. ... 

·. 

. ,,. 

. , __ 

·., 

.. 

. -

' I 

..... 

" 

: ~ 

. ' 

~ 

'I 

.. .. . "I 

-: ,. "· .... ... 

8876 .~ CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. AUGUST 20, 

• and made final proof on lands in the so-called second indemnity belt of the 

Northern Pacific Railroad Company's grant under the homestead and pre- emption laws of the United Statesror their heirs, may transfe.r their said entries 

from said tra.cts to such otJ:ier vacant Government land in compact form and in 

legal subdivisions, subject to entry under the homestead and pre-emption laws, e.s they may select, and receive final certificates and receipts therefor, in lieu of 

the tracls proved up as in said belt by the respective claimants; and the Secretary of the Interior shall, on application, repay to said claimants respectively 

the money wb.ich they have paid on account of said entries: ProV>ided, That no final entry shall be permitted except upon proof of continuous residence upon the land subject of [to] such new entry for a period of not less thaQ six months 

prior thereto. 

SEC. 2. That all persons possessing the requisite qualifications under the pre- emption or homestead laws, who in good faith settled upon and improved land 

in said second indemnity belt, having made filing or entry of the same, and for any reason, other than voluntary abandonment, failed to make proof thereon, may, in lieu thereof. transfer their claims to any vacant Government land suhject to entry under the homestead or pre-emption lawM, and make proof therefor as in other cases provided; and in making such proofcredlt shall be given for the 

period of their bona fide l'esidence and amount or their improvements upon their respective claims in the said indemnity belt, the same as if made upon the tract to which the transfer is ma.de: Pro-vi.ded, That no final entry shall be per- mitted, except upon proof of continuous residence upon the land, the subject 

of such new entry, for a J?0riod of not less than six months prior thereto. Pay· ment for said final selection shall be ma.de as under existing laws. The provisions of this act shall be carried into effect under such rules and regulations as may be prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior. 

The amendment was agreed t-0. 

The bill was reported to the Senate as amended, and the amendment 

was concurred in. 

The amendment was ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read 

a third time. 

The bill was read the third time, and passed • 

Mr. PLUMB. This is a House bill_ which has been amended, and I 

move fhat the Senate insist upon its amendment and ask for a conference with the House of Representatives thereon. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. It is so ordered, if there be no objection. 

Mr. HISCOCK. I move that the Senate do now adjQurn. 

The motion was agreed to; and (at 6 o'clock and 8 minutes p. m.) the 

Senate adjourned until to-morrow, Thursday, August 21, 1890, at 10 

o'clock a. m. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 

WEDNESDAY, .A.ugzf,St 20, 1890. 

The House met at 11 o'clock a. m. 

APPROY AL OF THE JO URN AL. 

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

Mr. HOLMAN. Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is a quorum 

}lresent. I make the point of no quomm. 

-The SPEAKER~ The Chair thinks the point is well taken. 

Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Speaker, I move a call of the House . 

The motfon was agreed to. 

Tbe Clerk proceeded to call the roll; when the following members 

failed to answer to their names: 

Abb.ott, Buttel'worth, Edmunds, Lane, 

Adams, Bynum, Ellis, Laws, 

Alderson, Caldwell, Enloe, Lee, 

Allen, Miss. Campbell, Ewart, Lehlbach, 

.Anderson, Kans. Candler, Ga . Farquhar, Lester, Ga. 

Anderson, Miss. Candler, Mass. Finley, Lind, 

Andrew, Cannon, Fitch, Lodge, 

Arnold, Carlton, Fithian, 1\!agner, 

Atkinson,Pa. Carter, Flood, Ma.ish, 

Atkinson, W. Ya.. Caruth. Flowei:, 1\lansur 

Bankhead, Caswell, Fowler, Martin, Tex. Banks, Catchings, Frank, McAdoo, 

Bat<nes, Cheadle, Funston, McCarthy, Bar tine, Cheatham, Gear, McClellan, 

Be.rwig, Clancy, Geissen hainer, 1\foComas, 

Bayne, Clark, Wis. Gest, ·l\IcOord, Bec~~ith, Clements, Gibson, :McCreary, Belden, Clunie, Gifford, McDuffie, 

Bergen, Cobb, Greenhalge, Mc Kenna, 

Biggs, Coleman, Grimes, Mc Millin, 

Bingham, Comstock, Grout, l\Iiles, 

Blanchard, Connell, Hall, Milliken, 

Bland, Cooper, Ohio Hare, Mills, 

Blount·, Cothran, Harmer, Montgomery, Boatner, Covert, Hatch, l\:lorey, Boothman, Cowles, Ha.yes, l\oiorrow, 

Boutelle, Craig, Haynes, Morse, 

Bowden, Crain, Heard Mudd, 

Breckinridge, Ark. Crisp, Hempbill, Norton, 

Breckinridge, Ky, Culbertson, Pa. Henderson, Iowa Nute, 

Brewer, Cummings, Hill, O'Ferrall, 

Brickner, Cutcheon, Hooker, O'Neall,Ind. 

Brower, Dargan, Hopkins, Osborne, 

Brown, J.B. Dnrlingt-0n, Houk, Outhwaite, 

Browne, T. ?tf. Davidson, Kelley, Owen, Ind. 

Browne, Va. De Haven, Kerr, Iowa Parrett, Brunner, De La.no, Kerr, Pa. Payne, Buchanan, Va. Dibble, Keteham, Penington, Buckalew, Dickerson, Kilgore, Perkins, 

Bullock:, Dingley, Kinsey, Perry, Bunn, Dolliver, Knapp, Peters, 

Burrow.s, Dunnell, Lacey, Phelan, 

Burton, Dunphy, La Follette, Pickler, 

·•. 

