessity, as I have already shown, for raising revenue, then it is au abuse of the constitutional power; it is a prostitution of it to the worst of purpos~s. The power is invoked and used deceptively contrary to the spirit of the Constitution. Such legislation, wrong in itself, makes a precedent to mislead and trouble our successors for all time. The bill oaght, therefore, never to pass.

Now, there is another way of reaching this evil, if it be an evil. The substitute which has been offered I believe is Senator PAD-

. ..,. I•

., ~ ,.

.. l

.·

..

.-

.-

I I ..... {: I · ..... •'

8970 CONGRESSIONAL· RECORD-HOUSE. AUGUST 21,

DOCK'S blll. It is infinitely better. It might be modified, a.bbreviaterl, and improved. A proposition not covering half the ground might be matured which would compel, under proper pains and pe?alties, the honest branding of these food products that a~e ~ed m interstate commerce. It would not apply when sold within the State where manufactured, but the Legislatures of the respective States have the power and capacity to deal with it there. I hope the bill will be defoated.

[Hero tht> hammer fell.] Mr. McCLAMUY. How much of the hour have I remaining? The SPEAKER pro tempore. The ~entleman has fifteen minutes re-

maining. Mr. MaCLAMMY. I yield that time to the gentleman from Ala

bama. [Mr. WHEELER].

[Mr. WHEELER, of Alabama, withholds his remarks for revision. See Appendix.]

UNITET> ST.A.TES COURTS IN VIRGINIA.

Mr. REED, of Iowa. I ask unanimous consent to report from the Committee on tbe Judiciary and put upon its passage the bill (H. R. 11206) to amend section 572 of the Revised Statutes so as to provide for the holding of the regular terms of the circuit and district courts for the western district of Virginia.

The bill was read, as follows: B~ it enacted, etc., Tha.t section 572 of the Revised Statutes be amended so as

to provide for the holding of the regular t~rms of the circuit and district courts in the we!'tern district of Virginia. as follows: At Danville on the Tuesday after the second Monday in April and November; at Lynchburgh_on the Tuesday after the second Monday in March and September; at Abingaon on the Tuesday after the first Monday in l\Iay and October, and at Harrison burgh on the Tuesday after the first l\1ondny in June and December.

There being no objection, the bill was reported by the Committee on the Judiciary, and the House proceeded to its consideration.

The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time; and it was accordingly read a third time, and passed.

Mr. REED, of Iowa, moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

The latter motion was agreed to.

BBIDGES OF MACON A.ND .A.TL.ANTIC RAILWAY.

Mr. BLOUNT. I ask unanimous consent for the present considerati.on of the bill (H. R. 11240) to authorize the construction of bridges over the Savannah, Ocmulgee, and Oconee Rivers by the Macon and Atlantic Railway Company.

There being no objection, the House proceeded t-0 the consideration of the bill, which the Clerk proceeded to read, when--

Mr. BLOUNT said: I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the further reading. This is a bridge bill in the ordinary form, and ·has been favorably report.ed by the Committee on Commerce.

There being no objection, the farther repding of the bill was dispensed with.

The bill was ordered to be engrossed and r~ad a third time; and it -was accordingly read the third time, and passed.

Mr. BLOUNT moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

The latter motion was agreed to. ENROLLED BILL SIGNED.

Mr. MOORE, of New Hampshire, from the Committee on Enrolled Bills reported that the committee had examined and found truly enrolled the bill (H. R. 1284) granting a pension to Theodora M. Piatt; when the Speaker signed the same.

The SPEAKER announced that Ur. DINGLEY would preside as Speaker pro tempore at the evening session of the House.

·And then, the hour of 5 o'clock having arrived, the House, in pursuance of iiB previous order, took a recess until 8 o'clock p. m.

EVENING SESSION.

The recess having expiretl, the Honse reassembled at 8 o'clock p. m., l\Ir. DrNGLEY in the chair as Speaker pro tetnpore.

COMPOUND LA.RD.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to order, the House meets this evening for debate only on the bill (H. R. 11568) de.fining "lard," also imposing a tax upon and regulating the manufacture and sale, importation and exportation, of compound lard.

Mr BRO~ros. I yield ten minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. SWENEY].

Mr. SWENEY. 1\1r. Speaker, those who favor thic:i bill declare for honesty and good morals; good morals in commercial transactions.

There are hogs and bogs. Iowa produces a greater number of fourfooted hogs which furnish the pork and lard for the world than any other State in the Union. Iowa's hl?gs often attain great size and weight. I have very great admiration for the cities of St. Louis, Kansas City, and particularly Chicago. One of the committee of able and

interesting gentlemen from that city, who were endeavoring t-0 make it so pleasant for us in the early part of this session, informed me that I was the first member of this body, outside the State of Illinois, who declared a preference for that city as the place for holding the World's Fair.

It is indeed a great city, and one of which Americans can well be proud. In the bogns-lard business Chicago is the chief offender, and in criticising the fraudulent practice of some of its citizens I cast no reflection on the city's general reputation for commercial honor. One of its Representatives years ago said on this floor that his district, being in the city of Chicago, raised more wheat than any other district in the United States. "It is raised in elevators," said he. Some of the Representatives from that city might also say that their districts produce or raise more lard than any other district in the United States. They produce much of it, however, from substance.':! entirely foreign to the anatomy of the honest four-footed hog of the farm. They raise lard by a process similar to that by which the expert penman raises a $4 check on the bank to 400. The rich and succulent hog of the farm can usually take care of himself and look out for his own interest, but when he meets the twenty-million-dollar thoroughbreds of his species walking on their hind legs about the city of Chicago or elsewhere he gets knocked out.

Mr. Speaker, a large proportion of the farmers in Iowa and in other corn-growing regions depend largely upon the sale of their bogs for legitimate returns for their industry. In the purchase, the slaughter, packing, and shipping ot the nineteen millions of hogs annually killed in the slaughter-houses, as shown by the Cincinnati Price Current's annual statistical report, therd is abundant room and opportunity for legitimate commercial transactions with fair profit, which have in years past given ample fortunes to many men engaged in that line of business.

Human ingenuity and greed for money have called to their aid ingenious mechanical contrivances and the science of chemistry with which to plunder the producers of hogs of a large proportion of their legitimate value, and at the same time to palm off a fraudulent pxoduct upon the millions of purchasers of what they suppose to be lard, not only in this country, but in every country to which American lard is shipped and sold. •

I do not propose to enter into a discussion of the question of whether or not cotton-seed oil is a. wholesome substitute for lard. If it is, then let it be used by those who want it. I-object to its heing sold as lard in fraud of raisers of hogs and of purchasers of supposed lard.

If we were to concede for the time being that what is known as compound lard-a mixture oflard,cotton-seed oil, and other substances, including sometimes beef fat, with which the art of chemistry combines sometimes from about 14 to 30 per cent. of water, and which costs less than one-half of what it actually costs the farmer in labor to produce pure lard-was just as pure, nu fa itious, and healthful a product as lard, yet being sold as it has been by the practice of deceit npon the purchaser, one of two things is inevitable-either the purchaser is swindled in the price which he is required to pay for what he supposes to be an honest farm product, or the price of the product is so broken down as to entail enormous loss upon the farmer who produces the honest article of food.

Without doubt both of these and other result.a occur. The producer of cotton-seed oil pos.."libly receives a little advance upon the price of that commodity by reason of the fraud; the lard compounder receives a larcenous percentage of profit; the producer of the hogs bas the market for his produce curtailed by the substitution, fraudulently, of a spurious article costing less than one-half what it does to produce lard, and he finds his legitimate market supplied to the extent of one-third by this substitution, and the price of his product is broken down. I read from the same standard authority last quoted by me1 from page 6:

Calendar year exported lard and valuation for ten years, and the average export price per pound and approximate average at OTLicago.

Year. Exported.

Pounds. 1889 ............ . .............. ...... . .............. 398, 000, 000 1888.... .... • ... . . . .. ••••.•• •. • .......... ...•• .. .... 270, 000, 000 1887................................................ 300 000, 000 1886 . . ...... , .. . ..................... ............... 331,000,000 1885 ................................................ 297, 000, 000 1884.... ......... ........ ....... .. ..• .. ....... ...... 228, 000, 000 1883 . . . . . . .... . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . .. . . . . .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . . 280, 000, 000 1882 ................................................ 233, 000, 000 1 1............. .......... .... .. . . . . . .. . .. . . . . .. ... 313, 000, 000 1880 ... ............................................ 415, 000, 000

Value.

$30, 400, 000 23,500,000 21, 900,000 22,500,000 22,200,000 20, 100,000 28, roo, ooo 27,800,000 33,700,000 33,600,000

Export Chicago pnce. price.

Oents. 7.00 8.70 7.80 6.80 7.50 8.80

10". 20 11.80 10.80 8.10

Cents. 6.50 8.40 6.75 6.25 6.50 7.95 9.65

11.45 10.00 7.3.S

Lard exp9rts embrace clearancl's of compound lard, in the manufacture of which in recent years 110,000,000 to 125,000,000 pounds of cotton-seed oil and beef fat (oelostearine) have been utilized.

COMPOUND LA.RD.

The manufacture of comuound lard has been carried on for manr, years on a large scale under the general designation of '' refined lard. ' The extent of the yearly production of this article can not be accurately

' \

•

··- - I

1890. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD--HOUSE. , .8971 et.ated; bnt it has been estimated to reach approximately 300,000,000 ponnd3, which is probably a fair estimate for years of larger production.

During the pas~ year it is believed the production has been reduced about 25 per cent., due to antagonism to this article in this country and abroncl and the low prices reached for pure lard. It is estimated that about two-thirds of the entire production to the country is made a.t Chicago. On this basis, and taking into consideration the disparity between reported shipments of lard for the year at Chicago and the indicated supply at that point as suggesting the extent of manufacture in that city, calculations show about 225,000,000 pounds as the aggregate manufacture during the pa.st year. This wouJd imply about 135,000,-000 pounds of cotton-oil and stearine used as mixtures. Of this quantity, cotton oil presents about 65,000,000 pounds and stearine about 70,000,000-the latter including the lard stearine used, which is estimated to be about 25, 000, 000 pounds, the remaining 45, 000, 000 pounds being oleostearine, a beef product.

Although the qnantity of cotton oil used in compound lard the past year has been somewhat diminished, the percentage has been increased of this ingredient, which has been of higher quality this season than the preceding year, owing to better condition ot c<>tton seed.

A reliable estimate of the quantity or proportions of compound lard which is disposed of by exportation is not available, but it is conceded to be large.

A prominent feature of complaint in the earlier agitation concerning compound lard and those who offered it was the fact that packages containing the article were not branded so a~ to indicate that it was a mixed product. It was held by the manufacturers t~at "refined lard" was a term implying that it wa~ not pure lard. This, however, did not convey such impression to the consumer as a rnle, and the demand that the branding should be made to designate the character of the goods offered was a just one, in the interest of the consumer as well as the producer of the unmixed article for which it served as a substitute.

This requirement is now complied with by the manufacturers in product exported as well as offered for domestic consumption. The word "compound" has had the effect to create more or less predjudice against the refined product thus offered, nevertheless it is in favor in this country and largely so in foreign markets, and considering the enlarged production and lower values of the pure-lard product the past year the distribution oftbe compound has been well sustained.

If the calculations herewith offered are approximately correct, the year's addition to lard product by beef fat and cotton oil has been about 110,000,000 pounds, equivalent in weight to the lard product of about 3,150,000 bogs.

It is stated in the foregoing that the manufacturers now brand their adulterated articles ''compound lard." These gentlemen, however, have claimed and insisted that it was morally and legally ri~ht to sell this stuff under the name of ''refined lard. 1 ' They claimed that it was not wrong to permit people to buy it without knowing that it was not pure la.rd. One who is morally so obtuse can not be trusted to surrender profit voluntarily.

Producers and consumers have been swindled by them, and demand that a watch be put over' them. They can afford to pay something to the revenues of their country if they put their compounds into intersrote and international commerce. They require watching, too, that they do not bring the country into further disrepute.

It has been urged that to pass this bill will deprive cotton-seed oil of a proportion of its value by preventing its use in the manufacture of compound lard. It is urged that it will be a blow to the colored people who labor in the fields in the production of cotton as well as to the white people of the South. A gentleman said on the floor a couple of days ago that it was a question of "the bog versus the nigger." It was not on this side of the House that the-statement was made. This country, Mr. Speaker, can do no better service to the colored or the white people than to impress upon them the fact that "honesty is the best policy,'' and that no argument which involves commercial frand and dishonor weighs in favor of any class of people or any section of this country.

The effrontery of these dealers is marvelons. In the evidence taken by the Senate Committee and reported by the House Committee on Agriculture I find that one of the great lard com pounders of Chicago, made the following statement in reply to the following question by Senator GEORGE:

Q. You think that if there was only 20 per cent. of lard that it would be right to brand that as refined lard.

A. Yes, sir. If we choose to use our brand, which is our capital in business, which is the thing we make our money out of, which is our reputation, and we are able to sell that welt-known brand all over the country in larger quantities than any other concern in the world; of refined lard very much larger, and we have been doing it for twenty-five years. If we choose to say that we are willing to put in our brand as refined lard only about 20 per cent. of lard we consider it perfectly fair to do it..

And the following, in reply to a question propounded by Senator PLUMB:

Q. Suppose there were 20 per cent. pure lard in your compound, would you regard it as a fair thing to the trade to sell it as refined lard without letting every one know that it was a compound?

A. After we have been putting up refined lard for twenty-five years we claim to be expert in the manufacture of edible lard for domestic purposes. If we

consider that we can make an article that meets the demand of our trade, fulfills f.he wants of the trade, and is pure and wholesome and valuable and can put in 50 per cent. or 60 per cent. of cotton-seed oil and harden it with 20 per cent. of lard to make it firm, it meets the demand of our trade. That is what, they want. We know what they want better than they do themselves.

Here is a statement of what these men claim; that they bavean absolute right to a. compound and place upon the market, under the name of ''Refined lard,'' ''Refined family lard,'' and ''Pure refined family lard," a mixture in which there is not more than 20 to 30 or 40 per cent. oflard.

I quote from the evidence taken by the Senate committee: TESTDlO::SY OF PROFESSOR II. W. WILEY.

A large number of samples were submitted to the Bureau of Agriculture for examination, and the resnlt is set forth in the testimony of Professor Wiley1 as follows:

Q. Take your tabulated statement and give us the results of the samples that were manufactured by Fairbank & Co. Do that without my interrupting you with questions. I shall be glad to have you do that in order to expedite matters. And in your answers please give the ingredients, i:io far as you know them. of thei;e samples made by Fairbank: & Co.

A. Wehavetwelveof Fairbank'ssamplestabulated, andthere~re three orfour more that have not been tabulated. Of the t.welve that ha.ye been tabulated all contain cotton-seed oil.

Q. Give the different brands of these samples. A. Eigbtare branded "Prime refined family lard," one is branded" Choice re-

fined family lard," and one is hranded "Compound la.rd." Q. Have you any of Fa.irbank's that do not contain cott-0n·sced oil? A. No, sir. Q. Where were these manufactured? A. They were manufactured in Chicago. Q.. How many samples have you from Armour & Co.? A. I have twelve samples from Armour & Co. Q. Tell us bow they are branded? A. Some are branded "Pure refined family lard," one is branded" Kettle re

fined lard," three are branded" Choice refined family lard," and one is branded "Superior compound lard."

Q. State what these lards a.re composed of, as far as you know. A. Ten of them contain cotton-seed oil and two of them a.re pure lard. Q. In that connection, state how it is that you can determine that there is

cotton-seed oil in these lards? A. By the reaction of cotton-seed oil and nitrate of silver. Q. Take the next sample. A. Another lard, manufactured by Adam H. Worthemllll &; Co., of Phlla.del

phia, contained 17.4 per cent. of water, and another sample, manufactured by C. F. Teijen, of New York, contained 35.5 per cent. of water. Some have as low as 1 per cent., but very few, and I would not call that added water.

TESTIMONY OF PROFESSOR SHARPLESS.

Professor Sharpless, among other things, testified: Q. State what those two specimens, 7'102 and 7205, are. State whether you

have subjected them to tests. A. I subjected them both to tests, and found that they both contained largely

of beef fat and cotton-seed oil. Q. How much lard did you find in them? A. I have not yet succeeded in finding any lard. I found no trace of lard in

them. (These two specimens were purchased in a grocer's store in New

York, were made by Halstead & Co., and branded "Pure family lard.'') In the examination of Mr. Fairbank, before referred to, in answer

to the question: 'Vould you object to the formula bein_g pressed on each package of what that

compound is? A. OI course I would object. because every manufacturer has certain formulas

and certain mixtures in putting up which he does not want to give away to his customers.

This con:pound has been branded wherever used as relined lard. Mr. Fairbank, in reply to this question: Why not change your trade-mark to refined lard. compounded of 50 per cent.

of pure lard, hogs' fs.t, 20 per cent. refined cotton-seed oil, and 30 per cent. of refined beef tallow? That shows just what you are made of. Would that injure you?

A. Yes, sir. l\fr. Speaker, not only the welfare of o-:ir people who are engaged in

the legitimate ind us try in this con ntry of producing hogs and in slaughtering and marketing them is involved. These dishonest, unconscionable compounders have practiced their fraud upon our own country and are bringing our products into disrepute abroad.

I insert here a. letter contained on pages 180, 181, and 182 of the reports of consuls of the United States for February, 1889:

Bis .Excellency the Minister: CHAM.BER OF CoM!lERCE, Nantes, May 31, 1889.

Sm: I have the honor to address you a copy of a letter which was written us by the manufacturers of salted provisions and lards in our district, The signers of the letters have at different times requested us to transmit to the de· partment of ma.rine and of the colonies well-founded observations of the condition to which their ind us try is placed in consequence of the custom-house regula· tions of the' French colonies; now they rest their complaints upon new grounds.

The American lards have gradually supplanted thos~ which were former~y furnished by the mother country, until at present our exports to Martinique and Guadeloupe are virtually nothing. Now, the fact can not be explained solely by a difference in price existing between American and French lards; it is principally due, it appears, to the factthatour colonies receh-e under the name of la.rd adulterated and unwholesome products which bear about the same relation to lard as margarine does to butter.

Perhaps it would be difficult to our colonial authorities, considering the special corps of officials required by chemical inspections, to have all American lards examined before we place them on the market: perhaps, also, the Government would hesitate to have absolute prohibition of the importation of these products in the French colonies. But there is another means of guarding against these frauds, and tha.t is to impose on American lards presented for admission an im· port ta:x, which would have the effect of allowing our people to meet the competition which is given them by products of greatly inferior quo.lit:;, and which are entitled t-0 the preference that they enjoy only through fraudulent methods

I•

,_ .. - .. _

. ..

J.

·.·

~, -· .·

·.· .·'

..

·1 • ... ,.

,I

.,

:·

. I

..

·-

~ ' ...

--

.-


of manufncturing. As our consignees state, these frauds explain the difference between thefr lards and the foreign prodnct. and the consumer is alwa.yt1 incJined to seek an apparently cneap article, without caring so much as be ought a.bout the va.lue of the article.

For merchandise other than alimentary products the reduction of the ens· toms duty wouJd seem to be justified by the inferiority of the material bonded, but we think, your excellency, when the preservation of health is at stake, the rule should be reversed, and that, in default of prohibition, a greatly increased tax should warn the consumer and arouse his suspicions.

Accept, etc., RIVRON,

Preaiden.t of the Chamber of CommA11·ce.

Mr. Pi·esidenl, .Memberi of the Cham}Jel' of Conwnerce: GE:NTLE..,tEN: We ha.Ye just cal led your attention to a fraud which is committed

on a. large scale. and entails a. considerable loss t-0 our agriculture. In fact, almost the entire quantity of American lards which are imported in

Fmnce and our colonies contains about 50 per cent. of cotton-seed oil. To be convinced oft.his fraud it is only necessary to refer to the lawsuit which took place recently in England, (See Union Brt!tonne, August 9, 1888; Esperance du peuple, August 9, 1888.)