Pierce, Sherman, Tarsney, 

Post., Shively, Thompson, 

Price. Skinner, TiUman, 

Pugsley, Smith, Ill. Townsend, Colo. 

Quackenbush, Smith, W. Ya.. Tracey, 

Randall, Snider, Tucker, 

R.a.y, Spinola, Turner, Ga. 

Reyburn, Spooner, Turner, Kans. Richardson, Springer, Turner, N. Y. Robertson, Stahlnecker, Yan Scha.ick, 

Rockwell, Stephenson, Vaux, 

Rusk, Stewart, Ga. \7 enable, 

Russell, Stewart, Vt. Waddill, 

Sanford, Sth-ers, Wade, 

Scranton, St-0ckbridge, Wal lace, l\:lass. 

Scull, Stockdale, W a.shington, 

Seney, Stump, 'Vatson, 

'Vheeler, 1\lich. "Whiting, 

\Vhitthorne, 

Wickham, 

Wike, 

Wiley, 

\Vilkinson, 

Willcox, 

Williams, Ill. 

Williams, Ohio. ·wuson,Ky • \Vilson, Wash. 

\Vilson, W. Va. Wright, 

Yoder. 

During the call of the roll the following members appeared and had 

their names recorded at the Clerk's desk under the rule: 

l\Ir. ADAUS, Mr. CANNON, l\Ir. ANDERSON of Kansas, Mr. BROSIUS, 

Mr. CHEATHAM, Mr. BLAND, Mr. BAYNE, Mr. BRECKINRIDGE of Kentucky, Mr. CLE~ENTS, Mr. ENLOE, Mr. CARUTH, Mr. BURTON, Mr. 

FUNSTON, Mr. KINSEY, Mr. LANE, Mr. HENDERSON of Iowa, Mr. 

DINGLEY, Mr.GRil\IES, Mr. BROWER, 1\f.r. SPRINGER, Mr. McCLELLAN, 

Mr. BRICKNER, Mr. LACEY, Mr. BINGII.AM, Mr. COMSTOCK, Mr. 

CLANCY, Mr. MANSUR, Mr. BANKHEAD, Mr. HA YNES, Mr. BYNUM, 

Mr. STOCKBRIDGE, Mr. BOOTHMAN, l\Ir. WIKE, Mr. CHEADLE. 

The SPEAKER. The Clerk i·cports 120 members present-not a 

quorum. 

Some time subsequently the following additional members appeared 

at the Clerk's desk alfd had their names recorded under the rule: 

Mr. WILLCOX, Mr. GEAR, Mr. HOUK, Mr. WILLIAMS of Ohio, Mr. 

THO:llPSON, Mr. O'FERRALL, Mr. KERR of Iowa,, Mr. WADDII .. L, Mr. 

FOWLER, l\Ir. CASWELL, l\fr. ROBEIITSOK, Mr. CATCHINGS, Mr. PENINGTON, Mr. C-ONNELL, Mr. BARTINE, Mr. CANDLER of Georgia, Mr. 

MONTGOMERY, Mr. EBLIS, Mr. ATKINSON of Pennsylvania, lifr. WILLIAMS of Illinois, Mr. WRIGHT, Mr. QUACKENBUSH, Mr. RAY, Mr. 

BLOUNT, Mr. McCREARY, Mr. ANDREW, l\Ir. ROCKWELL, Mr. GEST, 

Mr. PRICE, Mr. TURNER of Georgia, Mr. TA.RSNEY, Mr. FARQUHAR, 

Mr. CARTER, Mr. DUNNELL, Mr. BERGEN, Mr. McDUFFIE, M:r. TuRNER of Kansas. Mr. MCKENNA, Mr. CRAIN, ~Ir. CARLTON, Mr. DARLINGTON, Mr. RUSSELL. 

Mr. BUCHANAN of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, my colleague, ?ifr. 

LEHLBACH, is absent to-day, as be has been for several days, on ac- count of illness. 

Mr. YARD LEY. "'ily colleague, 1\Ir. SCULL, was compelled to go 

home this morning on account of illness. 

Mr. McKINLEY. I offer tho following resolution, which I send to 

the Clerk's desk. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

Resolved, That the Sergeant-at-Arms take into custody and bring to the bar 01 

the House such of its members as are absent without the leave of the House. 

The resolution was agreed to. 

Mr. O'NEILL, of Pennsylvania.• M:r. Speaker, may I state during 

this interregnum that it is evident the House does not desire to meet 

at 11 o'clock in the day yet awhile for any purpose? Now, I am desirous to see the pubiic business go along as rapidly as possible, but 12 

o'clock seems to be the hour in the minds of the members at which 

the Honse should meet. [Cries of "Regular order!."] 

The SPEAKER. The desire of any one member to have the public 

business go on is not sufficient. 

Ur. BUCHANAN, of New Jersey. That is, I snppose, a.s agi1inst 

the desire of some one member that business should not go on. The SPEAKER. It is not sufficient. 

_ Ur. ENLOE. !llr. Speaker, I would like to make a. motion that the 

door olll"this side be opened, so as to give ventilation. We on this side 

of t~Chamber are not responsible for the absence of a quorum on 

the other side, and we should like to have the air through that door. 

The SPEAKER. That is not in orde1-. 

Mr. ENLOE. If it is not in order, then I move to dispense with all 

further proceedings under the call. 

The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the noes seemed to have it. 