[Extracts from newspapers printed in the consular report i·eferred to.] 'Ve find in the Liverpool Evening Express. June 30, 1888, the synopsis of a

trial which we deem it advisable to publish. It treats of the frauds which are perpetrated In American lards. It particu

larly concerns a branch of trade most important in onr city, as well as to many groceri! and above all the consumers themselves, and consequently the public health.' Why, then, should we refrain from calling our readers' attention to the grave question? Below is a resume of the trial :

FRAUDS L"< LARDS-DIPORTA:'.'>~r· PROSECL'TIOXS.

Seveni.l wholesale dealers and importers of Liverpool ha.Ye been summoned before the court of the city for selliOJr .American lards which did not conform to the requirements of the law either in character, substance, or quality.

Mr. Marks, as a member of he health committee, conducted the prosecution. He said that on May 14 Inspector Baker, whose duty it is to supervise the sale of all food prodticts, visited the establishment of the defendants. He secured a sample and submitted it for analysis to Dr. Campbell Brown, who gave a.certificate to the effect that the lard be analyzed (bearing the brands of Armour & Co., and Fairbanks Brothers, of Chicago) contained considerably more than 40 per cent. of a. mixture of cotton-seed oil, stearine, and mutton or beef suet.

Dr. Brown, being called, said that he believed the lard that he analyzed contained even more than 40 per cent. of the mixture. He added that the pro· duction of cott-0n-seed oil in the United States amounts annually to between 180,000.000 and 200,000,000 pounds, and that one-half of it is used to adulterate the producli which is sold under the name of "refined lard."

Dr. Brown still further added that, while genuine Jard is worth 4-ZS. 6d. per 100 pounds, cotton-seed oil is only worth 22s. 6d., and beefsuet30s. The fraudulent manufacturers reap the enormous profit, which is a grievous blow to the honest manufacturer who sells the genuine article, and at the same time the corumme1·s are buying a commodity which is fraudulent, defective, and improper. The defendants were convicted.

The reading of this trial i-eminds us that La Soleil, of July 7, mentions a case where one hundred soldiers of the one hundreth regiment., at Perpignan, were poisoned, it is said, by the use of American grease in preparing codfti!h.

The Liverpool Journal and other papers in England and Scotland, in June and July, 1888, contai!led numerous accounts of arrests and punishment of dealers there for selling these <'Ompounds from Chicago. From the account and comments made by the Liverpool Journal of June 21, 1888, I extract this, included in the consular reports:

The lard manufacturers of America. have been making·enormous fortunes. as may be readily assumed when the total production is close on to 200,000,000 pounds a. yea>'. If one-half of this consists of cotton-seed oil and stearine and the whole is sold to the public as genuine lard and charged at the price of the pure article, there is little rea.son to gainsay the common rumor that the hog men of Chicaflo have been growing tremendously rich. Thea.ction of the public analyist of Liverpool will tend to check these fortunes and also to protect the public against a shameful adulteration. Dr. C-'ampbell Brown appears to have been working at this subject for the last eighteen months.

There wasgrea.t. practical difficulty in discriminating between the different oils compounded with what is called Americiin lard. Hog fat and cotton-seed oil are not easily distinguishable when they are blended together. Bo,vever, Dr. Campbell Brown has mastered the difficulty by patient research and innumerable tests. He is able not only to detect the presence of the~e various oils, but to differentiate their quantities, so that chemical science hasatlen1rth overtaken the arts of the adulterants. He was able to certify in eon rt yesterday that the samples of" lard" contained 30 per cent. of cQtt-On-seed oil and 10 per cent. stearine. Upon this evidence l\Ir. Railes imposed a fine of £5 and costs in each case, and with this judgment public opinion will heartily concur.

But there was one phase of the lard trade incidentally mentioned, which deserves some attention. It is instructive to the pqblic, and is also a revelation. lt was argued that the article in question was sold a.s "refined lard," and the issue was what meaning the consumer a.ttaches to this designation. A housewife will probably assume that" refined lard" was an article of exceptional purity and genuineness, and when she bought "refined lard" she would ima~ine that she was getting the best article procurable. This, however, would be a deception. It was gravely argued yesterday that "refined lard" is not in any t1ense a synonym for the pure article; on the contrary, that it is a. trade name for someth\ng which may not be lard at all, but a compound of any sort of stuff which the manufacturer may choose to put into it.

Mr. Pick.Iord, who on behalf of the defendants yesterday propounded this dochine, presented it in I\ crude and indefinite form. He scarcely did justice to the audacity of some of the manufacturers of "refined la.rd." The subject h&ppens to have been investigated by a select committee of the United States Congre!s, and the evidence which they gathered is instructive. Prof. H. \V. 'Wiley proved that he had examined numerous samples of lard manufactured by Messrs. Fairbank & Co. Eight were branded "Prime refined family lard, 11 one was "Choice refined family la.rd," another was " Pure refined family la.rd," another was •·Compound la.rd;" but whether pure, refined, or compound, every sample conta.ined cotton-seed oil. The products of another Uhica.go firm, :Messrs. Armour & Co., were similarly branded, and of twelve exam· ined ten contained cotton-seed oil and two were pure lard. The portions of wllich the genuine article stands to the adulterants of course vary. but as Messrs. Armour admit that they use 75~000 barrels of cotton-seed oil a year, a pretty good idea may be formed of the extent of the l'ophistication.

There was no attempt on the pa.rt of the Chicago lard man ufa.cturers to deny the fact that they use cotton-seed oil and other ingredients in what t.hey sell t-0 the world as lard. Theya.cknowledge the fact and justify it. They sa.y that the "re.fined lard" which they sell does not pretend to be pure lard; it is a com-

pound, and is known all the world over as a compound, which perhaps may be news to the aYerage English housewi.te: If refined la.rd is a compound, the thought naturally suggests itself that it should on the fa.ce of it be branded as a ''compound," and Mr. !."airbank, head of the flrm whose name has been mentioned, was asked in the Congress committee whether be would object t<> brand ea.ch packag::e as a. compound. His answer was explicit and informing: "Of courl'el would object, because every manufacturer has certain formulas and certain mixtures ir1 putting up which he does not want to give away to bis customers.''

From the Midland Advertiser of J nly 7, 1888, I extract the followin~. These reports will in a measure explain to the farmers of Iowa. w by th ell' swine-raising has recently been so unprofitable, as well as how the commercial honor of the country has suffered througb the perpetration of these frauds:

SELLING ADULTERATED AMERICAN LARD.

[The Midland Advertiser, Saturday, July 7, 1888.) At the Wednesbury police court, on Tuesday, before Mr. Neville (stipendiary

magistrate), George Blackham, grocer, Darlaston, was summoned, at the instance of l\lr. J.E. Morris, inspector under the food and drugs act, for having sold Jard of the nature and quality demanded. l\Ir. R. A. ~ilcock, \Volverton Hampton. appeared in support of the complainant, and Mr. J. Slater for the defense.

In opening the case l\Ir. Wilcock stated that l\Ir. Morris went to the defendant's 11hop and saw two lots of la.rd, the one marked 5d. and 6d. per pound. He bought some of the former, and the defendant. who served him, on being told that it wa.s for the purpose of analysis, said that be bought the lard as pure, and believed itto be pure, and if it,va.snot it would be very hard to prosecute the re· tailt>r. The lid of each tin was marked, "Armour & Co. 's pure refined lard, Chicago, U.S. A., 28 lb. net .. " A pa.rt of the sample bought was sent to Mr. Jones, analyst, who found that it contained 17 per cent. of cotton-seed oil. After proceedings ha<l been commenced the Liverpool agents: for Messrs. Armour & Co. issued the following circular, namely :

"Armour's refined lard.-It bas been decided that Armour's refined lard, as hereto imported from Chica.go, can not be sold as pure lard, but as mixed. 'Ve shall be hanpy to make any reasonable allowance that you may think needful to repay you for any t~mporary trouble or it1conYenience you may experience in selling the mixed as distinct from the pure lard, or take be.ck any unsold portion at your option later on should you find any trouble, which we hardly anticipate, as Messrs. Armour's refined la.rd is or unimpeachable quality for domestic purposes [laughter) and contains the most thoroughly health-givini: properties, and is extensvely used by the general public all over the world. (Pilling, Stanley & Co., Liverpool, June 26 1878.)"

With this was e. label, which was supplied to eYery purchaser, bearing the words, "Armour's refined lard. This product is mixed." AJthough Mr. Blackham was there as defendant, the prosecution felt that the real oH'enders were the American refiners who sent into this country an article so extensively adulterat~cl with cotton-seed oil that it was worth only half the sum charged for it., The prosecution asked for a heavy fine, io order to check the importation of adulterated lard. Evidence as to the purchase and analysis having been given, Mr. Slater, for the defense, said his client bought the lard from Messrs. Carter, Woodin~& Co., Liverpool, who received it from Messrs. Pillings, Stanley & Co., Messrs. Armour's agents; and to show that. Mr. Blackham was not gaining large profits from the transa.ction, b~ might mention that that gentleman paid 42s. per cwt. for the lard, being equal to 4}d. per pound, and retailed it at 5d. per pound. The wholesale dealers had, since the proceedings had begun, written to say that they sold a.ny American lard as pure, but excepted it as pure refined. [La.ughter.j

The stipendiRry said that be did not understand the prosecution to suggest that the English retail del\lers got large profits; it was the Americans who were said to be doing that. The word "pure," it would be noticed on the label, is in very small type. l\Ir. Slater thanked the stipendiary for the information with redgar to his client, and went on to argue that the Inscription on the tins was practically a guaranty within the meaning of the a.ct or the purity of the mrd. 'rhe stipendiary held that it was not a warranty under the twenty-fifth section of the act, and went on to say that so far as the defendant was concerned he no doubt bought the lard as pure, and had not made much profit out of it; the profit, unfortunately, was got on the other side of the water. The only way to stop the traffic seemed to be to impose a substantial fine, and in this case the penalty '~ould be £5 and costs, whic.h no doubt the defendant would be able to recover.

Mr. F. F. Smith, Liverpool, who appeared for the wholesale dealers. asked the stipendiary to reserve his decision until the other cases were heard, but the application was not acceded to. Mr. Slater intimated that he would appeal, and the stipendiary consented to grant him a case.

\Yillie.m \Vilkes, grocer, Darlaston, was summoned for a liko offense, and the adulteration with cotton-seed oil was pro\·ed to be 19 per cent. l\!r. F. Smith asked the magistrate to impose a. smaller penalty, the adulteration beina ef· fected in America, but bis worship declined to yield to the appeal, and said l\fr. Jones bad acted the part of a. public benefactor in discovering the adulteration. He imposed a fine of £5 and costs. _

''a.Bier John Raybould, grocer, Dudley Port, was also summoned for a like offense, the lard, which has. as in the previous cases Messrs. Armour & Co.' a brand, being shown to contain 13 percent. of cotton-seed oil. Mr. F. Smith, who appeared for the defense, submitted that it was a great hardship upon the Englii;h retail dealers, who were trying to comply with the Jaw, to fine them heavily. He ha.d the honor of appearing in the first cases, which were heard at Fenton, and the disclQstue of the adulteration then came on the English dealers a,s a great surprise. Of course, if after ihis the dealers went on selling the mixt. ureas pure lard his worship would know how to deal with them. A fine of £5 and costs was imposed in this case also.

Following the able report on agriculture, we may, in view of the facts and evidence, say:

Exactly what the people have beeu consuming in this product of the laboratory no history relates. And what they may regale their stomachs with in the future if this imposition is not curtailed baffles the utmost resources or prophecy, \Vith opportunities so g-reat and facilities so superior for the employment of chemistry in the production of food, and the power of man to resist the solicitations of <J.varice so feeble, as illustrated in the history ot this industry, your committee entertain a firm conviction tl1a.t the business should be subjected to legal control in the interest ot pure food, fair trade, commercial honor, and busi • ness integrity.

The commercial importance of lard, not only in our domestic but in foreign markets as 'vell, will be appreciated when it is remembered that there a.re in the United States nearly 50,000,000 hogs, worth nearly $300,000,000, and that of the G00,000,000 pouncls or lard produced, 318,000,000 pounds, worth over S27,000.-000, are exported to foreign markets. The city of Chicago alone ships annually 05,000,000 pounds oflard in excess of the a~gregate a.mount received and ma.nu· facturecl in the city. This represents the contingent·ot cotton-seed oil and tallow. The same thing occurs to a less extent in Kansas City, St. Louis, Cincinnati, New York, and other places. The injurious effect of this enormous dis-

• l . t.

18~0. C-ONGRESSIONAL REOORD-~OUSE. 8973 placement of the fat of the bog in the markets of the world by oil and tallow, upon manufacturers of lnrd and growers of swine. is demonstrably clear. It is hardly surprising in view of these facts that from 1883 to 1889 the price of prime steam lard fell from 10 to 6 centa per pound.

l\Ir. Hately in his testimony stnkd thatthe introduction of these compounds would make a difference of 3:lcents in theva.lue of the hogs received in Ohicago in 1886-'87; and, ta.king the entire product of the country, he estimates that it would amount t-0 from 513,000,000 to $15,000,000, or a sum nearly three times as large as the ent\re cotton-seed oil product, and that the farmers or the country could afford to buy the oil crop of the nation and pour it into the sea. and be millons of dollars in pocket if the "compound fraud" was stopped.

Your committee believe that no public interest at this time presses with such extreme urgency upon the attention of Congress as some measure of relief to the distress of agriculture. This industry is the foundation of all ow: prosperity. All other trades rest in it iike spokes in a. hub, and are bound to it with a tire of dependence. History gives no example of a country surviving its decay. This interest has been in alarming stra.its; hunted down, at bay, fighting for life. Among its pursuers are the trades that are conceived in fraud and operated tn concealment stealing the markets from honest producers. And it will be a reproach to the nation to longer snfler them to prey upon the farming industries of the country. ·

actly what he is buying, and then the vender would be entitled to ask an in· creased price over pure leaf. The Government alone can manage this matter, and should do so.

The people must be protected by the Government or they will not cheerfully support the Government. Thisadultemtion injures the reputation of our products at home and abroad and is of necessity an injury to the health of consumers. All 've ask is for the Government by stringent laws t-o protect the people of this country and foreign countries from such impositions as would be imposed upon them by unscrupulous men of different States. We ask and demand protection to honest interstate commel"Ce, and a prohibtion of dishonesty n same line. We will be satisfied with nothing less.

The· Pork-Packers' Association of Cincinnati, in their petition to Con· gress, say:

So widespread bas this adulleration become, it is believed that of the 600,-000,000 pounds of lard produced annually in the United States more than 35per cent. is subjected t-0 greater or less adulteration from the introduction of cotton- ' seed oil, beef and mutton tallow, grease, vei;t'etable products, chemicals, and other adulterants. These compounds are sold under circumstances which lead t11c public to believe them to be pure articles , and are sold, in consequence, at prices greatly in excess of their a ctual value.

These fraudulent practices have not on1y injured our market abroad, but unless Congress shall act promptly and vigorously to put an end Similar statements are made by State Leizislatures, State and local to such dishonorable methods the American people will be judged by granges, State and local alliance associations, boarrls of trade, pork· the code of commercial morals which Congress permits in America's in- packers, and the people at large. ternational trade. We can not afford to accept those lard-com pounders' The statement made here in the debate to-day that there· had been code of morals. no call for this legislation has been asserted by those who have not read

Mr. Speaker, this matter, having been brought to the attention of the report of the Committee on Agriculture. Congress, demands a speedy remedy. Speaking for the people of Iowa, I can not better show the importance of this legislation than by the who have $28,000,000 invested in swine, I stand here and demand that insertion here of the following portion of this report: these frauds upon them shall cease. The Constitution places in the The commercial importance of lard, not only in our domestic but. in foreign bands of Congress alone the power to correct this evil. markets as "~ell, will be appreciated when it is remembered that there a.re in

The people of Iowa have been annually for.years robbed of millions o1 the United States nearly 50,000,000 ho~, worth nearly $300,000,000, and that, of d Thi h

the 600,000,000 pounds of la.rd produced, 318,000,000 pounds, worth over m,ooo, .. dollars by this, as bare faced a fraud as was ever perpetrate · s oug t coo, are exported to foreign ma.rkets. The city of Chicago alone ships annually not to be a question of party or politics. It is .a question of morals, of 5.'l,000,000 pounds of lard in excess of the a{.?gregate amount received and manu• Congressional duty. It is our right to be protected, from this traud. factured in the city. '£his represents the contingent of cotton-seed oil and tal•

h d h low. The same thing occurs to a less extent in Kansas City, St. Louil/, Cincfn•

It is the dnty of Congress to afford t at protection an to s ow to the nati, New York, and other places. The injurious effect of this enormous dl&o people that in commercial transactions over which Congress has con- placement of the fat of the bog in the markets of the world by oil and tallow. trol when frauds are made known they are quickly righted, and, too, upon manufacturers of lal"d and growers of swine, is demonstrably clear. It fa that a good name and fame are of as much importance to Americans ~t~~~1!~alf~\~\~!-~~ 1~t:6 °:e~~~8;!:~~;~tt from.

1883 to

18~'9 the price of prime as to any people on earth. Mr. Hately,in bis testimony, stated thattheintroductionoftbese<'..ompouncls

Mr. BROSIUS. I now yield ten minutes to · the gentleman from would make a. difference of 32 cents in the value of the hogs received in Ohl· Minnesota [l\Ir. Du.KNELL]. ca.go in 1886-'87; and, ta.king the entire product of the country, he estimates

that it woul~ amount t~ lrom $13,000,~ to $15,000,000. or a sum nearly three Mr. DUNNELL. :Mr. Speaker, the provision that was made on Tues- times as large as the entire cotton-seed-oil product, and that the farmers of the

day last for the consideration of bills reported by the Committee on Agri- country could afford to buy the oil crop of the nation and pour it into the sea and culture was, in my opinion, eminently wise and proper. It is almostim- be millions of dollnrs in pocket if the ·•compound fraud,, was stopped.

possible for us to overestimate the dignity and importance of the agri- Allow me, Mr. Speaker, to bring ont in my remarks1 at this point, a cultural pursuits of our people. We legislate more for other interests few statistics touching the value of the farm. products of the United than for the agricultnralinterests of the people. We legislate for man- States. These aggregated last year the sum of $3, 829, 000, 000. Tb.is ufacturers; we legislate for wholesale importers. We b n.ve had too is an enormous sum. These products, aftecting all the people and little clear, distinct legislation in the inte1·ests of agriculture. It was, the channels of trade, were brought up out of the bowels and from therefore, a matter of great satisfaction that, by the adoption of the the surface of the earth, by the agricultmists of the country. This order of business to which I have referred, provision wa.s made for the Jarge volume of wealth approximates $4,090,000,000. I busied my· consideration of the lJills that have already been before us, t.he bill self this afternoon, a little while, in looking over the value of a few now before us, and the one that shall come up on Tuesday next·, namely, of the farm product.a in the United States. I found the potato crop of the anti-option bill, the dealing in futures. 1888, in round numbers, was valued at $81,000,000; the hay crop, in

Our agricultnralinterestsarevery great1 and t.he products of the farms 1889, $408,000,000; the tobacco crop of 1889, $43,000,000; the cotton

of this country have more than once been a great source of national re- crop, in 1889, $292, 000, 000; the corn crop of the same year, $597,000,000, lief and aid. You will remember, Mr. Speaker, how, '7hen we were and the wheat crop, $342,000,000. I have also two or three items of struggling to resume specie payments in this country, we were aided by statistics in relation to swine. In 1860, the swine were valued at $33,· the immense crops of those years of financial trial; and you will re01:em- 000,000 in round numbers; in 1870, $25,000,000. You can see the ber that the larf!e exports we then enjoyed of farm products helped us work of the war in lessening the aggregate value in 1870 below what out in the resumption of specie payments. The same products of it w:is in 1860. . England, in the same way, once saved that nation from a very disgrace- I In 1~0, t~he swin? of the co~ntry were valued at ·$~71 000,000. The ful attitude before the world. valuation Qt the swme, 1890, IS $243,000,000. Here is seen the value Ii seems to me a duty I owe to the farmers, whom I have the honor to rep- of one prod net of the farms, $243, 000, 000. This enters, of course, into

re!ent on this floor, that I take the ten minutes which are granted me_. the general farm products, as I have already said, amounting in value to give the reasons for my support of this measure. The bill before us to nearly $4,000,000,000. has for its object a restriction upon the manufacture and sale ofcompound At this point, I will submit as a part of my remarks, taken from the lard. There has been growing up, as we all know, this manufacture of very able report of the Committee on A~ricnlture, the following tables:

Average p.-ice of !togs from 1883 to 1890.