Mr. ENLOE. Division. 

Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire if the pres- ence of a quorum is disclosed . 

The SPEAKER. A quorum has not appeared. 

Mr. SPRINGER. Some gentleman mi,ght intimate that there was 

probably a quorum in the vicinity of the Capitol. [Laughter. J 

The SPEAKER. It might be some gentleman in whom the Honse; 

bad confidence, and the House might act upon it. 

?r{r. SPRINGER. Let the Speaker make that intimation, and then we will all believe it-excepting those who do not. [Laughter.] 

The House divided on the motion of Mr. ENLOE to dispense with all 

further proceedings under the call, and there were-ayes 30, noes 64. 

So the motion was reject~d. 

Mr. ENLOE. I make the point of order that the rules of the Honse 

are not being complied with. Paragraph 2 of Rule XV sa.ys: 

2. In the absence of & quorum, fifteen mem hers, including the Speaker, if thero 

.: 
.· 

... • ~ .... - .: . -...... ""'': 

" . 

1890. OONGRESSIONAL REOORD-HOUSE. 8877 .-

is one sba.11 be authorized to compel the attenilance or absent members, and in 

all calls of the House the doors shall be closed. 

Now, I make the point of order that. th? doors on that side are not 

closed while the doors are closed on this side. If the Speaker bolds 

that the door on this side can not be opened, I make the point of orde1· 

that the Speaker shall order the door on the other side to be closed, and 

I ask the Chair to rul~ on it. 

The SPEAKER. The position of the ~entlem:m from Tennessee is 

not absolutely consistent. The other day be was very indignant be- cause the doors were closed at all. . [Laughter.] 

Mr. ENLOE. I notice, :M:r. Speaker--

The SPEAKER (continuing). The gentleman will at once see that 

to hold the Chair rnsponsible for opening and closing the doors might 

get him into difficulty with some memhers. [Laughter.] 

Mr. ENLOE. I observe, Mr. Speaker, that there is some difficulty 

in getting the Chair to assume the responsibility of the order.. I believe he shifted it upon a subordina te the other day; but 1 notice that 

the door has been closed since I called the attention of the House to 

the matter. 

The SPE AK.ER. It is al ways difficult to get the Chair to assume any unnecessary responsij:>ility. Mr. ENLOE. That is very true, but at the same time the Speaker 

very frequently does assume unnecessary responsibility. [Laughter.] 

The SPEAKER. But it is difficult to get him to do it. 

Mr. ROGERS. I appeal from the decision of the Chair. 

Mr. ALLEN, of Michigan. The gentleman might try the door to see whether it is closed. 

Mr. SPRINGER. The gentleman from Arkansas has appealed from 

the decision of the Chair, and the Chair ought not to ignore that fact. 

The SPEAKER. The Chair supposed it would be the turn of the 

gentleman from Illinois next. [Laughter.] 

Mr. McCREARY (at 11 o'clock and 58 minutes). Ur. Speaker, 

while the House is operating under a call, only a motion to adjourn 

and motions in connection with the call will be in order. I am informed 

that a motion has been made t-0 dispense with further proceedings under 

the call some time ago. I think there is a quorum now present. If it 

is in order, I would like· to move to dispense with further proceedings 

under the call, as it has been some time since that motion was made. 

The SPEAKER. The Clerk reports that but six are lacking to make a quorum. I think if the gentleman will be patient a quorum will be 

obtained in a short time. 

At 12 o'clock and 3 minutesThe SPEAKER. The Clerk informs the Chair that there are now 166 members present-a quorum. 

Mr. McKINLEY. I move to dispense with further proceedings 

under the call. 

The motion was agreed t-0. 

The Journal of the proceedings of yesterday was read and approved. 

UNITED STATES MILITARY RESER\~ATION AT CHATTANOOGA! TENN. 

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for the present consideration of the joint resolution (H. Res.169) to authorize the use of a portion of the United States military reservation at Chattanooga for a park by the city of Chattanooga, Tenn. 

Thejoint resolution was read at length. Mr. ROGERS. A parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. Does this come up in the morning hour or by unanimous consent? 

The SPEAKER. It comes up on a request for unanimous consent. 

!fr. ROGERS. I demand the regular order. 

The SPEAKER. The regular order is the morning hrrur, whi h 

begins at 12 o'clock and 15 minutes, and the gentleman from Mich· an [Ur. CHIPM.\.N] the Chair understands has the floor. 

ALIEN LAND-OWNERS. 

Mr. CHIPMAN. I yield aa much of my time as the gentleman from 

Indiana. [Mr. HOLMAN] may require. 

Mr. HOL?t!AN. Mr. Speaker, I will occupy but a few minutes of 

the time of the House. I was anxious that there should be a quorum 

present when this subject was considered, and especially that a quorum 

should be present when a vot.e was to be taken on the bill, for I regard 

it as one of the most important measures we have had occasion lately 

to conside\., and foJ.• that reason I called for a quorum. I find on looking over the remarks of my friend from Montana [Mr. CARTER], made 

yesterday, the following language: 

The gentleman from Indiana D\Ir. HOLlllA ~] and the g entleman from Illinois 

[Mr. PAYSON] wel'e membersorthe Public Lands Committee, which, throughihe gentleman from Oregon [Mr. HERMANN], reported so strongly in favor of a. like 

amendment of this law. I leave them to explain their positions ns best they can. 

I understood the gentleman from Illinois [l\'.Cr. PAYSON] when that 

language was uttered to promptly state that there was a misapprehension on the part of the gentleman from Montana; that both he and I 

had uniformly opposed this measnl'e, but I do not find it incorporated 

in his remarks; and I take the very earliest moment in my power 

to state that the gentleman labors under an entire misapprehension as to the fact:a. The subject was before the Committee on Public 

Lands during the last Congress. The original bill of the Forty-ninth 

Congress came from that committee and was reported by the gentle-

.· .·. ·. 

man from Illinois [Mr. PAYSON]; but as to this bill being concurred 

in by the gentleman from Illinois and myself, the gentleman is en- tirely mistaken. Mr. PAYSON as well as myself has opposed this 

measure from the beginning, regarding it ns a very unwise and injurious 

measure, tending to impair greatly the valne of the act of the Fortynintb Congress, which prohibited the ownership of lands by aliens in 

the Territories or the District of Columbia. 

Mr. CARTER. Will the gentleman permit me to interrupt him . there? 

l\Ir. HOLMAN. Certainly. 

Mr. CARTER. I will ask the gentleman if both himself and the 

gentleman from Illinois [Mr. PAYSON] were not members of the Committee on Pnhlic Lands at the time this favorable report was made 

ou a bill identical with the present in the first session of the Fiftieth 

Congress? 

l\Ir. HOLMAN. Both of us were. Mr. CARTER. I will ask the gentleman if any minority report was made? 

Mr. HOLMAN~ No; a minority report w~ not made. 

Mr. CARTER. I will ask if any word was uttered by either gentle- man on this floor in opposition to that report? 

Mr. HOLMAN. No, I believe not, from the fact that the measure never came up in the House for consideration. It never wBB considered 

in the House. It never was reached until it was brought up in the pr~ent Congress from another committee, the Committee on Mines and 

Mining. :Mr. SMITH, of Arizona. Will the gentleman permit me right there? 

l\Ir. HOLMAN. Excuse me just a moment. I will say further that a majority of the Committee on Public Lands did not agree to this bill. 

My recollection is that in the last Congress it did not receive the support of a majority of the Committee on Public Lands. It was per- · · mitted to be reported at a comparatively late hour, if I recollect, as a matter of courtesy to the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. HERMANN]--

Mr. PAYSON. As a matter of courtesy to the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. HERMANN]. • 

Mr. HOLMAN. But without any po~ible chance of its being con- sidered, and if it had been po...."'-Sible to have it considered it would have 

been very strenuously opposed. I have been unalterably opposed t.o 

this bill ever since its first appearance. Now, I will yield t.o the gentleman from Arizona. 

:Mr. SMITH, of Arizona.. At the time that this act went into effect 

limiting the holdings of public lands to citizens of the United Sta~ 

and parties who bad declared their intention to become such, was not 

the purpose of that act then simply to prevent the holding of large 

tracts of agricultural land by foreigners, and did the report made at 

that time have one word to say other than as to agricultural lands being held by foreigners ? 

Mr. HOLMAN. I do not remember what the terms of the repor~ 

were on that subject. The report was made by the gentleman front 

Illinois [Mr. PAYSON]. 

Mr. SMI~~1 of Arizona. Not a word about mining lands was there. 

Mr. HOLM.AN. Whether mining lands were specially referred to in 

the report I will not say, for I do not remember. I know it wae con• sidered a very important feature of that bill, nnd the bill was made 

broad enough to embrace them and all other lands. It would have 

been regarded as a fatal defect in that bill if it bad not embraced min• 

eral lands. If the committee had not offered in terms to embrace them 

an amendment for that purpose would have been offered in the House. 

l\1r. SMITH, of Arizona. Does any gentleman here know Qf two 

mines that were held by foreigners? If there are, I would like to hear 

them state where they are. 

Mr. HOLMAN. If the foreigners do not seek these lands then the 

present law will certainly do no harm. 

Mr. SMITH, of Arizona. There were thirty-five or forty years in 

which they could have got it, and they did not. 

Mr. HOLMAN. Then there iB no benefit to be derived from the 

passage of this bill. If these foreigners have not purchased these lands 

when they could and were not seeking this form of our wealth when 

they could do so, what can you gain by this bill? The act of the Fortyninth Congress of course did your Territory no harm. 

Mr. SMITH, of Arizona. The gentleman does not suppose that be- cause they did not do it thirty-five or forty years ago, therefore there 

is no possibility of their doing it now. Mr. HOLMAN. It could have been done up to the Forty-ninth Congress. · Mr. SMITH, of Arizona. Arizona, Utah, and New Mexico are the 

only subdivisions of thiS country that are now legislated against by 

this act, as every one of the new States is absolutely free from its provisions. 

Mr. HOLMAN. Why, certainly. Congress has simply gone as far - as it.could. The act of the Forty-ninth Congress applied t-0 all the 

Territories and the District of Columbia. 

Mr. SMITH, of Arizona. It should go as far as it can, and give 

these advantages to us. Mr. HOLMAN. The Holland Land Company, I believe, is in your 

Territory. 

' ..... 

... · -

:_ .... 

. ·~" ... 

.: 

-. 

~ .. _ ... 
. · 

... -

-. 

.. 

• . \ ... : ... 

8878 CONGRESSIONAL ~ECORD-HOUSE. 

:Mr. SMITH. of Arfaona-. No, sir~ 

Mr. HOLMAN. No, I remember, it is in New Mexico. 

Now, Mr. Speaker, I have said thjs mueh simply for the purpose of 

$fating correctly the record as to the attitude of the members of the 

Committee on Public Landson this subject. That committee believed 

that the Ia.w of the Forty-ninth Congress was a. wise one, and I believe 

that a majority of the committee would be glad to see the end sought 

by the Committee on the Judiciary in this bill reported by the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. OATES], accomplished if it can be done 

under the Constitution of the United States; tha.t is, a complete abolition of foreign ownership of lands in the United States, not only in the 

Territories and the District of Columbia, but also in the several States. 