Year. i'

Price. , Year.

componndlard, refined lard, or la.rd compound. By this means an injury has been done to the pork-growing interests of the cquntry, and a very great injury. There has come from every quarter of the country a demand for legislation that this compound lard, or lard compound, should go out from the manufacturers into the country and into the mar~ets

1 Price.

------------11- --li _ -- - --

well branded, well known, well designated. 1883 ... ............... ........... ..... .. ..... . This demand bas come to us from every part of the Union. In the 188-1.. ........... .. . .. ................ ....... .

report which the committee has presented to the House, there are ex- i::::::::::::::::::::::·:::::::::: .. ::::::::: tracts from letters, petitions, and resolutions coming from every sec-

u I !IL::::.::::: .. :::::.:::.::::;::: 1:~ tion of the country, indeed from every State, save two. A resolution from Texas says:

If it is true, &S claimed !Jy the mixersofcotton-seed oil, lard, and trulow, that they can produce a better article from these ingredients from one-half cent to 2 cents less per pound, all right, but let them stamp each vessel in which it is offered for sale with its component parts.

Let us by ru1 means ha.Ye an anti-adulteration law.

Here is a statement from the State Grange of Georgia: If a revolution 'vould be averted, some regard must be had for the interest of

the masses. Many are growing very impatient. Now, while cotton-seed oil ia a product of our section , we do not want to buy lard mixed with cotton-seed oil and etearine and branded pure leaf lard. If cotton-seed oil, etc., makes the lard better, Rs some claim, let it be branded as such , and let the purchaser know ex-

·.

Total lai·d production in the United Statesfroni 1877 to 1888.

Year. Total.

Pounds. 1887-188.................. ......... ... 489, 902, 000 1886-'87 ......... ..................... 527,032,000 1885-'86... .. ...... ....... .. ... ....... 514, 230, 000 1884-'85..................... ...... ... 480, 405, 000 1883-'M .............................. 444, 450, 000 1882-'83...... ........ ...... ......... 419, 513, 000

"·-

Year.

1881-'82 ............................ . 1880-'81. .... . ; ..................... . 1879-180 ........................... .. 1878-'79 ............................ . 1877-'78 ........................... .

Total.

Pounds. 468, 929, 00() 517,660,000 479, 020, 00() 514,295,000 404, l'S72, 000

·' .

...! '

.. -

·~

- : ..

-: . ,,

- .-:--

',

•'

I;

I

.,

• I

... ... } ~

.· .... , ......... -~ -. • I• ... 8974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. AUGUST 2,

. Year.

1873 ............................... . 1874 ............................... . 1875 ........... '-·····- ···· .. ······ 1876 ......... ••·····•·······•······ 1877 ............................... . 1878 ............................... . 1879 ............................... . 1880 ............................... . 1881 ........... - .•. .-...•.........

E:cports from 1873 to 1889.

Lard exported.

Pounds. 234, 901, 511 lH4, 100, 226 167, 579, 377 198, 008, 212 237, 744, 3'17 345, 693, 5'a 343, 119, 208 405, 437, 658 335, 001, 686

Year.

1882 ........................... .. 1883 ............................ . 188-i ............................ . 1885 ............................ . 1886 ............................ . 1887 ............................ . 1888 ............................ . 1889 •....•..... .............. ... .

Price of prime steam lard since 1883.

Lard exported.

Pounds. 239, 904, 657 273, 236, 610 228, 165, 733 301, 30.5, 100 298, 083, 09'1 324, 515, 2.!4 297, 740, 007 318, 242, 990

_ _ v_ear_. - I P<W~ 11--Ye_a._r. --i-Pr_i<'e.

1883 ................. ........................... 1 c{f:.t{2 II 1887 ................. .... .................... Cen~f."a 1884............................................ 8. 6 1888.................... ............... ...... 7. 2 1885 ................................ ••·••······ 6. 6 1889. .. ..•...•. .............................. 6. 7 1886. ....................................... ... 6.0

The foregoing tables are worthy of study. When "'.e consider the question ot pure lard, demanded at home and by foreign buyers, we shall not fail to consider our immense corn crop. A very large portion of this corn product should and will find itself in the hog crop. The foreign bayei: demands pure lard. I insert here a resolution .passed by the Liverpool Prod.nee Exchange:

We, the undersigned, members of the Liverpool Produce Exchange, as mer· chants and brokers interested in the importation of American hog products, de· sire to protest against an adulterated compound being sent to us under the name of Jard. We shall welcome any measure passed in Congress that is likely to secure shipments to our market of a pure, unadulterated article, which we can with confidence sell to our customers as lard. The known adulteration is seriously affecting our trade, n.s it surrounds it with suspicion and lack of confidence.

Some tell us that the pending bill is unconstitutional. This was said when Congress passed the oleomargarine bill. The constitutionality of that act bas never been called in question. The value of that enactment to the dairy interests of the country has been almost beyond computation. Some have dwelt upon the small "tax imposed by this bill. Some tax is necessary that j urisdictiou may be had by the Government of the United States. I do not care how light this tax may be, provided an efficient administration of the law is secµred.

It is a matter of congratulation that under the pending order of business of the House, we have already passed the meat inspection bill and now bavo under discussion this compound-lard bill. This House can not fail to pass it. Then, on Tuesday and Wednesday of next week, we shall discuss, and pass, I trust, the option t ill, in trod need by the honorable gentleman from Ohio [Mr. BUTTERWORTH]. If we shall then pass the Paddock pure-food bill, this branch of the National Legislature may be justly called the popular branch, in that it shall have heard and yielded to the voice and demand of the people.

The honorable gentleman from Alabama (Mr. OATES] has read some party platforms to the honorable gentleman from Missouri (Mr. HATCH], an able member of the Committee on .Agriculture and the chairman of it in the last Congress, as though he could draw him away from a cordial support of thi.s measure. The gentleman from Missouri U, safe, for when his cons ti tu en ts discover bis intelligent zeal in a matter that comes home to them they will take care of him in the future as they have in the past.

Mr. Speaker, allow me, in closing, to say that there have been more calls upon me to remain in my seat and raise my voice in behalf of the Conger bill than have ever come to me at any time on any other subject while I have had the honor to occupy a seat in this House. A telegram from the secretary of the State Alliance reads: "We want the Conger and the Butterworth bills.'' I have remained here, as was my duty, that I might be present and cast my vote upon them. I asked the privilege of submitting some remarks in the full House, but the time was limited, and I was willing to take the few minutes allotted to me, in this evening sessio , that I might join wit h others in behalf of the passage of this bill.

[Here the hammer fell.] Mr.IDLL. Mr. Speaker, Iregretverymuchthatihavenoprepared

speech to deliver on this occasion. I regret it, sir, because I feel that the importance of this subject demands at om bands the most careful preparation and consideration. But the multitudinous and multifarious duties of a. Congressional life on my part, at least, have rendered it simply impossible to make that timely preparation which I would like to have done. Still, I have given this question some consideration.

I was not a. member of the Fiftieth Congress, and therefore h..·we not had the advantage oflistening to the len~hy evidence that was given before the Committee on Agriculture oithat Congress; but it was printed and is here on my desk, a volume in fine print of nearly 1,000 pages; and I have endeavored to extract from that the sub-

stance of the testimony of the witnesses. I hava also hearJ., and listened with attention to all of the evidence that was given before the Agricultural Committee, of which I am a memberin this ConJ:n'ess; and I say thatlfeelafteritsconsideration thatiamsomewha.tfamiliar with this question of compound lard. To some extent I recognize it as a. mixed question. I recognize ita.sa. question upon which gentlemen on the floor can fairly, honestly, and conscientionsly differ. Further than that, I know we come here representing in large part not merely our own jdeas, but the interests and wishes of our constituents.

It has been said, Mr. Speaker, that this is a. contest between the hog and cotton-seed oil. To my mind this is merely a superficial view to take of the question. Back of that, behind it, lies a far greater question: the question of fair dealing and honesty in commercial life and in the commercial affairs of the country.

We have been told and we all know that for a great many years, perhaps until the past six or eight years, the onJy commodity known in the commercial world as lard was lard. Now it means something else. A difference gradually from year to year, dating back, perhaps, in its inception to about eight years, has come in the growth of this new article, this compound which has been palmed off upon a ready, believing public as the genuine article. And, until the discussion began here upon the :floor of this House and in the A~ricultural Committee, I will venture to say that even among the mtelligent people of tbjs country, the intelligent consumers of tllls article, there was not one man in a thousand or one woman but supposed that when they were purchasing and using this commodity they were purchasing and nsing genuine hog's lard. The people have been deceived and are to a great extent deceived to-day, and will be deceivet.l until the law steps in and compels these manufacturers of this spurious, fraudulent article to so stamp it, to mark it, to brand it, or to label it, that when it goes into the country, goes into the retail and wholesale stores for sale, the people who can read can know.

Mr. MCCLAMMY. I hope the gentleman will state that proposition again. I did not get it clearly. They have been usicg from time immemorial something as lard that was not lard. I want to know if anybody has been killed yet. We claim that this compound is healthful.

Mr. HILL. I hope this is not to come out of my time. Mr. McCLAMMY. Certainly not. I will give yon all the time

you want. Mr. HILL. Very well; I hope it will not be regarded in this

Honse as anv excuse for a fraud that that fraud has not committed murder or any crime known to the criminal code.

Now, I will say right here, in speaking of that, I am not here to claim that this article called compound. lard. when produced in its purity from pure cotton-seed oil and pure lard and stearine, is deleterious or injurious to the public or the individual health. There is some testimony in this record that that is the case. But it is not necessary that we should fake so extreme a position as that. It is sufficient to say that it is a fraud, that it is not what the people think it is.

I recognize the fact that in this brief time . I can hardly brush &.way the chaff from this question that is presented before us, can scarcely dig at the root of the question; but I can make a start.

Now I have said, when produced in its purity, from pure cotton-seed oil, and pure beef or la.rd stearine, I am not prepared to say that as an art icle of diet it is injurious to the consumers; bnt it is not so produced. It is not so put upon the market. Read this testimony and you will find here ample evidence from the very best witnesses that the manufacturers of this compouncl fraud-and you can call it nothing else-are not satisfied. with the gains which they would make by mixing cotton-seed oil with the pure lard and with the pure beef stea.rine, but that they put in water, not in small quantities, but in very large quantities. Professor 'Viley, the chemist of the Agricult ural Department, tells as of some samples which be exa.mined. In one sample there was 35t per cent. of water, in. anothe there was 17 per cent., and all the samples/. so far as I recollect , which he examined, r anged from 1 up to 35-t per cent. of what I sappo~e we may call pure water.

Mr. MORGAN. I know my friend wishes to be fair. Will he per mit me to say that that sample was from Tietjen, of New York, and does not my friend recollect that Tietjen came and filed an affidavit that that sample was made to order and that it was not his brand as pla.ced upon the market Y

Mr. HILL. I will take the gentleman's word, if he says it is so. Mr. :McCLAMMY. It is absolutely so, because it is a matt er of

e'7idence. M'r. MORGAN. I will furnish my friend with the page of the tes

tiruony in the morning. Mr. HILL. The testimony shows that in most cases they are

not satisfied with gh·ing us pure cotton-seed oil even, bnt they must put h1 water. And before I take my seat I want to call the atten ti on of the House to another thing that is a shame and a disgrace, as I take it, not perhaps to the American people, unless it be for en during it, but to the manufacturers of the so-called pure lard. All through this record, this mass of testimony which I have read, I find indubitable proof of these frauds. by so-called manufacturers of pure lard. They have resorted to methods, they have used ingre

- """ - ' ...

•.I ;

, .... •' -' · . ..._ ,· '

I •

·. .. ' ~ •• I, I

... -1890. CONGRESSIONAL· ·RECORD-HOUSE. 8975 dionts in the manufacture of this Jard that ought to send them to the penitentiary, that would almost turn the stomach of a dog at the very thought of eating it. And I want w sayfnrther, if I could see my way clear to including that class of men in this bill or some farreacWng bill that would Shut out these so-called manufacturers of pure Jard, which is not pure lard, it would have my most hearty and earnest support.

I will not detain the House, Mr. Speaker, by reading the evidence of the way in which some of this so-called "pure la.rd" is made. It is too revolting to be read in this presence. Suffice it to say that all parts of the hog unfit for other use, head, ears, feet, hoofs, intestines large and small, even the unnamable parts of the hog, all go into the tank in which this "hell broth" is steamed and prepared. Cleanliness is iguored. Smothered hogs, those found dead in the yartl or cars, even those dying of cholera or other disease, all go in to make this ''pure lard" which is put upon our tables or used in our kitchens; and this staff is sold in the market as "refined lard," "pure refined family la.rd," "choice family lard," and under other seductive and delusive labels. -

Be it said, however, to the credit of mankind, thn,t all manufacturers do not do this. Some are careful and cleanly, but the trouble is to know what we are using. It is true that by the use of acids in what is known as the process of "refining," very much of the dirt and filth of this filthy compound is eliminated, but that does not always make it what it should be, clean and wholesome. Over forty years ago this process of "refining" was discovered and put in use, and nearly all the lard now used goes tlll'ough that clarifying process. It. was called "refined lard" when put upon the market, and haa been so known commercially for over forty years, and, when made of the healthy, wholesome fat of the bog, is no doubt as pure and good for family use as tho leaf or kettle-rendered lard.

Now, Mr. Speaker, without detaining the House longer on this branch of the subject, I come to what is denominated in this bill as "'compound la.rd." As I have alreatly saitl, it is made of lard, cottonseed oil, and beef or lard stearine. No precise formula for making this compound has been published, and in fact there is none. Lard and cotton-seed oil are used in varying proportions to suit either the taste or greed of the m11nufactarer, in some cases as I ha•e stated as high as 35 per cent. of water being used. Beef stearine is ust!d to give the compound firmness and make it stand the heat of hot climates, like those of South America or the West Indies, without melting or losing form. This stearine is the fatty or'cellular tissue after the oil or fat is pressed out. Lard stearine is also used for the same purpose. Cotton-seed oil and, as I have said, sometimes water are made to take the place of this fat or oil which has been thus pressed or squeezed out. Thus a great saving is made bytbemanufacturer. The oil or fat is saved or used for other purposes, and a much less expensive ingredient takes its place. The compound can be made for one-half or two-thirds the cost of pure lard, and is sold for from one-half to three-fourths less per pocrnd to the wholesale dealer. Thus a great saving is made to the manufacturer and bis profits become correspondingly large.

The result is that a few men like Armour & Co.t M. K. Fairbank & Co., and a few others, not exceeding six or eight in all, have become monopolists of this branch of lard industry. Over 90 per cent. of this compound is manufactured in Chicago by the two firms I have named. It was first sold as "refined lard," or "pure refined Jard," or "pure refined family lard," and for years no one but the man ufactnrers or their employ es knew or suspected that it was anything else. Gradun.lly, however, the public awoke to the fact they were being deceived. Agitation followed. The State Legislatures took the matter up. Massachusetts and Illinois passed laws requiring the mixture to be be branded as "compound lard." Other States took the matter in hand.

At last Congress was appealed to, and the Agricultural Committee of the Fiftieth Congress took the matter in hand. An investigation covering months of time followed. The fraud was thoroughly expo ed and a bill reported substantially like the one now under coosideration. Congres , however, adjourned without passing the bill. Armour & Co. and other manufacturers made haste to fore. stall further action by Congress. They changed the brand from "refinedlard," or "pru·erefinedlard," or "pure refined family lard" to "la.rd compound" or "Armour's superior lard compound," but still retained the picture of the hog's head on the label, thus indicating to the unsophisticated purchaser or consumer that the componn<l was made of hog's lard. That l>rand is still in use.

Vast quantities of this compound have been made and sold. 'l'he total number of hogs in the United States is estimated at fifty million. The total production of lard annually of all kinds int.he United States is estimated at six hundred million pounds, of which about one-half, or three hundred million pounds, is made of cotton-seed oil, lard, and beef or lard stearinet as I have said, in varying quan· tities. In other words, this compound lard has displaced in the market one-half of the entire lard product of the country. Some estimates are higher than those, but that is sufficient to demonstrate in a general way the effect of this manufacture upon the hog-producing interests of this country.

Nearly every fiermer is interested more or less in this great industry. '.!'hat is e'Specially trne in the great Northwest, where corn

.. . -

is one of the great staples; I might say the great stapfo. The more corn the more hog. Drive the hog from market or make it unprofitable for the farmer to feed and fatten him, and yon touch the pockets of millions of farmers. The inevitable result of this ''la.rd compound" is to lessen the demand for the hog of which lard is made and for the corn which makes the hog. One of the witnesses, a Mr. Hartley, I believe, made a careful estimate of this reduction in values and found it to be about 32 cents a. hog, which, on fifty millions, would be a loss of 16,000,000 annually to the farmers of this country. As one witness stated, the farmers could afford to buy up a.11 the cotton-seed oil in the country and dump it in tho sea and still be millions ahead fu the transaction. This may be perhaps an extreme statement, but beyond all doubt the value of the hog product of this country has been greatly decreased in valne.

Heretofore a very large proportion of our lard product has been exported, in 1887, 320,000,000 pounds, and of this amount over onethird, or about 120,000,000 pounds of this componni\ made of lard, cotton-seed oil, and stearine, was sold in foreign markets as "refined lard," or "pure refined lard," or some similar deceiving label This fraud had been going on and increasing for some years. At last it was detected and some of the dealers of the spurious article were arrested and fined. The result bas been a great falling off in the foreign demand for American lard. Last year, I understand, but a small quantity was exported. Foreign dealers are afraid to handle it. The fraud, however, still goes on at home in spite of agitation and legislation. Consumers still buy this lard compound as a pure and genuine article.

I have before stated that the States of Massachusetts and Illinois have already passed laws requiring these compounds to be labeled as "compound la.rd." The object of this legislation is obvious. It was intended that the people should know what they are buying and eating. That is all they ask. Let this compound go before the public for what it really is. If people like it, let them buy and use it. Its advocates say that it is better and purer than genuine lard. If so, the people will soon find it out and prefer it. But it is not so. Admittedly it can not fill the place of lard in some respects. Bakers and cracker-manufa.cturers can not and will not use it. This record is full of proof that it is a fraud and a counterfeit. No counterfeit was ffrnr yet quite as good aa the genuine article. It may pass for a. time until found out, but when known it will be discard~d.