I believe that such a law would be a wise measure and it is in harmony with the policy of all other nations of the world so far as I am aware. A few years ap:o I submitted a statement to the House in relation to the foreign ownership of agricultural lands showing the ownership of those Jands by foreigners in this country to an amvunt in the 

public land States and Territories of over 17,000,000 acres, as large 

as the territory of an average St..'l>te. Certainly it was time to legislate 

upon the subject. These lands were held by foreign corporations and 

barons and lords who never expected to become citizens of our conntry. 

Mr. SMITH, of Arizona. Nobody disputes that. 

Mr. HOLMAN. Now, Mr. Speaker, as to public sentiment-and 

that, of course, is always regarded with respect by Congress or at least 

by t.he House of Representatives-there have been no expressions in 

favor of the legislation which my friend advocates. The act of the 

Forty-ninth Con~ress was never condemned by any public body or by 

any clas.s of people; aliens who did not intend to become citizens, seeking to make investments and speculate in our lands, alone condemned 

it. Tliat act was universally approved by our people as wise and 

prudent, and no pn blic body and no private body has ever asked the 

passage of this pending bill to enable forejgners to become owners of our mineral lands. On the contrary, every expression upon the subject tha.t I have seen or heard of coming from that large body of men known as the Farmers' Alliance and the other grange organizations, 

ha\e pro~ted against allowing investment in our lands by foreigners 

wh<> neve:r intend to become citizens of this country . Mr. SMITH, of Arizona. In mineral lands? 

Mr. HOLMAN. In our lands generally. 

Mr. SMITH, of Arizona. If they protest.ed against allowing foreign- ers to buy our mineral lands, th~ only shows how little they know about 

tnines and mining. 

Mr. DOCKERY. The protests refer to foreign land ownership generaDy. 

?ill<. HOLUA.N. Yes; including every kind of land. Beside3, we 

ha\"e adopted a most liberal policy ~ regard to our mineral lands, the 

most liberal policy that any nation ever adopted. Every other Govermnent, so far as I know, makes its mineral lands a source of revenue, 

but we sell oar mineral lands at a nominal price without any reservation, no royalty, no per cent. of the profits. 

Mr. SMITH, of .Arizona. What does Mexico get for her mineral 

lafl.ds? Our sister Republic, with more mineral lands than wehave1\'hat does she get? 

:Mr. HOLMAN. I think the gentleman will find that all the other 

GGvernments in North and South America have made their mineral 

lands n. source of national revenue. Not so with us. Heretofore our own citizens and all who have declared their intention to become such, and 

foreigners as well, have been at liberty to purchase those lands at n. nominal price; no bonus or royalty baa been exacted by the Government, but the lands have been pra-ctically given away; and if they are to be a free gift.they ought to be given to American citizens. Of course foreigners purchase second-hand, for we have never allowed 

foreigners to enter land; that right is reserved to citizens; and foreigners who have declared their int.ention to become such stand on the same footing. 

Mr. SMITH, of Arizona. Is it not true that the policy of :Mexico 

in that respect is much more liberal than ours? 

Mr. HOLMAN. I think not. So far as I have been able to learn 

there is not a nation south of the Rio Grande that does not make its 

mineral lands a source of national revenue. .Mr. REILLY. The Government has a royalty. 

Mr. HOLMAN. Yes; they make their mineral lands a source of 

revenue by imposing a royalty, as my friend from Pennsylvania [Mr. REILL y] suggests. 

Now, l\!r. Speaker, I hope ·that the Honse will not pass this bill, and 

if an opportunity shall offer I shall move the House to lay it upon the 

table. With the wealth of our country so rapidly centralizing into 

great fortunes in Europe, derived from inYestment.8 made by foreign 

capitalists in all the States and Territories of this Union, owning as they do a large part of our system of railroads, especially the landgTant railroads, draining away onr wealth, and anticipating the time 

in the early future when our own energies would accomplish the same de\telopment; with this work going on with such startling rapidity, I 

hope that there will be no step backward in our legislation upon this 

subject, and, if it can be done in conformity to the Constitution of 

the United States, I trust that the proposition of the Judiciary Committee will become a law, so that all lands of the United States, agricultural and mineral, all the solid wealth of this countrv. shall be 

owned by American citizens. Our policy in relation to foreigners who 

come to om shores to become citizens has always been and always 

will be liberal. It is the ownership of our lands by aliens who do not 

intend to become citizens of which I complain. 

Mr. DOCKERY. What number of acres of the lands of the United 

States have been taken up by aliens? 

Mr. HOLMAN. The list that I published several years ago showed 

something over 17,000,000 acres in large estates, but, as I stated at the 

time, that was only a partial list. The extent to which this wealth, 

which is to become so vah1able in the near future, was being monopcr 

lized by aliens was so startling that th~ law of the Forty-ninth Congress, which it isnow proposed to modify, was imperatively demanded. 

All the men that I have come in contact with who have been asking 

for the repeal or modification of that law-and I have met quite a number of them; a session or two aO'o there was a regular lobby here 

for that purpose-have been aliens who were seeking an opporto.nity to 

appropriate out national wealth in mineral lands. They were mostly a~ents of roreign capitalists. 

Mr. SMITH, of Arizona. Does the gentleijlan refer to persons asking for the modification of the law with reference to agricultural lands? 

l\Ir. HOLMAN. Those who came to see me on the subject were gentlemen from Chicago, and theyhadspecialreferencetomininglands. 

Mr. SMITH, of Arizona. Do yon remember where? 

Mr. HOLMAN. I will not attempt to mention any names. It was 

last winter or the winter before last. I said to them, "I am told that 

you have heretofore purchased these mineral lands at a. mere nominal 

price and have actually shipped the ore to Europe to be there reduced 

by European labor;" and that could not be denied. Now, shall we adopt a policy that will facilitate that? Gentlemen talk about benefiting the laboring men of this country; in this way you are taking the 

national wealth, raw ores, valuable in themselves, but which would be 

made still more valuable by their labor, and transporting them to Europe, to be there reduced and have the precious metals ex:tra"Cted from 

the ore by European labor. 

I trnst there will be no hesitation on the part of the Honse in laying 

this bill on the table. I trnst that we shall take no step backward in 

this matter, but shall so legislate that the lands of thi.~ country in the 

Territories, and in the District of Columbia at least, as far as Congress can legislate, shall be owned by the American people, citizens by 

birth and citizens by adoption, our own people. With our rapidly 

increasing population we will need all of our resources at an early day. 

Mr. PAYSON. Mr. Speaker, I had somewhat largely to do with the 

passage of the aet known as the alien land act, in the Forty-ninth Congress. That act, as gentlemen will remember, prohibits abAolutely any 

alien or foreigner from acquiring any real estate in the Territories. 

This bill proposes to amend tha.' act by permitting foreigners to acquire, by purchase or otherwise, mines of the precious metals, as well as tin and cinnabar, or quicksilver. 

I am opposed to this bill. 

The alien land act passed this Rouse under my charge, and my la Mr 

in committee with it bas afforded me as much satisfaction as any that 

I have done since I have been in public life. By the principles involved in that legislation I s~nd to-day, to defeat, if possible, the 

pending bill. ' 

I profess familiarity with the situation when that act passed, and I 

do not deem it inappropriate at this time to correct some misapprehensions which may have arisen from the somewhat elaborate statement 

ma.de by the gentleman from Montana. [Mr. CARTER] in his address to 

the House yesterday. His statement that the subject of the alien 

ownership of mining properties was not considered by the Forty-ninth 

Congress or by the Committee on Public Lands in that Congress is one that is entirely gratuitous. I state as part of the history oftha.t legislation that the subject was earnestly pressed upon the attention of the 

Committee on Public Lands in that Congress by Mr. Toole, at that 

time representing the Territory of Montana, by the Delegate from 

Idaho (Mr. DuBOIS], and by several gentlemen not then in public 

life, who were representing this interest; and the Committee on Public 

Lands at that time, as I recollect, were unanimous in opposition to the 

principle announced in the present bill coming from the Committee on 

Mines and Mining. 

More than that; while it is true that the principal matter which was 

investigated by the Committee on Public Lands in that Congress and 

the exigency which called for legislation at that time was the alarming acquisition of agricultural lands in this country by foreignerswhile that was the excitin_g cause of the legislation-it is equally true 

that this subject was then considered. Moreover, I think I speak with 

entire accuracy when I say that the report made from the committee 

in the last Congress on this subject was not the expression of the opinion of the majority; but, as a matter of courtesy, the gentleman from Ore~on [Mr. IiERl\IANN)-it being well understood that owing to the 

lateness of the ses.~ion nothing would be done with reference to the 

question-was permitted to make the report to which the gentleman 

from Montana has alluded. 

The act which passed the Forty-ninth Conz:ress was general in it.a 
·. ,_ .. -., 

·- ' I - · .. ,, ., I: ' 

··" 

1890 • .. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 8879 

character; it prohibited the acquisition, in any way, of any real estate 

in the Territ.ories by aliens. It was passed in obedience to a public 

sentiment quite universal and had the earnest support of every public 

newspaper m the Union which was representative of foreigners residing among w, as I remember. 

This country, then as now, offered a. vast field for foreign investment; vast holdings of property could be acquired as a basis of permanent income, derived from our soil, to be sent abroad to opulent owners, not a dollar of the income to be expended here for the advancement of the national good; nothing for school-houses, churches, roads, 

bridges, and local improvements; but all the net income, rents 1t11d 

profits, to be sent abroad, out of the country, an exhausting process. 

With mineral lands, c.uch as this bill proposes to open to these foreigners, the process would be precisely the same. Under this bill, the 

streams of wealth sent out of our bills and mountains may be poured 

out into the laps of aliens, who see our land only to profit from it, without incurring any of its burdens. The only practical argument advanced is that more speedy and immediate development may be expected. 

Mr. Speaker, this may possibly be so, but this immediate development is purchased at too dear a price if the profits of the tramactions 

are to go to foreigners. But there is another phase of the question. 

Mr. Speaker, there is an underlying pritlciple not yet adverted to in 

this discussion which animated me in my conduct in reference to that 

legislation, and which will control me herein this, and that, Mr. Speaker, 

is the assertion of an American policy with reference to the holding of 

real estate in this country; that is to say, if I and others, feeling as I 

felt then and feel now, could have had our way, not an aero of real 

estate, not a dollar's worth of real property under the flag that floats 

over you and me should be under the ownership of a foreigner. [Applause.] 

I stand, sir, by the principle-keep every source of wealth the God 

of n~tions has blessed us wiLh to be developed by Americans for Americans only. 

I mean, America for America.ns ! [Applam~e.] 