In this connection, Mr. Speaker, I wish to call attention to a memorial from the cracker-manufacturers, which was presented to the Committee on Agriculture: To the honorable membera of the House of Representati'l:es

of the United Statu of .America: Respectfully represent your memorialists that they are citizens of the United

States interested and engaged in the manufacture of crackers, and in their busi· ness use large quantities of pure lard; that large quantities of aduU.erated or compounded articles are manufactured and sold in various parts of the United States as substitutes for pure lard: that these compounds are made up of various ingredients, such as cotton-seed oil, bcefandmutton tallow, and in some instances of chemically whitened and deodorized greases; that these compounds are sold under grossly misleading and deceptive orands, and are thereby palmed off on the consumer as and for pure lard, at a price greatly in excess of their real vala.e; that these compounds are sold in all or nearly all of the States of the United States, and that, therefore, any legislation which shall deal commensurately with the reg. ulation of the sale of these compound articles must be national, and not confined to any State or section of the United States; that the best interest of the peoplo of the United States require that a law shall be passed by the Congress of the United States providin.~ that all packages containing compound lard shall be plainly and unmistakably labeled so as effectually to prC"vent all frand and deception in the sale thereof,

·wherefore your memorialists humbly pray, etc. The present bill, Mr. Speaker, is modeled upon the oleomargarine

law of two years ago, but is much le s severe in its terms. . That law imposed a tax of 2 cents a. pound and a license fee from retail dealers of 25. This bill imposes a tax of only 2 mills per ponnd and a license fee of only 1.92 annually. The object to be subserved is substantially the same. Oleomargarine was being manufactured and sold in large quantities, to the injury of butter makers and manufacturers, and the people were deceived. Compound lard is now bein~ sol<\ in equally large quantities and the people are again deceived. The language of President Cleveland in his message approving the oleomargerine law is applicable here. He said: If this article has the merit which its friends claim for it and if the people of

the land, with full knowledge of its real character, desire to purchase and use it, the taxes enacted by this bill will perm.it a. fair profit to both manufucturer and dealer. If the existence of the commodity taxed and the profits of its manufacture and sale depend upon disllosing of it t-0 the poo-ple for something else which it de. ceitfully imitates, the entlre enterprise is a fraud, and not an industry; and if it can not endure the exhibition of its real character, which will be effected by the inspection, supervision, and stamping which this bill directs, the sooner it is de· stroyed the better in the inforest of fair dealing.

Nor shoulcl there be any opposition t-0 the incidental effect of this legislation on the part of those who profess to be engaged hone11tly and fairly in the manufacture and sale of a wholesome and >alnable article of food, which by its provisions may be subject to taxation. As long as their business is carried on under cover and by false pretenses, such men may have bad com.pa.nions in those whose manufactures, however vile and harmful, take their place without challenge with the betfor sort in a common crusade of deceit agairut the public. But if this occupation and its methods are forced into the light, and all these manufactures must thus either stand upon their merits or fall, the good and bad must soon part com· pany, and the fittest only will su.rvi'l'e.

Not the least important incident related to this legislation is the defense afforded to the consumer again.st the fraudulent substitution and sale of an imitation for a genuine article of food of very general household use. Notwithstanding the im· ,

·' .. '

(

I··

..:.

I•

._ f

f •••

· .

-,

!'-

I.

=.

( --• ;I•

. .: . . -\ .. "

CONGRESSIONAL REOORD-HOUSE. AUGUST 21,

men e quantity of the article described in this bill which is sold to the people for their coID1nmption as food. and notwithstanding the claim made that its manufacture supplies a cheap substitute for butter, I venture to say that hardly a. pound ever entered a poor man's house under its i·eal name and in its true character. While in its relation to an article of this description there should ho no governmental regulation of what the citizen shall eat, it is certainly not a cause ofrep;ret if by lei?islation of this character he is affox·ded o. means by which he may better protect himself against imposition in meeting the needs and wants of his daily Jife.

llaving eutere'l upon this legislation it is manifestly a duty to render it as effective as possible in the accomplishment of all the good which should legitimat.ely follow in its train.

One further thought, Mr. Speaker, and I have done. The opponents of this bill claim that. its enactment will destroy the cottonseed industry or the value of cotton-seed oil. I do not believe it. It is used for other purpo es. It will still be used for the manufacture of "lard compound." 'fhis Lill does not prevent that. It only compels its sale for what it is. It can be manufactured and sold for much Jc s than real Jard. The greed for gain will ~till exist, mid the compounders of lard have grown too wealthy in its manufacture to relinquish the business. There is no doubt a tendency of the times to destroy honest and fair competition and to do everything by combination. These combinations of unscrupulous money-makers in their sordid, grasping, avaricious greed ca.re little for tho su:fferin~s of thousands, so that their greed is satisfied. They destroy all fair competition, and by these very acts are sapping the fundamental principles of our free country, wherein every man should, by free and fair competition, have a chance to earn an honest livelihood.

However long-suffering these people may be, they will not restrain themselves forever. The cry of our people to-Jay is that they are oppreused and that no party shall get their support who do nob set their faces against the crying evils of our times, monopoly, combinations, and trusts. The remedy lies in national control, and, if our institutions sun·ive, their doing so will depend upon this generation making it a disgrace to be a dishonest mnn in any form.

In conclusion let me say that this bill should speedily becorµe a law, for the reasons which I have summarized :is follows:

1. That an article of commerce should be known by its true and appropriate name, and should not be an imitation, counterfeit, or adulteration made for the purpose of deceiving or defrauding the purchaser or consumer.

2. That. the substitution of adulterated or counterfeit lard for the pure article is a fraud and lie and an imposition perpetrated and practiced upon the people to the direct injury of the farmer, the livestock dealer, and the butcher.

3. That the existing laws enacted bv some of the several States are not uniform and are wholly inadequate to provide a universal remedy for this great evil.

4. That the manufacture and sale of this article under the name of ''lard" is a robbery of an honest product of a rigbtfa.l name; that it masks under false colors by laying violent hands under another title, afraid to come out under its own name, and thereby victimizes especially the consumer, who purchases in small quantities for actual consumption.

Mr. McCLAMMY. Mr. Chairman, l yield fifteen minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. CATCHINGS].

Mr. CATCHINGS. Mr. Speaker, I confeSB to some surprise that the last speaker, my friend from Illinois [Mr. HILL], who is an extremely intelligent gentleman, should undertake with seeming seriousness at this stage in the progress of the discussion of this bill to make it appear that its sole purpose is to require this compound la.rd to be so branded Bnd marked that those purchasing it may know just what it is. Why, Mr. Speaker, nothing is further from the purpose of this bill than that, and what I assert is manifested by the report of the majority of the committee. Now, what are the objects of this bill as stated by the gentlemen themselves who reported itf They state them in this language :

To comp~l the brandin., of mixtures compounded of ingredients other than lard, but made in the sem b'iance of and sold aa lard, so that consumers may be advised of the nature of the article they purchase. 2. To relieve the maoufactur· era of [!Ure lard of the unfair com~etition of an imitation article ma.de of cheaper ingredients and sold at a lower price. 3. To relieve to some extent the existing deJ>ression in the farm.in~ industry, ca.used in pa.rt by the displacement of a large and increasing amount oI the pure fat of the hog bf a spurious substitute put on the market under the name and brand of the genUIDe article.

No~l. Mr. Speaker, we learn from this report the real object of this bill, and it is so framed as to make it absolutely clear that it was designed to so harass and embarrass all persons dealing in this compouna lard that out of sheer desperation they will finally abandon it. In the first place, one desiring to manufacture it is required to obtain a license and pay a tax, and he must pay that tax annually. One who is a wholesale dealer must pay an annual tax, and so also must a ret:Jil dealer.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if it is necessary that we shall levy a tax. in order to give this Government jurisdiction to require it to be honestly labeled, and if there is no other purpose than to require it in the interest of honesty and good morals to be so labeled, why not let a µcense once obtained last as long as a man may engage in the manufactnre T Why require that it shall be renewed ev·erytwelve months; why not let one tax suffice for such time as the business mar be continued, whether that be for one year or longer? I say if it is necessary that we shall make use of the taxing power of the Govern-

"'.

ment t.o get jurisdiction over the product, so as to have it properly branded, let us so use that power that it shall not be costly or burdensome; let us license the manufacturer upon bis paying a tax of $5, and allow him to continue to manufacture ad illfinUum without paying any further or a<lditional tax. By the terms of this bill be must not only pay a large license tax each year, but he is dealt with more harshly in that respect than the dealer in liquor, the control nnd regulation of which we are all glad to see brought within the taxing power of f.he Government. The license to be granted, no matter what its date, continues in force only until the first of May following. If the license is issued in October or November it xpires the ensuing Mayhand he is given no rebate for the portion of the twelve months whic has then expired.

It thus appears that he is given Jess consideration than the manufacturer of spirits. If when he enters upon 1.ho manufacture of this material but six months remain until the first ot the following May, he must pay the full year's license, whereas the manufacturer of or dealer in liquor, the brewer, or the dealer iu tobacco is allowed a proper rebate fm· the portion of the twelve months in which be was not engaged in business.

Now, Mr. Speaker, a great deal bas been saicl al.lout the frauds nnd wrongs perpetrated by the manufacturers of compound lard. Gentlemen persist in diecussing this question as if Fairbank and Armour and other manufacturers are the only persons to be consid~red in connection with it. Why, Mr. Speaker, all of my const.ituents and all the cotton-growers of tho South are deeply and intensely concerned in this proposed measure, and it is not pretended that they have perpetrated fraud or wrong.

Why do gentlemen propose to puuish tlle people o( the South who produce the cotton-seed from which this oil is extracted and the southern oil mills engaged in purcha.sing the seed and expressing the oil, because a few manufacturers in theNorthand West engaged in the business of making compound la.rd may in times past have perpetrated what you calla wrong by failing toproperlylabelitf Yon punish one whole section of the country because Armour, Fail'b:lllk, and other manufacturers have been engaged, or were at one timeenrpged, in selling this compound as hog's lard when it was a mixtnre ot hog's lard and cotton.seed oil. Are not the cotton-nroducers of the South entitled to some consideration Can yon not contrive some means to supervise Northern manfacturers so as to compel them to desist from what you call fraudulent inactices without imposing a tax upon one of the chief products of the Sooth f Why, Mr. Speaker, there are many thousands interested in this question who will suffer pecuniary loss under the necessary operation of this proposed legislation. We know that until it was within recent years discovered that a. valuable oil could be extracted from cotton seed that they were largely a waste product in the South. Since this discovery and the introduction of the process of expressing this oil, which has only been effected by the expenditure and investment of millions of dollars, the men who raise cotton in the South realize from the sale of their cotton seed a handsome sum, with whioh they can buy their sugar and coffee, their boots and shoes, and the clothing with which their wives and families must be provided.

Mr. McCLAMMY. State definitely what it is. Mr. CATCHINGS. Compound lard contains from 60 to 75 per cent.

of pure, choice hog's lard, from 15 to 25 per cent. of refined cottonseed oil, and 5 to 15 per cent. of beef or lard stearine. The stearine is simply the fat of the btef or hog from which the oil has been already expressed, and it is used in connection with lard and cottonseed oil to give firmness and greater consistency to the mixture. None of the ingredients aro unwholesome and the compound answers every purpose of a cooking fat. It is in all respects the equal of hog's lard, and by many it is regarded as superior. Certainly we can find nothing in the oil to even suggest impuritf. We consider in the South thn.t the man who discovered that this wholesome oil could be made from cotton seed conferred, not only upon our section, but upon mankind generally, a boon of the greatest possible value.

The use of cotton-seed oil in connection with hog's lard in making a cooking compound, whose utility and wholesomeness are no longer questioned, is not an improper use. It creates a demand for large quantities of the oil, and in that way adds to the value of the farmer's seed. The efttict of this bill would be to cripple and embarrass this growing and useful Southern industry by hindering and diminishing the manufacture of compound lard, and to that extent reducing the value of cotton seed. That this would be the effect can be easily demonstrated. Tho manufacture of compound lard would go on, but since the cost of making and selling it would be increased by reason of the taxes and other expenses imposed by: this uill, the manufacturers would recoup by paying less for the 011, and the oil mills would in turn protect themselves by paying less for cotton seed, and the poor farmer, as usual, would pocket the loss.

Your purpose is to destroy a.bsolutelythe use of the oil in tlle manufacture of lard. You will not succeed in doing that, but you will succeed in infi.icting great pecuniary loss upon the cotton-growers of tho South.

This act of yours will carry with it far greater wrong than any ever done by the manufacturers of compound lard, for they a.t most practiced but a harmless cleception, while you will inflict serious

·-

'· ::

· 1890. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 8977 -. loss upon the people of an entire section who have done no wrong at all.

This great wrong you deliberately, and I may say avowedly, propose to do that men engaged in agriculture in anothersectionofthecountry may be benetited. This statement is folly justified by the argument mad.e by ?ifr. CONGER and Mr. HATCH and others who prepared the report urging the passage of this bill. They state that the manufacture and use of compound lard have reduced the value of the hog 32 cents per head and the value of la.rd fully 4 cents a pound. This statement is not true, for the value of the hog crop is clearly shown, I think, to depend upon the amount and value of the corn crop; but if true, is it not something to be thankful for f If we can furnish you from cotton seed a product which, combined with other substances, makes an article of food which is entirely satisfactory to the people and which cheapens the cost of living, is not that a matter which should occasion rejoicing rather than resentment t

Should we not be profoundly grateful that a new and nutritfous food product has been discovered, which lightens the poor man's burden and reduces the drain upon his SCIJ.nty earnings f

Mr. CONGER. Will it interrupt the gentleman to reply to an inquiryf

Mr. CATCHINGS. Not at all. Mr. CONGER. Would your cotton-seed oil be of the value that

you claim it is if it were not for the fact that you can sell it as lard f Mr. CATCHINGS. I have no doubt that the use of it in combina

tion with lard and stearine, thus yielding ai valuable food product, has added very greatly to the salable value of our cotton seed.

Mr. CONGER. Not this use of it, but this masquerading of it as "lard."

Mr. CATCHINGS. Ido not concede that, butlwilladdressmyself to that question before I finish my remarks. I will say, however, that the peoplo of the South are not responsible for the masquerading as lard; that was the work of Northern manufacturers.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the converse of the statement by the committee, that by the use of this mixture hog's Jard has gone down 4 cents per ponnd, means that if this compound lard can be driven from the market that 4 cents a. pound will be regained and added to the cost of every pound of lard which the _people of this country have to consume. This bill is a project to prevent the people from using a cheap and nutritious article of food and fo tax them 4 cents a pound more for every pound of lard that they have to buy. That is precisely the proposition that is presented in this bill. ,Now, are you prepared to say, gentlemen, that legislation designed to increase the cost of the people's food can be justified t Suppose that compound lard was not under consideration and that we were discussing the adoption of some means which had been devised for the purpose of increasing the cost of woolen clothing, or cotton clothing, or any other necessary of life, would any of yon be willing to advocate such a measure! Would you dare to do it! Yet that is precisely what this bill is intended to accomplish with reference to this food product.

When gentlemen say that we have reduced the market value of lard and that they propose to drive this pro1uct oat of the market, of course the meaning and the only meaning is that they propose to increase thereby the price of lard. Mr. Speaker, I can not vote for such legislation and I would not vote for it even if I lived elsewhere than in a cotton-producing region which will be most severely injured by it.

Mr. MORGAN. Will my friend permit me to ask him at this point if this legislation would not fall with specially crushing force upon the colored people of the South f

Mr. CATCHINGS. Of course. That is pretty much all that the negro gets out of his cotton. Gentlemen, understand how the cotton crop is raised. By the time the negro has paid for his supplies and settled his rent he has hardly anyth~ng left except his cotton seed.

Mr. McCLAMMY. And that buys shoes for Hannah and the children. [Laughter.]

Mr. CATCHINGS. Of course. That gives him ready money, and about the on1y ready ruoney be aver gets.

Mr. McCORMICK. Can the gentleman tell us about what proportion the value of the cotton seed bears to the total value of the crop 'f

Mr. CATCHINGS. I wish gentlemen to understand tbat this cotton-Reed business is yet in its infancy. Although to-day we sell about $12,000,000 worth of cotton seed, that is a mere bagatelle to what is to come.

Mr. McCORMICK. I have been informed that the cotton seed amounts in value to about 10 per cent. of the whole value of the crop.

Mr. CATCHINGS. Perhaps it amounts to about 15 per cent. But that is practically nothing to what its future value will be. The time will come when substantially every bushel of cotton seed raised in the South will be turneu into oil, and then the value of the seed will be $60,00-0,000 or $70,000,000, if not more. 'rhe industry is hardl.v yet established. You can travel hundreds of miles through the South and :find people unable to sell their cotton seed because they can not get it to the mills, but those mills are being established all through the country and more and more of the seed is turned into oil every year. So that even if you pass this bill, exasperating as it will be, mark my prediction, you will utterly fail to accomplish the· object ,you have in view. .

XXI-562

--

Mr. Speaker, these gentlPmen have no respect for the Constitution, as they have none for the cotton-growers of the South. In their anxiety to inflict this injury upon those people, that they may extort 4 cents a pound more lor their lard, .they lay a ruthless hand upon the Constitution itself. Thoy provide in this bill that no man shall have a license to manufacture compound lard unless he makes an application to the Secretary of the Treasury containing a statement of all the ingredients proposed to be used by him, and the power is conferred upon the Secretary of the Treasury to refuse to grant that license whenever, in his judgment, any of those ingredients are deleterious to health. I do not suppose there is a lawyer within the sounn of my voice who will presume to say that Congress can con for such power upon the Secretary of the Treasury.

Mr. BROSIUS. Will my friend allow me to inform him that he is mistaken about that T

Mr. CATCHINGS. I am not mistaken. Mr. BROSIUS. The decision of the Secretary of the Treasury is

not conclusive. Mr. CATCHINGS. Ob, that is a mere matter of form. Mr. BROSIUS. I did not understand the gentleman. I thought

he overlooked the fact that there is an appeal from the decision of the Secretary of the Treasury.

Mr. CATCHINGS. I understand that; but that does not affect my statement as to the unconstitutionality of the provision. I undertake to say that no lawyer will affirm that the power can be conferred upon any branch of the Federa1 Govern'ment, whether the Secretary of the Treasury or an appellate board, to say that one shall not manufacture an ar~icle because it is deleterious or injurious fo health. You can not confer any such power. It is for the States alone to adopt measures of a police character to protect the health and good order of society.

In your reckless determination to crush this Southern industry and extort 4 cents a. pound more for your lard, yon make this provision so sweeping that it will apply to compounn lard proposed to be manufactured and sold exclusively in Illinois, or Mississippi, or any other State, as well as that intended to enter into interstate commerce. 'Vhy, sir, as these gentlemen must know the Supreme Court of the United States in the trade-mark case, reported in 100 United States Supreme Court Reports, settled that proposition beyond all further question. As gentlemen all understand, we passed a statute providing that a man who would pursue a certain ceremony should thereby establish a right to a. trade-mark, and that any person who infringed that trade-mark should be subject to indictment and punishment. 'Vithout deciding that such a matter was in any event within the jrrriadiction of Congress, the Supreme Court held that it was perfectly clear that it was beyond the power of the Government to enact a statute of that sort, unless it was plainly limited to trade-marks to be used on articles which go into interstate commerce; and, inal'lmuch as the terms of that statute were broad enough to cover trade-marks upon articles which did not enter, as well as those which did enter, int~rstate commerce, it was held onconstitational and void.

I say, therefore, this precise question is settled. If Congress can prohibit deleterious substances from entering into interstate commerce, which question does not arise here, nevertheless this sweeping provision makes this wholes ection void. I may apply for a license and the Secretary of the Treasury may refuse it to me on the ground that some of the ingredients proposed to be used are deleterious. While such refusal in obedience to an unconRtitutional statute woald not prohibit me from proceeding to manufacture compound lard and while I could withstand any indictment based upon this void statute, yet I would naturally hesitate to sn bject myself to an. indictment and the expense of a defense. The gentlemen framing this section are able lawyers and we must presmne that they understand its unconstitutionality, and that it was inserted hoping that thongh invalid it would nevertheless deter persons from coming into conflict with it.