By Americans I mean to include with the native-born those who 

come among us from abroad, with intent to become of us and to a.~ 

sume the burdens and responsibilities of citizenship and be entitled 

to its blessings and privileges in all that that implies. Outside of that, 

I want no more of a.liens, of the pauper and criminal classes of the Old 

World, as well as that other, and, if possible, worse class, adventurers 

and political outcasts, who, from their nests and dives in our large 

cities, breed and swarm out as anarchists. We have now too many. Not another should be permitted to land. Equally dangerous to the 

safety of the nation, but in another line, would be the acquisition by 

vast investments and control by ownership of our mines by foreigners. 

So I stand by the alien land act of 1887 in all its comprehensiveness, 

and never by any vote of mine shall any one be permitted to own a 

foot of land to be protected by the flag except by him who will ac· 

knowledge allegiance to the nation it represents. [Applause.] 

It is not a question of dollars and cents with me; it is absolutely a 

question of principle higher than any financial consideration, one of 

nationality in the ownership of the soil. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. The gentleman will allow me to ask a question. Since the passage of the law to wpich he refers has it been possible for aliens to acquire any of those lands? 

Mr. PAYSO~. It ha.snot been. The passage of the alien land act 

by the Forty-ninth -Congress has rendered it impossible for an alien to 

acquire any interest in real estate where the General Government had 

sole jurisdiction. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Then the a.ct has been effectual. 

Mr. PA. YSON. It has been perfectly effectual, and hence the clamor 

that has been made on the part of those representing foreign investments in this country to open up a new a.venue for the investment of 

foreign capital, so that speedy and profitable returns may be made, and 

for modification of tha. t la. w for the benefit of foreign money-lenders on mortgage. 

Mr. SMITH, of Arizona. The gentleman has alluc:led to persons 

coming here and representing foreign syndicates--

~Ir. PAYSON. Oh, I do not refer t-0 any gentleman in public life. 

Mr. SMITH, of Arizona. Of course the gentleman does not refer to 

any one on this floor; but I would like him or others who make similar statements to give some indication as to who those gentlemen are who represent foreign syndicates and are attempting to secure the 

passage of this legislation. 

l!Ir. PAYSON. Why, sir, if the gentleman h:i.d been a member of 

the Committee on Public Lands he could hj.ve seen them in person. 

It is utterly useless to give any names; but there have been gentlemen here during this very Congress-and they have been at my house; 

they have sat under the light of the chandelier in my parlor-who 

have asked me as a matter of public policy to allow the alien land bill 

to be modified; others, to allow this bill to go through, so far as the 

little influence I have is concerned. 

Mr. SMITH, of Arizon.a. Foreigners? 

Mr. PAYSON. No; but representatives of foreigners living in this 

country. 

Mr. SMITH, of Arizona. I never sa.w any of them. 

J'i.Ir. PAYSON. That may be. They were not acting improperly. 

They believe, as the gentleman from Arizona doubtless believes, that 

the speedy improvement of the Territories by large investments of 

foreign capital would be of immediate advantage to those Territories. 

That may be so1 but I do not believe it, and, as I said a moment 

ago, I put my opposition t-0 this bill more largely upon what I believe 

to be higher and broader grounds. I am for Americans only in everything pertaining to the real estate of this country. I wish to state 

that principle as broadly as language can express it. [Applause.] 

The gentleman from Montana said yesterday that there was a. discrimination in favor of citizens of the different States of this Union, because this legislation applies ouly to the Territories. The gentleman 

ought to know-I am inclined to think he does know-that the reason 

the States of the Union were not included in the legislation which forbade the alien ownership of land, was because the Committee on Public 

Lands in the Forty-ninth Congress believed, with the exception of one 

member-the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. OATES ]-that Congress has 

no power under the Constitution to regulate the tenure of the holding 

or transfer of title of real estate in the different States of the Union. 

I concur in that judgment. I do not believe that Congress has that 

power under the Constitution. I believe that the question of the title 

of real estate, the various questions relating to its acquisition, its disposition, transfer, descent, and all that sort of thing-every question 

connected with real-est.ate holdings in the different States of this 

Union, is purely and absolutely a matter of State control. I may be 

wrong in that judgment. I run simply stating my belief as a. lawyer; 

and because of such a belief on the part of members of the Committee 

on Public Lands in the Forty-ninth Congress. the bill which was then 

before the committee, represented very ably by the gentleman from 

Alabama whom I now see before me, was defeated in that committee. 

A bill to the same effect is now on the Calendar, coming from the 

Judiciary Committee of the House. What support it may receive from 

that committee I am unable to say; but I am explaining the situation 

with reference to that proposition in answer to the suggestion of the 

gentleman from Montana in his observations yesterday. That is the 

reason the bill was made operative only iu the Territories. 

Mr. OATES. I hope the Hoose will soorrhave an opportunity to act 

on that measure. 

Mr. PAYSON. So do I. It is a question which ought to be discussed, and if the consensus of opinion here among the lawyers and the 

members of this body shall be that the matter in the bill of which the 

gentleman from Alabama has charge, prohibiting the acquisition or 

holding ofreal e tate by aliens in any State of the Union, is a proper 

matter of Congressional control, I shall be glad to record my vote fur 

it at the very earliest opportunity. But at present I am not satisfie(l of the existence of such a power in Congress. The Committee on 

Public Lands in the Forty-ninth Congress went as far as it could go 

in this direction. That is the reason the bill then reported and passed 

was restricted in its operation to the Territories of the United States, 

because the Committee on Public Lands, with substantial unanimity, 

believed that the power of the Federal Government over this subject 

ends with the Territ.ories, where it has exclusive jurisdiction. 