The provisions of the bill making tbejudgmeut of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue conclusive as to what compounds are to he taxed under this act and the judgment of the Surgeon-General of the Army, the Surgeon-General of the Navy, and of the Secretary of Agriculture conclusive as to whether ingredients proposed to be used are deleterious or not, and forfeit ing to the United States all compound lard adjudged by these officers to contain delet-erious ingredients, are also clearly unconstitut.ional, ta.king away, as they do, rights, privileges, and property without due process of law.

'Vhere is there authority for such a tribunal as is here proposed to be created, which shall have power to render final judgment f What has become of the right to trial by jury, which is justly esteemed as one of the dearest rights of the American citizen 'I

Have gentlemen, in their haste to extort 4 cents a ponud more for their lard, become so absorbed in the pursuit of their selfish purpose that they have forgotten the comtnonest principles of constitutional law, or have they knowingly inserted these provisionsr presuming and hoping that no man would enter into a contest in the courts with a powerful and wealthy Government, and that they would go undisputed, and be rui effective as though they did not vio-lat~ the fundamental law of the land f .

Now, Mr. Speaker, there is another provision that I want these

._ \

._,

- . '

" .

I•

. \

' ..

'•

.'

. . .

I •

' ',·

- .. ..... •: ! ... .I •

... I

.. • ... f

8978 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE.

gentlemen to explaiv. It is something wholly unnecessary to enable them to accomplish the purpose of the bill, if that purpose flimply be to secure tho proper branding and marking of compound lard. It is provided that when this compound lard is shipped, transported, or removed it can not be done in packages incased in any cask, bale, bag, or any such inclosnre. This mixture is pat up just as hog'M lard is, in cans of various sizes, containing from 3 pounds up in weight. This is done for cleanliness and convenience of handling by retailers and purchasers by r tail, an<l it is a -very great improvement over the old method of hnndling such an article.

When a number of such caus are ordered now by the dealer they are packed together in cases and shipped in that manner, thus saving handling en route, and consequently cheapening the cost of transportation. But if t his bill should become a law and I should order 500 3-pound cans of compound lard from Fairbank & Co., they can not put it up in crates, bales, casks, or boxes, as they now could do or as they are left tho privilege of doing, if I should order lard, but they must ship each can by itt1elf, so tbat each particular package is handled and exposed to view.

Mr._MORGAN. It is to ho pat up in 3, 5, 10, and 20 pound tins. Mr. CATCHINGS. My friend [Mr. HATCH, ofl\Iissonri] shakes bis

head in denial of what I assert, but I know what I am stating, for the bill is just as plain as it can be upon this point.

Mr. BROSIUS. The provision, as the gentleman states it, is there. Mr. CATCHINGS. My friends do not agree. Brother fuTCil says

that the requirement as I state it is not there and Brother BROSIUS says that it is, and this seems to ue the only thing connected with this bill about which they do not agree.

Mr. BROSIUS. It ought to be there. Mr. CATCHINGS. There can be no good reason for such a pro

vision. If the purpose is simply to provide a means by which the Government can collect this tax, inasmuch as the article is to be stamped or branded or marked before being shipped, why can it not be put in casks, as whisky is allowed to bet

Mr. BROSIUS. How could the officers of the Government tell when the law was being violated if the brand were concealed under the covering of a cask!

Mr. CATCHINGS. How do you tell whether the tax has been collected when whisky is shipped T You can buy all the whisky you want in small packages and h~we it shipped in a box or cask.

Mr. BROSIUS. We are trying ~o improve on that law. Any one familiar with the matter will tell you that in this pa.rticu1ar the law with reference to liquors is defective.

Mr. CATCHINGS. The only difference is that the whit1ky law was framed honestly and in good faith for the purpose of collecting a tax to create revenue, while this bill is designed to drive the article taxed out of existence. Hence you put in this provision to add to the expense and difficulties with which you aim to environ all persons dealing in it. You can not explain it on any other ground.

Mr. BROSIUS. The explanation is that we propose to enable the revenue officers of the Government to detect when a fraud on the revenue is attempted.

1 Mr. CATCHINGS. That explanation does not meet the case.

Here is another provision which absolutely covers that sug~estion. Every railroad company transporting it is required to mark what the package contains, so that the revenue officers may know what the ca.<ie contains. Nobody for the slight chance of avoiding the tax is going to subject himself to the horrible pains and penal-tie& denounced in this bill. Why, sir, when I read this bill I imaained myself carried back three or four hundred years to a period ~hen the old common law of England was in unrestrained force and when almost everything that a man said or did subjected him to capital punishment. Under the guise of imposing a tax, tliis is a bill of . horrible pains and penalties, for which there is no justification.

There is nothing in the principles of either the Democratic or Republican party to uphold this measure. No writer or speaker on the subject of protection has ever pretended to advocate the imposition of a tax as a proper thing except to raise needed revenue or for the purpose of malring our own country prosperous and independent of foreign countries by levying such toll on foreign products as would give an advantage to home industries and relieve them from undue competition, until they should become so firmly established that they would be able to take care of themselves.

There is something of patriotism involved in the principle contended for by advocates of a protective tariff which makes it acceptable to many people. It appeals strongly to the American citizen to say to him tlrnt we ought to be made independent of foreign countries, and that we can afford to be severely taxed for a little while if by submitting to that we can ultimately becomo self-sustaining, or inaugurate industries in our own country which will enable us to avoid going abroad for manufactured products and supplies. But no advocate of that doctrine has ever gone to the extent of claimina that it was right or just or admissible to tax one class of our citizen.~ in order that another class might prosper.

There is nothin~ in your platform, gentlemen of the Republican party, which justifies this; nor is there anything in the platform of the Democra.tio party that warrants it in any way. And if you take the stump and canvass amongst yonr people and tell them exactly what this bill is; if you go before theJD, raiser1:1 of hogs a.s they are,

and truly tell them that this bill was introduced for the sole pm:pose of taxing one chss of American citizens that the other might prosper, they would say to you, "We do not want prosperity, gentlemen, if it has to come to us by that route. We will not have it." No matter what might be their wants, they would be unwilling to see any class of our citizens taxed for such a purpose as that.

Now, Mr. Speaker, my friend, the gr.ntleman from Missouri fMr. HATCH] is the last ma.non the face of 'the earth who ought to advo· cate the passage of a moosure of this kind. Why, I have seen him, you have all seen him, actually foam at the mouth in discussionR on this floor when the subject of protection was under cousidoration. We have seen him absolutely militant, with his lance in rest, as though he could and would sin~le-handed and alone charge upon and overcome the whole Republican party when the tariff bill was under discussion; and yet, notwithstanding that fact, he is probably, of all the members on this floor, the most rampant advocate of this bill. He has invented a new departure in the domain of taxation and protection, and I want my friends to understand that the ''Conger bill," as the bill is called, should be called the "Hatch bill,'' for the able gentleman whose name bas been given to it is not the inventor or discoverer of the principle upon which it is founded.

I told my friend from Missouri in private conversation, in the Forty-ninth Congress, when he had interjected into our legislation the oleomargarine bill, -.;vhich was the forerunner of this and which has done no good, has not increased the price of dairy products, but has simply increased the cost of oleomargarine to those who are compelled to use it, that he was opening up a new field of legislation, that he was throwing wide open the flood-gate!il, a.nd that it was but the beginning of a great raft of similar measures, which would come up m the future. That bill, I say, wae the forerunner of this. Pass this bill and you give additional impetus to such ill advised legislation. You will find, gentlemen, that the wool-growers of Ohio will want something in this line after a while. They may come here demanding some such law as once prevailed in England, which required the burial of the dead in woolen clothes, or they may demand that you tax all cotton goods, unmixed with wool, and so on the procession will move. Let ns pause while we may, nnd end this pernicious theory. If we are standing on moral grounds and clamoring only for pure food products, let us take up the Paddock bill and pass that.

Mr. CONGER. We want to pass that, too. Mr. CATCHINGS. You never will in snch a way as to permit it

to suptrsede the provisions of this bill. Mr. l\fcCLAMMY. That includes this. :!\Ir. CATCHINGS. Ob, no; not by any means. It is because it

does not include this that they are not contented with it. That is limited in its terms in accordance with the Constitution to those particular articles which go into interstate commerce; while what these people want is to prohibit the people of Illinois, or the people of my own State, or any other from eating this product whether they want to or not, without the slightest reference to interstate commerce. It is meant to be an absolute restriction upon the use of compound lard, while the Paddock bill imposes no taxes and is confined to such of it as might enter into interstate commerce.

The SPEAK.ER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.

Mr. CATCHINGS. I should like to have a. few moments longer. l\fr. l\fcCLAMMY. Bow much time remains of the half hour on

this side T The SPEAK.ER pro tempo1·e. Five minutes . Mr. CATCHINGS. I want to call attention to one more thing,

~Ir. Speaker. The SPEAK.ER pro tempo1'e. Does t.be gentleman yield T Mr. CATCHINGS. Yes, sir; I will take the time. [Laughter.] It has been urged in support of this bill that the sending of com-

pound lard abroad has demoralized the foreign market so that pure lard shipped from this country is always received with snspiciou; and so it is claimed that compound lard has injured the hog-raiser not only at home, bat abroad.

Well, now, if that is true you would naturally sappose that you would find something in this bill which would have for its ob)ect, as far as w.e could effect it, the prevt>ntion of the exportation ot this compound lard at all; but is that true f On the contrary, if you manufacture lard and sell it to be consumed at home you must pay a tax of 2 mills per pound, but if you choose to sell it to England or France or Germany you need not pay any tax at all; in other words, these hog men smooth the way for this product to go abroad, this demoralizing, dangerous product, against which it is so necessary to warn and guard people at home. Some gentlemen may say that this is because we can not impose a tax upon exports, but this is not true a.t all; it is true that you can not tax it as an export but you can subject it to t:u:ation in this country and leave the producer to ship it or not as he pleases. But these gentlemen are studious to provide that if the manufacturers wish to sell their compound la.rd rn French or German or English markets they may do it without paying a tax at all.

There is a Httle inconsistency in this, it seems to me, which I hope my friend [Mr. H~TCH] will explain when he comes to discuss this bill. I can discover but one purpose in this exception of exported

·,

·,., ,.I J / ·~ ~·

1890. CONGRESSIONAL . REOORD......:..HOUSE. 8979 lard from the tax. No doubt it was nut in the bill that the manufacturers might be tempted to ship all their: compound _lard abroad, thus escaping both the tax and the liarassmg regulations thrown about it when sold in this country. In this way the foreign market wonld be largely, if not entirely, given up to compound lard, while the ho" men havin" the home market entirely to themselves would find it ~asier to exa~t the additional 4 centa a. pound for their lard.

I want to know, also, Mr. Speaker, if this is a. good product, as we all concedo now, so far as n.ntrition and wholesomeness are concerned, why it is that the English and :French and German people should be allowed to buy it cheaper thau our own people are allowed to buy it. We are not the guardians of these people abroad. It is not our business to provide them with cheap food. On the contrary, we should, so far as we can, make things cheap for our own people. In fact th\s duty ii; made the basis of all this doctrine of protection which our friends on the otlier side worship so. They persist in saying that in the course of time protection will give cheapness. They say cheapne~s is the object and necessary ult~n;iate resu.lt of protection, which lS supposed to beget such com~t1t10n that m thecourse of time we necessarily get cheapness as the·outcome.

No man bas ever said, and n-0 man will ever say, th.<tt he is in favor of protection -0n the ground that he believes it will make prices higher, though he may admit that it may have that effect temporarilv. I think that it has that effect always and permanently; but th(ll id vocates of protection will never adroit that, and they base their whole argument upon the proposition that while prices are made higher temporarily, in tho end they are certain to be made cheaper. So that the advocates of protection say that their object is to ultimately provide tho people of this country with cheap food and cheap clothing and cheap farm implements, and all those things which they are obliged to use and to purcha.se.

A.re we going now in defiance of the principles of both parties to take a food product, which it seems to be perfectly settled is nutritious and wholesome and goo:l, and make it more expensive to our people than it now is or than it is to be to the people of England, Fral1ce or Germany Y It must be a remarkable food product too, becanse I find that the committee admits that it so closely resembles refined lard that none l>ut experts can tell the difference between it and hog's lard. This, gentlemen, is their i:;tatement on this point. It must be a good thing if that is true. Here is what the committee say:

It. so closely resembles refined lard in its common appearance that unskilled conE.>umers would be unable to distinguish one from the other.

That amounts to saying that the product is as good as la.rd. If I can not tell it from lard, how am I hurt!

Now here is a food product, which is so good, which is so close an imitation of your common product that my .Brother HATCH himself cou1U not tell one from the other1 fond as he is of pork and as devoted as be is to the interests of the great American hog. If that be troe, what harm can there be in it Y But now, seriously, Mr. Speake~, we are all content, fro_m our sec~io~ of the country, that this article shall be marked for JUSt what it is. I want to say now that I do believe that the diseovery of cotton-seed oil is going to effect a great revolution in all the food products of this country. We have only dealt with the question on the surface.

No man can tell what will come to pass when we extract from the cotton seed all the oil which ca.n be expressed out of it. It will be com})OUn<led with many articles of food. It is so to-day. I have eat.en it. You may take the refined oil and you will find that it is just as good a~ olive oil: No man on the face o~ th_is e~rth can tt.11 it from olh·e oil. Pour it over your tomatoes, mix it with your salads, put it on your table, and invite gentlemen with the most fastidious taste to eat it, and no one of them could tell but that it was jmported olive oil, brought from the snnny shores of fair Italy. New uses win be discovered for it, and I have no doubt that it is destined to run hog's ford practically out of the market.

Mr. CONGER. Theu, why do you want to call it lard Y Mr. CATCHINGS. I do not want to call it Jard. We have not

called it that. The manufacturers are responsible for that. We do not care what you may require it to be called.

Mr. CONGER. That is what this bill does. Us object is simply to make :rou call it what it is.

Mr. CATCHINGS. No; you want to tax it. The proper branding is the least of the objects of this bill.

Mr. McCLAMMY. Besides that, something else must enter into its composition to preserve it and utilize it for various food products.

Mr. CATCHINGS. We are simply fighting this bill in the form in which you have framed it. We do not care what you brand it, but we do not want you to deuounce it as fraudulent when it is a. good and wholesome food product, and burden it with taxes and harsh regulations. -

Mr. CONGER. And we do not want you to palm it off on the American people as something else than what it is.

.Mr. CATCHINGS. We do not want to do that, and if it has been so palmed off it is the Northern manufa-0turers, and not the cott-0ngrowers of the South who have done it.

Mr, CONGER. All we want to do is to call it by its right name. If you want to use it, brand it for what it is;

Mr. CATCHINGS. We do not object to that. You may brand it cotton-seed oil if you want to, bat take off the tax and do not raise the price of it to the people who want to use it, and make it more expensive to Americans than to foreigners.

[Here the hammer fell. J Mr. CATCHINGS. I ask unanjmous consent to have the ex.tract

read which I send to the Clerk's desk. The Clerk read as follows: Oleomargarine has found a stalwart defender in the Rhode Island Knights of La

bor, who declare that "the attempt to crush out of use by legislation one of the most brilliant discoveries of the age, namelyJ.,the manufacture of butter from the fat of cattle, is a libel upon cirjli.zation." ·..Chen follows such a eulog-y as would be expected from this introduction. The assertion is made that. the New England wacre-earners have pa.id the Unit.ad States Treasury $2,000,000 since the imposition of the tax, and this is called creating "a monopoly on the necessities of life."

Mr. CATCHINGS. It will not be long before similar resolutions will be passed with regard to this bill if it should become a law.

J\fr. BROSIUS. I yield ten minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Buss].

Mr. BLISS. Mr. Speaker, I lend my support to this measure for several reasons which I consider of the ~reatest importance. The farmers of this country are laboring under many disadvantages caused by the depressed prices of all their staple products. The speculators of the whea.t pits have reduced the price of wheat below its legitimate valne; the beef combine has made stock-ra.ising non-productive; and, finally, the adulterators of food have depreciated the value of those two most important products, lard and butter.

On thi; one hana, thousands of farmers in the United States have petitioned this body for the passage of this bill; on the other hand, the attorneys of one or two large corporations have appeared to oppose it and set up the claim that we are interfering with their vested rights. They ba.ve no vested rights in this industry; they are trespassers upon the field of an honest industry, and all this bill aims at is the correction of abuses and the regulatiion of a new enterprise which attempts to destroy an estabhshed business by fraud aud deception.

Right here, Mr. Speaker, it was said to-day by my friend from Illinois [Mr. MA.so~]-and lam sorrythat be is not here to-night-that there was no petition before this House asking for the passage of this measure. I have here before rue petitions that have been sent to our committee at1king for the passage of this bill from every State but two in this Union; also from the granges and alliances in the different States, demanding the passage of this bill. I have also, as my friend from Illinois to-day referred to, petitions of labor organizations demanding its passage.

I have the letter which was read by my friend this afternoon, from Mr. Beaumont, chairman of the legislative committee of the Knights of Labor, favorin~ the passage of this bill, which I shall incorporate in my remarks. l said all the States of the Union but two; those are Florida and Arkansas. I have also a letter of the same purport from the State grange of Michigan, from Thomas Mars, secretary, and also from Joseph Woodman, from Pawpaw, Mich., a member of the legislative committee of the State grange, demanding this kind of legislation. Also a letter from W. H. Nelson., of White Haven, of Tennessee, and others, which I will incorporate.

Now, gentlemen rise on this floor and say that there is no demand by the people of this country for such legislation.

Mr. MCCLAMMY. I hate to interrupt the gentleman, but I would like him to trot out the names of the North Carolina. people who ha.vo petitioned in favor of this measure.

Mr. BLISS. Here are all the petitions that came to our committee, some from North Carolina. I have letters here from North Carolina.

Mr. McCLAMMY. I understood the gentleman to sa.y that he had petitions from every State in the Union but two.

Mr. BLISS. Yes, sir. Mr. McCLAMMY. Now, I want to be acquainted with the men

in North Carolina who have petitioned in favor of this bill, becll_use my information is directly opposite to that.

Mr. BLISS. The gentleman is on the committee and he can look for them as well as I. The State grange is on the list.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I was about to say that the people are demanding the passage of this bill. It is not the Committee on Agriculture alone. These people have bee:Q. knocking at the doors of this House for the last two years, I am told, especially in the last Congress, and I know that they have done so this session, for I have the honor of being a member of that committee and have bad a great many petitions and letters forwarded me from my own State as well as from other States.

Now, I think for one that I would be in favor of an act that would brand food for what it is. I am not in favor of putting on the market a. compound when you do not know of what it is made. For insta.nce, if you .send your child or I send my servant to a store to buy an article, I want them to give her what .she asks for, a.ud not palm off .something that is adultarated.

A.gain, the people that are demanding this aot are scattered, as I have said, all over this land. They are a poor class.as a rule. Those who are opposing this bill are farge corporations and combines that are able to send men here t;o lobby and help prevent the passage of this measure, but the friends of the bill are not able to sond a. lobby here. They have sent their national ma.ster of the grange to submit

'•,

'·

.....

.. ,.. . ' ..

, .

, . ,

. ,

'•

., -

:

r.

.. -.

. - .

·-

8980 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD--HOUSE. · -. AUGUST 21,

tbe matter before the committee, and I for one, as a member of this body, propose to cast my vote for a measure that will do the greatest gootl to the greatest number. and so long as I am a membei- of thi1:1 body I hope that my voice will be raised in defense of the weak.er. 'Ve all know that the commodities of the farm have been depressed somewhat. For instancA, take beef. What bas done thatT Well, we will get at that matter later, and strike a blow at the Big ·Four, I hope.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I <lo not wish for myself to do injustice to any man who h~ raising cotton-seed in the South.

Jiir. PRICE. l\lay I ask the gentleman a question t Mr. BLISS. Yes, sir. Mr. PRICE. You say yon do not want to do any injustice to any

man in the South. I think you are earnest in saying that--Mr. BLISS. Mr. Speaker, does this come out of my time f Mr. PRICE. But yon are doing the State of Louisiana. a great

injustice. The SPEAKER pr<J tempol'e. It does come out of the time of the

gentleman. Mr. BLISS. Then I decline to yield. I can not have my time con

sumed in questions. I did not suppose there was any politics in this measure, but that it was for the good of the people all over the country.

Mr. PRICE. I simply desire to say that every mem her of Congress from Louisiana, regardless of politics, is opposed to this bill, and they are supposed to know the sentiments of their State and the wishes of their constituents better than gentlemen who do not represent them.

Mr. BLISS. They ought to know, but I wish to state that I have here a. communication from Mississi.ppi, from T. J. Aby, saying that they do not believe, if they rightly understand it, that this would harm the industry of cotton-seed oil in the end.

Now, as I said before, I do not wish to strike a. blow at any industry, but I do propose to ra.i e my voice in this Hall in the interrst of those who are bdng trampled down by monopolies and corporations and who are not able to compete for themselves in the markets of the world. Theso men have made t.heir millions, and how have they made them t They have made them by ruinous competition with the tillers of the soil. ThesA people have depreciated the price of farm staples. How was it before this " compound lard" was produced T Were we not getting more-for our lard than we get nowf 'rhey have driven down the price from 10 cents to 6 cents, and yet I belieYe to-day that the same amount of money invested in pure Jard will go farther than it will if invested in this compound. That is my honest belief. .

Again, my friQud from Illinois [Mr. MASON] spoke about the laboring class and about this bill advancing the price of lard to them. Now, the proposed ta.x upon this article is only 2 mills per pound, and I, for one, do not believe that it will advance the price a bit to the consumer. I believe that the manufacturers will have to pay it, and as, according to their own reports, they have been making a large profit, they can afford to pay this tax antl still sell the article for the same price for which they sell it to-day.

When the manufacturers of this country unita in petitioning this body foranyparticularprotection we hasten toheed theircry; when the laborers of this country unite in petitioning for an ·eight-hour law we lend a willing ear to their supplications. Are not the farmers, the founders of our wealth and prosperity, entitled to our recognition when their prosperity is menaced by a gi~antic fraud which they are unable to meet in open competition f Smee this bogus-lard industry has begun to flourish the price of pure lard bas depreciated from 10 to 6 cents a pound, not through honest competition, but by flooding the market with a spurious article that is passed off for the real.

The bogus lard can be manufactured and sold cheaper than the real article, but there is no economy in its purchase, as less of the genuine lard will go as far for practical purposes as a greater quantity of these lard compounds, and hence the plea that by this bill we are depriving the poor people of a cheap substitute has no foundation in fact. The main object of the bill iR to force the manufacturers of these compounrls to be honest with t.heir customers and with their business rivals, the farmers of the country, and t-0 state exactly what their compounds consist of, and the revenue derived under the bill will pay for the Government inspection and supervision.

Greater even than the interests of the farmers and the manufacturers of pure lard is the health of the whole people. Admitting the statement that the responsible .manufacturers of these compounds send out nothing but a wholesome product, is it not probable that, if this industry be allowed to go unchecked, without .supervision, competition will become as :fierce as in other industries and that the smaller manufacturers, in the endeavor to compete with the larger concerns, will resort to the same methods adopted in other branches of industry and manufacture a cheaper article, using fewer healthful ingredients and s.ubstituting cheaper compounds f

The health of the people is considered as of first importance, and we should not permit the san e tricks of trade to apply to the manufacture of those products that go into our stomachs as ~hose we put on om· feet. In order to meet a cut in price one shoe-manufacturer will

substitute cheaper leather. Shall the same methods be allowed in the manufacture of these food compounds f It seems to me there shoald be the strictest supervision, and the expense of that supervision should not be borne by a tax upon some honest industry.

By this bill, instead of depriving the poor man of a cheap substitute for lard, we are protecting his 1ealtb and the health of his family from the snare set by enterprising men with the glittering bait of cheap food. If, with the fall knowledge of the facts, people prefer to save a few cents on their lard by buying the compounds, there can be no possible objection so long as the mixture contains nothing impure or injurious to health. But what we insist upon is that the people shall have full notice of what they are getting and that they shall not be deceived or misled by false labels.

There is another important feature of this subject that can not be overestimated. Our foreign trade in food products has received a. blow from which it will be hard to recover in consequence of the deception practiced upon Europeans in selling them these adulterated lard compounds. English tradesmen have been prosecuted and convicted under the health laws for selling American bogus lard; our exports of lard, formerly a reliable trade, have fallen off immensely. Onr whole list of food products has been tainted and a number of countries have excluded one or more of them from their markets.

Honesty is the best policy, and if dishonest manufacturers refnse to adopt that maxim the Government should force it upon them for the protection of the honest producers in this country in the enjoyment of their foreign markets.

APPENDIX. Froni, State Grange of Michigan.

J. H. BRIGHAM. and JOHN TnurnLE, BERRIEN CE1'°TRE, MICH., February 27, 1890.

Leg1:,lative Oommittee, National Grange, P. of H.: I am proud to know that you are in Washington battling for the right. I tra.st

you will not lea"°e a. stone unturned in the interest of the pure-food and pure-lard bills now before the committt>e.

The adulteration of various commodities that are used for food for the human family has grown to such an enormity that the health of the people is jeopardized on every band. There is scarcely an axticle of diet that is pttrchased from the price mark of trade that is pure. Some law or reform mnst be inaugurated, or we will soon become a nation of invalids, willing 1mbjects to frauds of a.JI kintls. I trnst the good judgment of our noble mtin in Congress will heed the requests of the millions of toiling peoJ!le of thl.t nation, and the millions of consumers who have a ri2ht to their fostermg care, and give them the protection that nature demand11, and th~eatest interest of this nation must, must have, agriculture.

Yours, t y, THOMAS :MA.RS.

From, Lecturer Michigan State Grange.

J. H. BRIGB..Ut and JOH~ TRTHBLE, PAW PAW, MICH., Februa11128, 1890.

Legi~lative Oommittu, N ationaZ State Grange: Yours of the 2lat instant relative to "pare food" and "pure lard" is at hand.

The fa1mers and the people of this section who understand these bills are very desirom1 that they pass. Many articles of groceries, such as sugar, sirup, apioos, are commonly adulterated, often with substances injurious to health. Chemical analy11es at our agricultural collejle and elsewhere have furnished abundant proof of this statement. In regard to the pure·lard bill I will sa.v that our people believe that the wholesale adulteration of lard, by lowering the price of that commoclity at home and by largely destroying on.r foreign mari..et, has materially reduced the price of our pork and has helped to bri?.~ about the present unprofitable condition of onr agricuJtnre. We hope this bill will pass.

Yours truly, J.A.SON 'VOODM.A.N, Lect1trer.

Ralph Beaumont, the chairman of the legislative committee of the Knights of Labor, says:

The members of this order do not want cheap lard. They have tastes that require as fine food as those who are more fortunate in the possesaion of this world's goods, and they are in favor of legislation that will make their surroundings such that they can live off of the fat of the land, and they want the pure and ruia· dulterated fat at that.

Again in a letter of later date he says: W .A.SHINGTO!i, D. <.:. , February 10, 1890.

DEAR Sm: In rep;ard to your letter requesting of me to inform you as to the vosition of the Km~hts of Labor on the question of pure food and. the bill now pending in favor of pure lard before Con~ess, I desire to say that we h01Artily indorse the measure. We believe that it is a measure th.at ought t.o pass, and if there is anything that this committee can do to promote its passage, it shall cheerfully be done.

I remain, yonrs respectfully,

A.. J. WXDDERBURN, Waaltington, D. 0.

RALPH BEA.UMO~T.

From. Secretary Ohic State Gra11ge. DRL.A.WARE, Oe10, March 28, 1890.

DEAR Sm: The people of Ohio, and especially the farmers, are in favor of every measure that is hont>tst and that tends to drive frauds out or existence. We are willing to compete with any honest producer and ask no spooial favor, but we pro· test ap:ainst bemg compelled to compete with organized fraud in any line of production. We are heartily in favor of the lard and Conger bill~, now pendin~ before Congress. Give us pure food and pure lard, and thus afford us some relief in our present dApressed condition.

Very truly, T. R. SMITH.

A. J. WEDDERBURN.

Letter from Mi8si88ippi. HERN.U.-VILLE, Mlss., May 24, 1890.

DE.AR Sm: I in close petitions "in favor of FW'e food 11 nnd "in favor of pure lard," which I have only had an hoar and a ha.I to seek signers to. These a.re all

- · ....

. I

•.

.·

.· /

1890. • · CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 8981 whit.e and embrace farmers, merchants, doctors, and meebanfos. Not one has refnsed or declined to sign, to whom I have pres~nted them, but all expressed them· selves decidedly in favor of the Conger !llld other bille in tbe interest of pure foods.

We do not apprehend that the Conger bill, if it became a law, will affect the sale or me of cotton-seed oil. Were these mea~nres proper1y presented to our negroes, I believe they would favor them.

Very truly, T. J . .A.BY.

A. J. WEDDKBBURN, P. 0. Boa; 33, Wa1hi11gton, D. C.

.A. Georgia farmer on the Oonger bill • .AUGUSTA, GA., May 7, 1890.

MY DEAR Srn: Your favors in regard to petitions for the passage of bille to pre· vent the adulteration oflard and food were duly received. The bill known a.s the Conp:er bill is opposed by the cotton States because they say it will iuJure the cotton-seed--0il industry. I am an Alliance man-president of a suball1ance in thi<i county-but I am in favor of the bill. I am opposed to and se>erely condemn all frauds. The bulk of the cotton-seed-oil mills in the South are run in the interest of syndicates, who have JlO use for the farmer except to get hiR seed.

They impress him with the idea that the meal after the oil is extracted isjmt at good for fertilizing purposes as the pure seed, which is a false representation. Is has been practically demonstrated in this county, of Richmond, that unpressed seed are worth fully a fo•uth more for fertilizing than the meal.

I am most heartily in favor of the bill to prevent the adulteration of, food. Each snbp:range and alliance should drau~ht resolutions and 1Jend to their Sena

tors and Rtopresentati>es at Washington. Every prominent granger and alliance man should write their Representatives to urge them to pass the bill.

With best wishes for your success, I remai11, most respectfully, yours,

J. P. H. BROWN, Pre&ident Rock .Alliance, No. 1515, Richmond Oounty, Georgia.

ALEX. J. WEDDERBURN.

From. Secretary South Carolina State Grange, POMARIA, NEWBERRY Com."TY, s. C., Februarlj 26, 1890.

J. H. BRIGHAM and JoHN TRIMBLE, Legislative OommitteeNational Grange, P. of H.:

In readin11: the proceedings of the National Grange, November, lfl89, I observe that the grange indorsed the "pure-food and pure-lard bills" now pending in Congress. The action of the National Grange in the matter of "pure food and lard" meets my most hearty approval, and I trust that Congress may be ind.need to pas~ the acts referred to as conducive to the health of the country. lt is aatounding to learn from reliable sources the impurities in food as practiced upon consumers, and it is due to all that the pernicious practice of adulteration should cease by the enactment of r,tringent laws ; and to Congress we look for protection.

Yonra, fraternally, THOS. W. HOLLAWAY, S. S. O. S. G.

From Sccref,m•y North Carolina State Grange. MOU1'T PLEASANT, March 4, 1890.

J. H. BRIGHAM and JOHN TRIMBLE, Legi8lative Commiltu, National Grange. P. of H. :

In answer to the letter of legislative committee of National Grange, I send you a copy of Times, published at Concord, containing editorial. all or any pa.rt of which is at the service of the committee. I am in sympathy with the work of the committee so far as that bill is concerned, and hope that yon will be successful in e;ettingtbe bill throu~h. I do not believe in the principle of protection, as a tariff

. measure, but I do think that in the matter ot pure food, pure drugs, and pure everything common justice requires that every nrticle put 011 the market should be sold for just what it is and notbini;t else.

With best wishes, fraternally yours, H. T. J. LUDWIG, S. N. C. S. G.

Letter of Mr. W. H. Ne'lion, master State <frnnge of Te11nu1ee. WHITE HAYEK, TENN.

DEAB Srn AND BROTHER: Yours of recent date receh·ed. Thanks for copJ' of "Arguments in faTor of pnre-food le~h1lation" and" clippings from papers. ' I fully al!prove of the position takoo, and would say that my grange, No. 18, has forwarded petitions for that purpose both to the Senate and House of Representatives.

All the members of this grange are cotton-growers and we know that the price of cotton-seed is fixed by a "trust," and a direct tax of 5 centil or even 10 cents per gallon on cotton-seed oil would not lower the price of cotton-seed in any amount whatever. As I presume that you are not a cotton-grower, I will give you the Yea.son for this statement, lest yon may think that I oxaii,:gerate.

First, the cotton·seed meal will pay a ~ood profit when raw seed is pnrcha.sed at $8 or $10 per t-0n (the price usually paid the farmer by the trust), with the oil out of the question.

Second, a steady run c.f three months by the oil-mills of the South will dispose of all the cotton seed. The owners would be pleased if they could run every day and ni1?ht in the year.

Experience bas taught the oil men that whenever tho price of seed is fixed below $8 per ton they ha\"'e an active competition for seed in the cotton-growers and more provident planters, many of whom have cheap mills for grinding or hulling sel'd, in which conditi&n they each used for fertilizing and also for stockfeeding. Yet this is quite profitable with seed even at $8 pei: ton. So you see that the oil men pay just what is necessnry to get the seed delivered. The protests from the South a,gainst legislation to prevent adulteration or lard are all gotten up in cities, towns, or at country stores.

I state without fear of contra~Uction that no farmer who growscott-0n has at any time signed any such paper, unless he saw in the signing a pecuniary profit in some way other than in the price of cotton seed, or else he did it throu1th a mbst shameful ignorance c.r indifference. But suppose it did affect the price of cotton seed to lay a tax on adulterated lard~ It seems to me tbar pure food, or pure lard even, is of more importance t-0 the American people than the entire cotton-seed industry. But we are not alarmed about 1he passage of either the Dawes or Butterworth bills, and I am disinclined to believe that a man who is engaged in an honest business can be. I regret to see that so many commercial excnanices and indindual dealers and traders are opposed to this class of legislation, but I have lived long enough to learn that while they are persistent preachers of honesty, generally speaking, they resen-e the privilege of practicmg just such part aa pays.

.:.

I -

I wish you every success in placing the farmers and their interests in a trne light before the committee of Congress, and you can rest 11.ssnred of any assibtance which I can at any time render.

Yours, truly,

:Maj. A. J. WEDDERBURY. W. H. NELSON.

Numbe1· ana val~e of hogB in the BeveraZ States and Territorus in 1688.

States and Territories.

Maine .••........•..••.••••.•.••••.•..•••. New Hampshire ....••. -. -. -........•••..•. Vermont ......•.•••...•.••.......•••.••.•. Massachusetts .••••.•..•..••••••.•.•.•.••. Rhode Island . -.....•••.••••••............ Connecticut ..•.......•........•••••....•.. New York ................................. . New Jersey ..••••.......•••.•.••••........ Pennsylvania ......••••.• _ ............... _ Delaware ..••.••......•...•. . ..•..•••••....

¥~il!.fa~.::::: :::::: :::::::::: :: ::: ::::::: North Carolina •••••••••.•• _ •.•• -........ . Sou th Carolina .•• ..•• _ ••.•..•••••••••.•...

~~;;r: ::: : :: :::: :: ::::::: ::: : : : :::: :::::: ~J5i~:::: ::: ::::·:: :: : : : :: : :: : : : ::: : :: Texas.-·····-·· ············· ............. . Arkansas .•.•...•.•.•...•.•••••••...••.... Tennessee .......•••••. -......•.•..•.•.... West Virginia .••••••••..•.•.••••••••••••.

~hlot~~~::: :: :: : : :::::::::: ::::::::::: ::: Mic1'ip:an ..••.•..•..••.•••.••.•.••.•..•...

Wi~E1~a~~: ::: :: ::::::::: :: : :: : : : :::: ;::::: Minnesota .••••••.•.•••.••.••.•.••••••••••.

~~o~;i· :::: :::::::::· · :: :: ::: :::::::::::: Kansas . - .••••••••••.....•••.•••••••••••••. Nebraska .••••••.•...•.••.....•••••••••••. California ...•..•.. - - ..•••••.•.••••••••..•.

~~~ad~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Colorado .... -..•.....•..•..•.•.••••••••••. -Arizona .....•••...•...••..•••••••••.•..... Dakota ..........••••••••••••...•.••••...•. Idaho.-····· - ••.•••.•..•. - ....••••••••..••. Montana .....•••••••••..•.•••••••••••.•.•.. New Mexico .............................. . Utah •••••..•••••••••.••...•.••.•••••••.••. Washington ... - .•..••..•.•...•.••..••.••..

i!ai~T~rrti~r;;: ·:::. :: ::·.: ·.:::::::: :::: :-.

Number.

73, 188 54, 899 76, 353 65, 314 13, 261 61, 776

6~6. 390 191, 818

1, 027, 477 42,6M

281, 997 8ll, 362

1, 266, 438 550, 166

1, 534, 189 307, 051

l, 376, 148 1, 2"26, 689

573, 821 2, 279, 082 1, 538, 36o 1, 853, 070

43:.l, 778 1, ';18, 173 2, 008, :w.

906. 255 2, 371, 080 3, 102, 945 l, 123.866

MD, 793 4.148, 811 3, 798, 799 2, 377, 561 2, 334. 525 1, 047.~2 220,7~

21,087 23, 419 16,441

533. 970 42, 150 22, 2S9 19,9H 40, 118 91, 054 2,613

841, 500

Average price .

$9.13 11}.93 9.02

10.30 !l.50 9.09 8. 45 9.19 8. 03 6. FO 6.24 L34. 3.53 3.92 3.17 2 05 3.39 B.10 3.08 2.80 2.56 S.66 4.20 4.27 5. 72

$6.39 5.~ 6.47 6.02 5.92 6. 74. B.06 5.66 5.72 4.62 B.01 5.30 6- 54 5.75 5.94 6.00 6.77 5.64 7.15 5.01 6.64 2. 50

Value.

$667, 917 594, 311 688. 385 672, ~2 125, 978 561, 543

5, 803, 084 I, 762, 326 8, 254, 748

290, 048 l, 756, 621 3, 521, 313 '.4M, 19' 2,159,072 4, 859, 083

628, 840 4, 661, 014 3, 801, 754. 1, 769, 663 6, 436, 128 3, 938, 202 6, 77'-, 8'25 1, 819, 744 7, 329, 727

15,261, 021 $5, 71'9, 700 14, 082, 349 20, 088, 468 6, 766, 798 3, 25', 775

'l!l, 969, 624 15, 043, 2'8 13,457,"9 13, 341, 813

4, 836, 000 66-i, 819 lll, 846 153, 103

94, 636 3, 173, 918

252, 900 150, 898 112,466 286,MG 455, 997

17, 358 2, 103, 750 ------_____ , _____ _

Total . . . • . • . . . . • . . . • • • • . • . • . • . • • . • . • . 44, 346, 525 4.98 220, 8ll, 082

.Average price of hog1 from 1883 w 1890.

Year.

1883 ······················--···· 1884, •••• - - ••••••• ··-· •••••••• •• 1885 ••••••••...• ·••••••••••••••• 1886 •••••• ·········-········-.··-

Price.

$6.75 5. ll7 5.02 4.25

Year.

1887. •••••••••• •••••••••••••••. 1888 ••••••••••••· •••••••••••••• 1889 ······- ................... .

1890 - -- ·······- ••••••••••••••••

Price.

$4.48 4..98 5.78 '"71

Total lard producti-0-n in the United Swtu from 1877 to 1888.

Year.

1887-'88 . ......... ... .... - -188('>-'87 - - ............... - -1885-186 .•••••.•.•••••••••• 188!-'85 .•••••.•••••••••... 1883-'84 .••. - •••••••••••••. 1882-'83 .• ••••••••••••• - ••

Total.

Pound.I. 489, 902, 000 527, 032, 000

514, 230. 000 I 480, 405, 000 444, oi50, 000 419, 513, 000

Year.

1881-'82 ••••••••.•••••••• 1880-'81 •••••• - .••••••••• 18i9-'80 ••••••••••••••••• 1878-'79 ................ . 1877-'78 .••.•••••••••••••

E~orf.B from 1873 to 1889.

Total.

Pounds. 468, 929, 000 517, 660, 000 479, 020, 000 514, 295, 000 40-1, 572, 000

-"--~Y_e_ar~·-~~-:l_L_ar_d~e_x_p_orted. 11-~-~-Y-e_a_r_·~--i-L_a_r_d~e-xp_o_r_te_d_. 1873 ••••••.•••••••••••••. 1874. ......... ....... ... .. 1875 ................... .. 1876 .................... . 1877 . ••••••••••••••••••• -1878 •.•.•••••••••••••• ' ••. 1879 ••••••••••.•••••••••. 1880 .••.•••••••.••••..•.. 1881 ••••••.••. ··-····-···

/• ;

Pounda. 234, 901, 511 184, 100, 226 167, 57g, 377 198, OU8, 212 237, 744, 307 345,693, 527 343, 119, 208 -405, 437, 658 335, 001, 686

1882 •• ••••••••••••••••• 18.-!3 . •••••••••••••••••• 1884 .••••••••••••••.••• 1885 .••••• ••••••••••••• 1886 ••••••••••••••••••• 1887 .••••• •••••••••• ··-1888 ••••• •••••••••••••• l!S89 .•••••••••••.••..•.

. (

Pounds. 239, 904, 657 273, 236, 610 228, 165, 733 301, 305, 105 298, 083, 094 324, 515, 224. 297, 740, 007 318, 242, 990

' ..

t _ ... -

. i

•I

- ' =--" -.....

/.

' I

.·

'•

·.1

. ;

8982 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE. , AUGUST 21,

Priu of prime 1team lard lince 1883, from Mr. OUiver.

Year.

1883 ..••.••••••• ·••••••••••••••· 1884' .•••••••.•••••••••••••••.••. 1885 ••••••••••·• .••••.••••••.••. 1886 •••••••••••• •·•••··•·••••••·

Price.

Oents. 10.12 8.6 6.6 6.0

Year.

1887 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••. 1888 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 1889 .•••••••••••••••••• •••••••·

Price.

OentB. 6. 3 7. 2 6. 7

Statistics of cotton-seed oil. Total annnal prodnction, about 28,000,000 gallons, or ..•••.•. ponnds .. 210, 000, 000 Valneon present market ...........•.•••••....•...•.•••.••••••...•..• $10,j)OO,OOO Used in production of compound lard .....•.•••••.•••••...• . pounds.. 70, 000, 000 Value of which is about.............................................. $3, 500, 000

Statement of Mr. Bingham. Mr. J. H. BnmIIAM. I want to answer the question asked by one of the gen

tlemen before starting out. I will say that the legislative committee of the National Grange, understanding that there was a strong effort made or pressure brought to bear upon the committee, reported the fact to the people in the State and they all reported in favor of this legislation. I want to say that so far as J.P. Squire & Co. are concerned I do not represent them. I do not know anything about them or care anyihinj? about them. I do not appear here to defend their cause or represent them at all.

But the farmers believe tltat they suffer because compounded goods and impure goods are sold as honest goode, that is, as the pure products. They believe that they have suffered in consequence of it, and hence they generally fa.· vor legislation that will give notice to the consumer of Just what be buys, and then if he wants the pure lard he is sure of getting It if the law compels the manufacturer to brand it just what U is. And if be desires this compound, he can buy that, and buy it for what it is worth .

.As a repre entativeoftheNational Farmers' Organization, lwillsay-thatithas been considered in our meetings, and in those meetings representatives, actual farmer,j who were able representatives, have appeared from every cotton-growing State for threo years; and in those mootings thev have considered these same propo~itions, and they are unanimous in claiminj? that they have no right and do not ask that cotton-seed oil be compounded with lard and sold as lard. They are willing it should sell upon its merits. We do not ask that this cotton-seed oil be soltl as anything else but oil, antl we do not ask that anything else be put with it to effect or interfere with its purity. They occupy the same position. All we ask for, as fat·mers, is that we be protected from the impositions that have been placo;:l upon the consnmHs. The people are suspicious of what g"oes into Chicago; they have been suspicious over since they have ascertained that car-load after car-load of hogs that have died with cholera have gone into that city and afterwards come out, na it is understood, as pure refined lard. They are people who do not want to consume such an article if they know what it is. And we believe that the interests of the consumers and producers will be protected and promoted by legislation that will cause very careful inquiry into the manufacture of all these food products.

Petition of Oincinnati Pork-Packers' A.B1ociation and sixty-one others a1 to adulterated. lard.

CINCD.'NATI, Omo, Febrnary 16, 1888. To the honorable the Oommittee on Agriculture

of the House of Representatives, Washington, D. 0.: The undersigned, pork-packers and bog-prod.net and live-stock dealers of the

city of Cincinnati, would respectfully petition you to favorably consider the bill for the protection of pure lard and the regulation of the spurious compound manufactured and sold as refined lard.

We would iespectfnlly represent that the trade in pure lard to consumers bas been greatly damaged by the competition of the cheap and unwholesome compounds, composed of lard, cotton-seed oil, tallow, greases, cay, water, and other cheapening materials, which, by the a.id of chemicals, are made to represent lard in outward appearance so closely that onJy the most skilled can detect the difference, and are being daily palmed off, under misleading and fraudulent brands, on unsuspectin~ consumers as pnre lard.

Under tbeRe cbeapenin~ methods lard bas been reduced from being the most valuable product of the bog to the vext to the lowest, and is fa.st becomina unsalable, except to these compounders, both at home and a broad, it being weif understood that the bad repute into which American lard bas fallen because of this adulteration bas furnished foreign Governments an opportunity of making a war on this great product, which they have zealously and effectively used to the det· rimentoftbe whole trade.

The packers' product is thus much reduced in value by the unfair competition, as is also the value of live bogs, so that all farmers who are breeders and feeders of hoe;s in the country are direct sufferers, the value of their hogs being much reduced, without any compensating advantage.

Because of the unpalatable reputation lard has attained by thi<l wholesale adulteration thousands of families abstain from the use of it in any form, and other thousands, who live within rea.cb of the packing-houses, whose confidence has been destroyed, purchase raw lard and render it themselves, that they may certainly know they are getting the pure lard.

We therefore earnestly pray that the adulteratrd lard may be branded strictly what it is, so that innocent con~umers may know just what they buy, and that a severe penalty attach to any infringement of the requirement. We ask that a sufficient tax be levied against it to constitute it a revenue measure and reimburse the Internal Revenue Department for astriot supervision of the business.

Liverpool Exchanue reaolution, ttnder seal of the asaociation. LIVERPOOL PRODUCE EXCHANGE.

General meeting of the members of the produce exchange, held at tho rooms, 15 Victoria. streP.t, on 'Friday, the 6th instant, b pursuance of notice given.

Mr. C. I. C. Henry, the president, in the chair. The following resolution was movefl by Mr. W. H. Coates, seconde<l, by Mr.

George Harris, and carrictl unanimously: ""\Ve, the undersiirned, members of the Liverpool Produce Exchange, as mer

chants and brokers interested in the importation of American hog products, desire to protest against an atlulterated compound being sent to us under the name of lard. We ebail welcome an.v measure passed in Congress that is likely to

:iuhr~~!fe':~~~ell t0o=;,u~a~!:t~::er~ ~iard.adT~:rk!i~~~~~~t::a\i~nw~ ~: ~~°n~~.~. affecting our trade, as it surrounds it with suspicion and lack of confi.

(SEAL.) OHR. I. C. HE1'TRY, Oliairman.

W. H. WILKINoON, Hon. Secretary.

From .Maste1· Kentucky State Grange. NEWSTEAD, KY., March 1, 1890.

J. H. BBIGRAH and JOHN TRIMBLE, Legi1lative Oommittee National Grange, Patrons of Husbandry:

Th~ matter of pure food and medicines, and especially of pare lard, is of such vast unportance not only to farmers, who are the main producers of pure food but also to every citizen who eats or is necessitated to take medicine, th11.t no eft'oit should b.e spared to induce a favorable report from the Committee on Agricultnre on the bills now pendinjr for the prevention of such adulterations and their speedy pasMge by Congress. The farmers all over the land in their organizations have spoken out in no uncertain sound on this subject and demand the:paasage of these pure-food laws, not as clase legisbtion, but as a matter of simple Justice, not only t.o themselves, but to every honest producer of food and medicines.

No honest man can object to the principles of honor and fair oealing being applied to all commercial transactions, and that it is just what we ask; sell everything for what it is, not for what it is not. The farmers are looking to their members in Congress to see to it that these w.1.tolesome measures are passed, and if they fail to carry out the wishes of the people they must expect to be called to strict account before the people when they return to their constituents.

Millions of farmers are now organized and intend to look with watchful care to their own interests, and our representatives must govern themselves accordingly or expect to moot deft.at at future elections.

Very respectfully, J. D. CLA.RDY,

Master Kentucky State Grange.

Adulteration of lard. Mr. CmrnE.R. Mr. Speaker, I a.qk nnanimous consent to have a concurrent reso

lution of the Legislature of the Statf1 of Iowa printed in the RECORD and referred to the Committee on Agriculture. It relates to a. kindred subject to that referred to by the ~entleman from Arkansas a moment since.

The 81'RAKER. Without objection the concurrent resolution of the Legislature of the State of Iowa will be printed in the RECORD and referred to the Committee on Agriculture,

There wa!\ no objection. It is as follows: "Whereas gross and unprinci~led adulterations of lard are,made by the mixture

of cotton-seed oil and other inferior oils with pure lard; and " Wherea.q such a mixture is put up by the great syndicates of packers in the

United States and sold as pure steam-refined lard to the consumers of this and foreign countries, which practice is seriously detrimental to Iowa farmers; and

''Whereas such ~ractice is nnj nst and ruinous to tho hog-raisers of Iowa and the Great West: Therefore,

"Be it resolved by the senate (the hotue concurring), That our Senators and Repsentatives in Congress are earnestly requested and urged to introduce and vote for a law looking to the punishment of such fraudulent transactions and comfelling vendors of adulterat~ food, and especially lard to label it with the name o its constituent elements and the quantity of each ingredientusedinformingthe compound.

"The secretary of the senate is Instructed to send a. copy of Ute resolutions to our Sena.t-0rs and Representatives in Congress.

"I hereby certify that the foregoing concnrrent resolution passed both branches of the twenty-third General Assembly on tho 4th day of March, A. D. 1890.

11 w. R COCHRANE, "Secretary of S1mate."

.Memorial of the Butchers' National Protective AsBOciation to the SmafA and House of Representatives of the Unilld. Statea in Oongress a1sembled.

The great product known in commerce as lard has for some time past been, and is now, so counter!eited and adulterated that the consumer rarely, if ever, is al>le to procure the pure article. The ingredients used in this counterfeit are of such a cheap and inferior grade that they have practically driven the pure lard from the market.

l\Ir, BROSIUS. I yield ten minutes to the gentleman from Iowa. [Mr. LACEY].

Mr. LAVEY. l\Ir. Speaker, coming as I do from a State tliat owns from $28,000,000 to$30,000,000 worth of hogs, nearly double as much as any other State in this Union, I naturally feel much interest in the pending question before the House. We have beardatvery great length from several gentlemen, especially from my friend from Mississippi [Mr. MORGAN], a. description of what constitutes hog's la.rd, a description that naturally brought to the mind of tho gentleman from Pennsylvania[:Mr. BROSIUS] the lines from Macbeth descriptive of the witches' caldron.

It is horrible stuff, they tell us. Then, my friend, why imitate it 7 Why insist on branding as lard a pure and delicate article which passes for olive oil; why brand it with the name of something so foul as" lard," the villainous stuff that you have described hereY [Laughter.] lf cotton-seed oil is such a pure and delicious thiug, why raise over it the banner "In /log Big1w t'incesf" [Laughter.] Let it sail under its own colors, and if it is a good article it will work its way in the markets of the globe.

l\fr. Speaker, there is a demand all over this country for pure food. This bill is the second step in that direction. The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. HATCH] has been complimented highly for the first step, the measure which he brought forward to put down oleomargarine, or to compel ''bull-butter," as it is familiarly called, to go upon the market under its own name, to be solu as oleomargarine and not as ''pure Orange County butter." That was one step, and now it is to be followed by another, and I hope that we shall take step after step in the same direction until this country sba.11 cease to be disgracefully held up all over the world as the home of adulterated food. We will add another commandment to the decalogne, "Thou shalt not commit adulteration," and we will enforce it by Federal law. [Laughter and applause on the Republican aide.]

Almost everything that we eat or drink is so adulterated that only a chemist can t.race the original substance. l:t'ortunately for the human race, most of these admixtures are not injurious to health. Usually some cheap, but not poisonous, compound is added to every article of food until no man knows what he is eating or what he is

·'· .-II

. -.. \.

. -1890. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. I . ' 8983

drinking, unless he has produced the article himself. But the parties engaged in such frauds are not too conscientious to use materials of the most deleterious character1 where such materials will answer the purpose and can be purchased more cheaply than more wholesome articles.

From Iowa no uncertain voice has been heard upon this question. From every part of the State and from all classes has been heard a demand for the passage of a bill to protectthe great hog staples from the depreciation caused by fraud.

We have just passed ameatinspection bill, sothatthehogproducts which go to Europe may have the seal of honest inspection to assure all consumers that the meat products of this co1l.Iltry are pure and wholesome. When Bismarck got into the trough himself and crowded the American hog out of the German markets, he did it under the pretext that our bacon was unwholesome.

The meat inspection law will deprive the German Government of this false ground for exclusion of our products. And when the fraudulent producers of bogus lard seek to crowd out genuine hog J>roducts from the American markets they commence with the assumption th"S..t the genuine article is an unwholesome and unhealthy one . .

To allow a spurious compound to enter into a disguised competition with our great agricultural staple is to permit the first step to be taken to destroy that staple.

The question of furnishing honest lard for all markets is one that ought to interest all Americans. One great industry should not be permitted, in disguise, to undermine and destroy another. If cotton is king by divine right, it should not attempt to rule under the disguise of lard.

Mr. Speaker, in the State of Mississippi, from which we have so much opposition to this bill, the annual hog product amounts to onJy about $1,000,000. The hogs there are built for speed [laughter], as some of my soldier friends here who were upon the Confederate side and also some upon the Federal side well remflmber. There is no lard in them; so that the people are compelled to go to the cotton field for their lard, and it is very natural that gentlemen from that part of the country should rise here in defense of the cottonseed oil product rather than the pure juice of the hog. It is natural they should take that course; but let the article be sold under its own name.

The razor-backs which roam the canebrakes of northwestern Mississippi do not take to fat kindly, but it does not follow that the cotton-seed oil of the Tallahatchee, the Yallabusha, and the Yazoo should be sold as the original hog products of Kansas, Nebraska, and Iowa.

The gentleman from lliinois [Mr. MASON] told us to-day that at one time the makers of this "refined lard" were induced to change the name and call it "compound In.rd" or "lard compound." They were gilding refined gold, painting the lily. This elegant compound that has been described by my friend from :Mississippi they called "refined lard." They put the refined substance of cotton-seed oil into it, but still they called it "lard;" yet nothing in the name or label indicated that there was anything in it but the product ~f tlie hog.

The gentleman from Illinois stated that .l'tlr. Fairbank voluntarily changed his trade-mark and called his product" compound lard" or "lard compound;"· but my friend substantia.Uy conceded away all the merit of the claim that he made for Mr. Fairbank when he said that that change was the result of an investigation in Congress; that the opponents of this product and this manufacturer, Mr. Fairbank, met before the Agricultural Committee of the House, and that finally Mr. Fairbank agreed to change his brand to "compound lard"

Mr. STOCKDALE. Will the gentleman explain the object of the tax:T

Mr. LACEY. The object is this: we can not reach this product in any othtr way. There is a constitutional question involved, and the gentlemen who are endeavoring to force compound lard down the throats of the American people under the name of "refined lard'' or "pure lard 11 can not be reached by Federal legislation except in that way. The same difficulty arose in the case of oleomargarine. State laws are not sufficient. It is true that Illinois has passed a law requiring a certain stamp or brand to be put upon this compound, but that stamp is put on the head of the barrel, and when the lard goes to Mississippi or elsewhere the first thing the merchant does is to knock in the head, and then the brand is gone and he scoops out -this "compound lard" and sells it for genuine lard at 3 or 4 cents a pound less than honest lard could be sold.

The question here is the same question that was involved in the oleomargarine case. It bas been decided that we can control the sale of these articles through the internal revenue taxin~ power, and, as I understand, this bill has been based upon the prmciple of the oleomargarine law. My friends on the other side of the Honse say that this is a "contest between the African and the hog," and for once they are on the side of the African. No doubt their colored constituents will be glad to know that ther~ds at least one animal on the face of the earth that they are not expected to play second fiddle to. [Laughter.]

Negroes raise cotton-seed, it is true, but they have been the un-

. ' , .. , ':'

willing victims of fraud too long to wish to profit by fraud perpetrated upon some one else. Clamoring as they do for an honest count, they will never be found asking for dishonesty in food.

The colored man is appealing to Congress to do away with fraud, and 1 hope the appeal will reach the conscience of my Democratie friend from Missouri [Mr. HATCH]. We will commence on lard and finally we will come up to other frauds perpetrated in this country.

"Let every tub stand on its own bottom." lf cotton-seed oilis the good thing they say it is, it does not need to masquerade as lard. If lard is the filthy thing it is claimed to be by the opponents of this bill it would never be interfered with by a counterfeit. It is useless to say that lard is an inferior article when they seek to counterfeit it. No one counterfeits the note or check of a "ti-amp."

Men imitate something that has a record or reputation, something that will sell in the market. Shakespeare should not be labeled Bacon, nor cotton-seed oil marked family lard. Hypocrisy is the highest tribute paid by vice to virtue; and so the imitation or counterfejt:ing of an article is the highest praise that can be bestowed upon that article. Nothing is counterfeited but what is good, and when these men concede that the name of "lard" is worth something aa an inducement to the purchase of the article they: concede away their whole claim. They concede that cotton-seed oil will not sell in the markets unless under a fictitious nn.me. The falsehood of the charges against lard can not be more readily disproved than by the admission that it is profitable to counterfeit it.

[Here the hammer fell.] Mr. McCLAMMY. Before my friend takes his seat I would like

him to answer just one question, and I will give him the time. A man who does not ask ::i. question when he wants information remains ignorant, while by asking it he may get information.

Mr. LACEY. .Ask yom.· question, then. Mr. McCLAMMY. I want to hear the gentleman tell the differ

ence between "compound Jard" and "lard compound." Mr. LACEY. The difference is the same as the difference between

tweedledum and tweedledee. Mr. McCLilIMY. That is exactly what I expected you to say. !.Ir. LACEY. And the difference between ''compound lard" or

"lard compound" and lard is about 99 per cent. Mr. McCLAMMY. I do not understand the gentleman's figures. Mr. LACEY. Wel1, they have it graded all the wa.y from GO per

cent of cotton-&eed oil up to 99 per cent. }.Ir. MCCLAMMY. Is that "lard compound'' or "compound

lard Y" Mr. LACEY. The cottolene which was brought in here to-day

they say has not any lard in it, not even enough to flavor it, yet nobody can tell the difference between it and lard except by the label. .

Mr. McCLilfMY./I am advised that I am consuming time by these questions, "Qut I am not Ratisfiecl with the gentleman's an- ' swer.

Mr. LACEY. And in conclusion, for my time is up, I wish to add that this legislation, commenced with oleomargarine, will not end with lard, but in the encl should result in suc)l_ laws as will make pure food the invariable rule as to every article that is produced in the United States.

Mr. BROSIUS. I yield, ten minutes to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. NIEDRINGHAUS].

Mr. NIEDRINGHAUS. Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to speak on this bill and am, consequently, without any prepared speech.. But, after listening this afternoon to the heated discussion on both sides of the House, it seems to me to be my duty to express myself in a very few remarks upon this subject~ .

The farmers of my district are not a hog-raising people. I have consequently no political interest in this bill. From the city of St. Louis I have received petitions on both sides of this question. I am therefore at liberty, withou~ doing injustice to my constituency, to vote on this question as my conscience shall dictate.

In principle, I am opposed to this Government grantin~ a license to anybody to manufacture any imitation or adulteration of any article of commerce. I am in favor of the greatest liberty which the proper order of society will permit. Such was my position upon the originalpac~e measure, although the bill was so drawn that I was unable to vote on it either way.

Mr. HATCH. Will the gentleman allow me to ask him a single question?

Mr. NIEDRINGHAUS. If I yield, how much additional time will you give me?

.flfr. :McCLAMl\IT. I can not give the gentleman any of my time. Mr. HATCH. I believe I will not interrupt my colleague. Mr. NIEDRINGHAUS (addressing himself to Mr. HATCH). I will

come out all right; we will join hands at the conclu ion of my remarks. Mr. HATCH. I do not want to take up my colleague's time. Mr. NIED RING HA US. I will call upon my friend from North Car

olina. Mr. McCLAMMY. No, sir; I can not yield you any time when my

brother HATCH interrupts you. Mr. NIEDRINGHAUS. I have no prepared speech, and I hope I

shall not be interrupted a great deal. AB I was stating, I am in favor

'·

' . ;

...

I ,

,·

_.

"I

·.' .. &

--

·-

• t

,.

.-

8984 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. AUGUST 21, .

of the greatest personal liberty consistent with the good or<Ier of society. I want a man to have the liberty to eat and drink and also to manufacture what he pleases, provided he does not thereby infringe upon the rights of his neighbor.

The question before us is a question of principle. I care very little about ''compound lard;" at this time I will not talk upon that specifically, bot upon the bosine.gs principle involved.

If a manufacturer makes an invention in compounding various arti: cles, be bas a new article of commerce which should be introduced into the market under a new and specific name and shonln not be permitted to be brought into the market under disguise of' the name of an article already well known and defined in the markets of the world.

Any one en~aged in or acquainted with the manufacturing business knows the hardships and difficulties encountered in introducing a new article. The manufacturer otten has to make a house-to-house canvass with the article to introduce and sell it, which involves a J?;reat deal of expense both in time and money. It has to stand or fall upon its own merits, and it takes years sometimes before it becomes an ultimate success.

It, therefore, a manufacturer can adulterate any well known article, especially a staple article, by compoundin2 various ingredients, so the :finished product stands him 20 per cent. cheaper than the genuine article, he can sell it at 10 per cent. cheaper than the genuine, and can make immediate and enormous profit to the detriment and loss of the legitimate producer and deceive the innoceot consumer.

It is, therefore, not a question with me whether this or any other article shall be taxed, but as to whether such adulteration or imitation should be allowed at all; for any imitation or adulteration, althoai:ch perhaps not deleterious, tends to do an injustice to the prod acer ot the genuine article, deceives the public, and such practice should be punishable as a crime.

If Congress undertakes to legitimize or license the manufacture of any imitation or adulteration, where will the line be drawn? If the adulteration of lard is licensed by Con~ress, why not license the manufacture of imitations of any other well known article of commerce! care not which? The principle is a very dangerous one, and should not be resorted to under any pretext.

Let me ask my friend from Iowa, the promoter of this bill, as to whether we have any right to barter away this great inheritance of the farmer, this word "lard," for the paltry sum of 2 mille a pound tax upon the compound article. Still, in the absence of anything better to cover the subject than the measure pending, I shall vote for the bill.

Mr. CONGER. No, and the bill does not do it. Mr. NIEDRINGHAUS. If anybody wants to put a new article on

the market, cottoxaeed oil or any other product, let him put it before the people for just what it is, "cottolene," if you please, or lard and cotton-seed oil compound. Then there would be no power vested in Congress to interfere with him or deny him full protection and the liberty of the market . .

[Here the hammer fell] Mr. McCLAMMY. I yield twenty minutes to tbe gentleman from

Mississippi [Mr .. STOCKDALE]. [Mr. STOCKDALE addressed the House. See Appendix.]

Mr. McCLAM:UY. How much time have I remaining? The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has eight minutes re

maining. Mr. McCLAMMY. I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman

from New York [Mr. TURNER]. Mr. TURNER, of New York. Mr. Speaker, I know, as my friend

from Missouri, who has just addressed the House, says, that a man is not e. hog. My people are not hogs either. Neither is mine a cotton country; but the people of my district are consumers, and in the interest of the consumer, who has heen heard from very little either in tariff legislation or in this legis1a.tion, I propose to say a few words. I pick up the report of the committee, and I am informed on the fourth page that-b;:~u~~~~ittee believe t hat while morals may not need trade, tra.d\ must

So, Ur. Speaker, I suppose anything that is pertinent to moral philosophy is pertinent to this bill, for there is a greater j umbJe of moral philosophy and economic ignorance in this report than in any other document that has ever been submitted to my eyes since I have been a member of this House. I read on that same page that, taking the entire product of the country1 the amount lost to the farmers or lost to the bogs by reason of the manufacture of compound lard is estimated at from thirteen to fifteen million dolla"S. That is thirteen or :fift e-en million dollars saved to the consumers of this country. They speii.k of that as a loss. That amount is saved, not lost.

Why, sir, this is tihe most absurd economic rubbish that I have ever heard of. The cheapening of food products is a loss, is it? The making of a coat by a sewing machine instead of by hand is a loss, is it? The raising offour bushelsofwheatwhereonly one grew before is a loss, is it? This is a beautiJul system of political economy. Fifteen million dollars sa'\'ed t-0 the people who buy and consume this lard, or this

''compound,'' and now it is proposed to tax the people of this country fifteen mil1ion more and pay it over to somebody, and that is called a saving ! Why, sir, this report is absurd. and I am surprised that the distinguished gentleman from Missouri [Mr. HATCH] would advocate any such financial absurdity as that.

Let us look a little further into this matter. This$15,000,000 that is to be stolen from the pockets of the consumers-for if you are going into hard words I say that is robbery, I say that is thievery, I say that is larceny, I say that is an outrage.

Mr. CONGER. May I ask the g,entleman a question? Mr. TURNER, of New York. Certainly; I would like to have you, M.r. CONGER. Yon are talking about the 10!8 to the farmer, but

there was a gain to somebody else, and was not that a gain to Fairbank & Co.?

Mr. TURNER, of New York. Iftheconsumerpays~>l5~000,000lesa a year for this product is not that a saving to the consumer? If the people of this country pay in the aggregate $15,000,000 a year less for their lard product than they did five years ago, they save that fifteen milliom1, don't they?

Mr. CO~GER. Not if they pay the fifteen millions for cotton-seed oil instead of lard.

Mr. TURNER, of New York. But yon say in your report that this competition has cheapened the price oflard. You do not say there is $15,000,000 less paid to the farmers, but yon say that the price oflard to the consumer has been cheapened $15, 000, 000. The price of lard fell from 10 to 6 cents a pound, did it not? I say, a.s you say in your report, that the price fell from 10 cents to 6 cent.s a pound; that is, the selling price of lard, the price to the consumer, the price to th~ people who bought it for use. Is not tbata savingtotheconsumer ofthe difference between 6 cents a pound and 10 cents a pound. And for the information of gentlemen I will say that that difference is 4 cents a pound. That is a clear saving to the consumer.

You can not doubt it, you can not wheedle it out of it. But you say that Mr. Fairbank got some money out of it. But remember he did not get any money out of the 10-cent-a-ponnd schedule, for there was no 10-cent schedule, there was only a 6-cent schedule. So he did not get any out of 10 cents a pound, and whatever he did get he got out of 6 cents a pound; whatever he made he made out of the reduced price of lard instead of the higher price. By every cent that the price is reduced, by so much is the consumer benefited, and you can not prove anything else any more than you can prove that two and two make nineteen.

Mr. McCLAMMY. Let them answer that. Mr. TURNER, of New York. I do not want them to answer it now.

I want them to think over it, to sleep over it. [Laughter.] Tht> gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. McCLA.MMY] said he did not get any sleep last night, but I want these gentlemen to sleep over this question and see if they do not get a revelation or a dream that will be better sense than this report; for a man must be in a horrible condition, he must have eaten a very indigestible supper, if he can not have a dream that will contain better sense than this report. [Laughter.]

But, Mr. Speaker, the action of tbe.se gentlemen in relation to an amendment that was offered here uncovered the insidious purpose of this legislation. That amendment proposed that wherever lard was made in open kettles it should not be subjected to this proposed supervision or tax, but that all other lard should be.

Jl,lr. KERR, of Iowa. Lard that was '' rendered '' in open kettles. J',Ir. TURNER, of New York. Yes, rendered. That was the propo

sition. and you gentlemen all voted it down. Why? You said you wanted to appJy the steam process for extracting lard from the hog's hoofs and the hog's entrails and the refuse of your butcher-shops, to be sent abroad and sold as "pure lard." You would not admit that amendment upon your bill because you knew that these monopolists whom you represent-I do not mean whom you personally represent, but the monopolists in whose interest this legislation is urged and who alone can be benefited by it-you knew that they were the people, and not the compound-lard men, who wanted to avoid inspection.

Yon do not want the Government inspectors walking through these large factories and seeing the entrails of the hog stewed up for the delectation of mankind. [Laughter.] You want to keep the inspector out of those places, and at the same time to put undertbe ban a wholesome competing article of food while you sell yon.r own rotten product as pure lard in the markets of the world. [Laughter.]

:Mr . . BROSIUS. I move that the House do now adjourn. The motion was agreed to; and the House accordingly (at 10 o'clock

p. m.) adj_ourned until 12 o'clock to-morrow.

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES.

Under clause 2 of Rule XIII, reports of committees were delivered to the Clerk and disposed of as follows:

Mr. HE~DERSON, of North Carolina, from the Committee on Pensions, reported favorably the bill of the Senate (S. 3730) granting a pension to Mary E. Greening, widow of Orlando A. Greening, who served in the Indian war, accompanied by a report (No. 2993)-to the Committee on the Whole House.

...

- -. ,.• Io I

'•. ' . -

1890. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 8985 Mr. BINGHAM, from the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fish

eries, reported favorably the bill of the House (H. R. 11655) to provide American registers for the steamers Stroma and Marco Aurelia., accompanied by a report (No. 2994)-to the Honse Calendar.

BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS. Under clause 3 of Rule XX:Il, a bill of the following title wa.s in

troduced, read twice, and referred as follows: By Mr. WHEELER, of Alabama: A bill (H. R. 11805) to establish a

port of delivery at Florence, Ala.-to the Committee on Commerce.

PRIVATE BILLS, ETC. Under clause 1 of Rule XXIT, private bills of the following titles

were presented and referred as indicated below: By Mr. ELLIS: A bill (H. R.11806) for the relief of W. A. McCor

mick-to the Committee on War Claims. By Mr. McCARTHY: A bill (H. R. 11807) to remove the charge of

desertion against John Smith, of Company I, Eighty-second Regiment New Jersey Volunteers-to the Committee on Military Affairs.

By Mr. MOFFITT: A bill (H. R. 11808) to remove the charge of del!lertion from the name of Matthew Clifford-to the Committee on Military Affairs.

By Mr. REILLY: A bill (H. R. 11809) for the relief of the estate of Holmes Sells-t-0'theCommitteeon War Claims.

By Mr. ROBERTSON: A bill (H. R. llelO) for the relief of William W. DouglMS, administrator of Rebeeca V. Packer, deceased, of East Feliciana Parish, Louisiana-to the Committee on War Claims.

Also, a bill (H. R .. 11811) for the relief of Johnson Hampier, of Madison Parish, Louisiana-tot.be Committee on War Claims.

Also, a bill (H. R.11812) for the relief of Washington West, ofMadison Parish, Louisiana-to the Committ~e on War Claims.

By Mr. SIMONDS: A bill (H. R. 11813) to correct the military record of Patrick Mackin-to the Committee on Military Affairs.

PETITIONS. ETC. Under clause 1 of Rule XXII, the following petitions .and papers

were laid on the Clerk's desk and referred as follows: By Mr. CHIPMAN: Remonstrance of Detroit Board of Trade against

granting to private corporations a lease of north pier, ""Buffalo, N. Y.-to the Committee on Commerce. ·

By Mr. ENLOE: Petition of Methodist Episcopal Church of Moscow, Tenn., for rnference of claim to Court of Claims under provisions of the Bowman act-to the Committee on War Claims.

By Mr. FITHIAN: Affidavit of Rohert Plunket, of Palestine, Ill., in ihe case of Andrew J • .Plough, the same being Honse bill 11784-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

Also, paptrs to accompany House bill 11756 for increase of pension of Edward T. Wolf-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. •

By Mr. HITT: Petition of Joseph P. Bell, and 10 others, citizens of Carroll County, Illinois, in favor of House bill 8248-to the Committee on Agriculture.

By Mr. JOSEPH: Petition of the Commercial Club of Albuquerque, N. Mex., praying for the confirmation by Congress of the Albuquerque town grant-to the Committee on Private Land Claims.

By Mr. LESTER, of Georgia: Petition of H. A. Bennett and othertl. of Appling County, Georgia, for improvement of Galveston Harbor, and an appropriation therefor-to the Committee on Rivers and Harbors.

Also, petition of W. D. Griffis and others, of Pierce County, Georgia, for same purpose-to the Committee on Rivers and Harbors.

Also, petition of J. :M. Murphy and 38 others, of Bullock County, Georgia, for flame purpose1 to the Committee on Rivers and Harbors.

Also, petition of F. R. Farrar, president Farmers' Alliance, of Effingham County, Georgia, in favor of House bill 8648-to the Committee on

· Agriculture. Also, petition of same persons in favor of the pare-lard bill, H. R.

283-to the Committee on Agriculture. Also, petition of T. J. Jones and 21 others, of Ware County, Georgia,

in favor of House bill 8648-to the Committee on Agriculture. Also, petition from W. B. Hargreaves and 20 others, of the First Con

gressional district of Georgia, for same purpose-to the Committee on Agriculture. .

Also, petition of same persons, in favor of House bill 283-to the Committee on Agriculture.

Also, petition ofT. J. Jones and 21 others, citizens of Ware County, Georg~, in favor of House bill 283-to the Committee on Agriculture.

By Mr. MOURE, of New Hampshire: Petition for the perpetuation of the national-banking sy~tem-to the Committee on Banking and Currency.

By Mr. OATES: Petition of 105 colored voters, citizens of Montgomery County, Alabama, protesting against tlie passage of the Conger ~mpound·lard bill-to the Committee on Agriculture.

Also, petition of 143 colored vote.rs, citizens of Dallas County, Alabama, protesting against the passage of the same measure-to the Committee on Agriculture.

. -.

Also, petition of 270 colored voters, citizens of Madison, Limestone, Morgan, Lawrence, and Colbert Counties, Alabama, proteeting against the passage of the same measnre--to the Committee on A~iculture.

By Mr. RANDALL: Petition ot Albert G. Brook and others, of Nantucket, Mass., for p~ge of laws for the perpetuation of the nationalba.nking system, under which the interest of depositors is protected by Government supervision-to the Committee on Banking and Currency. . By Mr. ROBERTSON: Petition of Washington West, of Madison · Parish, Louisiana, for stock and cotton appropriated to use ofthe United States Army during the late war-to the Committee on War Claims.

Also, petition of Johnson Hompier, of same place, for same relieft-0 the Committee on War Claims.

By Mr. WILSON, of West Virginia: Petition of Jaeob Ray and 33 others, of Randolph and Tucker Oounties, West Virginia, in favor of Honse bill 8828-to the Committee on Military Affairs.

By Mr. WRIGHT: Petition of citizens of Alba, Bradford County, Pennsylvania, in favor oforiginal·package bill-to the Committee on the Judiciary.

SENATE. FRIDAY, August 22, 1890.

The Senate met at 10 o'clock a. m. Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. J. G. BUTLER, D. D. The Journal of yesterday's proceedings was read and approved. Mr. VEST. I suggest that there is no quorum present. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Secretary will call the roll of

the Senate. The Secretary called the roll; and the following Senators answered

to their names: Aldrich, Dawes, Manderson, Allison, Dixon, Mitchell, Bate, Faulkner, Power, Berry, Gorman, Pu~h, Blair, Hale, Quay, Casey, Hampton, Ransom, Cockrell, Harris, Rea2"1Ln, Coke, Hiscock, Sanders, Cullom, Hoar Sawyer, Davis, Ingalls, Spooner,

Teller, Tur pie, Vance, Vest, Walthall, Washburn, Wilaon of Iowa.

Mr. QUAY. Jn explanation of the absence of my colleague [Mr. CAMERON], I desire to mention that he was called from the city yes· terday on important private business.

The PRESIDENT pro t.empore. Thirty-seven Senators have answered to their names. A quorum is not preeent.

Mr. HARRIS. I move that the Sergeant-at-Arms be direct.ed t-0 request the attendance of absent Senators.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Tennessee moves that the Sergeant-at-Arms be directed to request the attendance of ab· sent Senators.

The motion was agreed to. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Sergeant-at-Arms will execute

the order of the Senate, being furnished with a list of absentees by the Secretary.

Mr. CARLISLE, Mr. DANIEL, and Mr. McPHERSON entered the Chamber and answered to their names.

Mr. FAULKNER. I wish to state that my colleague [Mr. KENNA] is detained from the Senate by reason of sickness.

Mr. JONES, of Arkansas, entered the Chamber and answered to his name.

The PRESIDENT pro rempore. The senior Senator from Vermont [Mr. MORRILL], the junior Senator from Vermont [Mr. EDMUNDS], and the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. GEORGE] are absent from the service of the Senate on leave.

Mr. BLAIR. I will state that my colleague [Mr. CHANDLER] is absent by reason of ill health.

:Mr. CASEY. My colleague [Mr. PIERCE] is ne~rily detained from the Chamber, having been called away by illness in his family.

.Mr. 4LLEN, Mr. BARBOUR, and ?t!r. Ev ARTS entered the Chamber and answered to their names.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore (at 10 o'clock and 12 minutes a. m. ). Forty-four Senators have answered to their names. A quorum being present, if there be no objection, further proceedings under the call will be dispensed with.

PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS. :Ur. BUTLER presented a petition of residents of Anderson, S. C.,

praying for the passage of what is known as the "pare-food" bill; which was ordered to lie on the table.

REPORTS OF COMMITIEES.

Mr. SAWYER, from the Committee on Pensions, to whom were re· ferred the following bills, reported them severally without amendment, and submitted reports thereon:

A bill (H. R. 10202) j!;ranting a pension to 0. E. Hukill; A bill (H. R. 8059) granting a pension to Mrs. Emma. A. Stafford; A bill (H. R. 1~66) granting a pension to Mrs . .Mary Ewald;

,·

-...

. '

- . ,

.....

: I

·,.

.,, ..

.....

.-

:

- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. '

Documents

Transcript of - CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. '