Mr. HERBERT. Will the gentleman yield for a question? 

l\Ir. PAYSON. With pleasure. 

Mr. HERBERT. Does not the gentleman believe that the Federal 

Government has power over the public lands lying within the limits 

of the States? 

Mr. PAYSON. Well, I hardlyknowwhat the gentleman means by 

the question in that fotm. 

Mr. HERBERT. What I mean is, in the judgment of the gentleman, could not the General Government limit the tenure of the public 

lands--

Mr. PAYSO~. It might, as to the first owners, limit the t.enure in 

regard to them, as it does in fact now; because every public-land law 

we have to-day provides in terms that the title to the public lands shall 

only be acquired by citizens of the United States or those who have in 

good faith declared their intention to become such. Bot after going into 

the hands of the first grantee from the Government the General Government never has assumed to exercise control over tho disposition of 

that land t-0 other persons, whether citizens or aliens. 

I~may say, Mr. Speaker, in furtherance of the Sa.me idea which I was expressing when the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. HERBERT] 

interrupted me, that several States of the Union adopted the principle 

of excluding alien ownership. The St.ate of Illinois was the pioneer, 

if I recollect aright. It grew out of the discussion which took place 

here, in the Committee on the Public Lands, and through the newspapers of the r..ountry, and by conversations of gentlemen here and there 

more or less of an informal character on the alien land a.ct. The 

lawyers of my State c.ame to the conclusion that the power was with 

the State, and so Illinois, to the credit of our Legislature be it said. 

passed a law which is now in force, whereby any foreigner or alien owner is prohibited from holding a. foot of land within the limits of 

that State. 

And more than that, :Mr. Speaker, it provides further that as to the 

present title unless that is disposed of within the time fixed by the 

·' 

.... 

,. 

•I 

r I 

·. 

.. . 

-. 

.· 

• I 

.· .... 

··:-

i 

" 

I• 

,':I 

,' 

. ' 

.··· 
... 

• - I 

.. 

: \• 

,-. 

I 

,. ~ 

l ~ ' , 

.... . 

.- ·. 

.• . , -· 

8880 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE .. AUGUST 20, 

stntnte the land is escheated to the State. That is the policy that I 

stand in favor of to-day. I have advocated it all along and I advocate 

it now. I do not stop to inquire, for I do not care, whether the investment of a few millions of dollars of foreign capital in Arizona or anywhere else will give a boom temporary in its character to the business 

enterprises of the Territory. I would not sacrifice what I believe to 

be a great and import.ant principle in national legislation for a mere temporary advantage of that character. Have gentlemen considered 

for a moment the political ir&ftuences that may grow out of the investment of1i few millions of dollars in a special locality? 

Shall it be said that this Congress stands here, devoting its time to 

rendering a decision that a man living across the water, alien to everything here, except the profits he seeks, shall have power to go on to our public lands and make investments on this continent, and shall 

through that exercise a political influence that may at some time hereafter make itself felt tn this and in the other Chamber to the detriment of the people of this country? 

Do you remember, gentlemen, that there are single mining camps 

in the West that hold the balance of political power in the Territory 

where they are located? 

And am I to be asked to permit it to be made possible for an aggregation of foreign capital to control such a locality, and possibly affect 

the legislation for our country? 

I shall never do it; never. I shall vote cheerfully for the proposition of the gentleman from Indiana. [Mr. HOLMAN], which is proposed to be presentednotmuchfurtheron in this discussion, to lay this bill upon the table; and when it 

goes upon the table I venture to express the hope that it goes to its 

grave, never to be resurrected in the Honse of Representatives ! [A p· 

plause.]. 

Mr. CHIP.l\1AN. How much time have I remaining? 

The SPEAKER JJro tempore [Mr. GROSVENOR], The gentleman has 

twenty-five minutes of his time remaining. 

Mr. SMITH, of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I wish to say, with much 

respect to the gentleman who has just ta.ken his seat, and who paid 

that high tribute to Americanism in regard to our land laws, that in 

my part of the country we have j ust about as much of it as they have 

here. We are fully as patriotic there a.'! are the people of Indiana, or of Illinois, or of any of the States of the Union, and it is not a question of Americanism in the United States as much as aquestionofjns- tice to a part of this country. It i'! a question whether the people of 

New Mexico or Arizona. shall be deprived of those privileges a.nd rights 

which a man in .Montana, or in Idaho, or in Wyoming might exercise, 

having less population than they. 

It is a question whether you will do justice to all alike and pass the 

bill. Arizona, I may say, would raise no objection here to the passage 

of the bill in charge of the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. OATES] to 

which reference is made. But to make an equality of the law, to put 

all upon an eqoal footing, it seems to me is true Americanism as much as the policy of which the gentleman speaks, that none save Ameri- cana shall hold any interest in mining claims. It is un-American to 

say to the people who are kept out of the Union that they shall not 

have the same right.s and privileges (except the right to v'>te in this 

Chamber) that the other people in the Union have; and if the mem- bers of this House knew what a mining claim was I would not lose the 

vote of a man on this floor who would know one if he saw it coming 

down Pennsylvania. avenue. They simply do not know what it is. 

You can not hold land under a mining claim, for as eoon as the mine 

is gone the land is not worth a nickel. 

No man ever saw a piece of land on which there was a mine, worth a cent; that was worth a cent for anything in the world except for the 

mine. Besides that, it is different from public lands in every other 

way, becoming less and less valuable as it is worked. The limit of a mining claim, that is to say the area covered by it, is 1,500 feet by 600 

feet, and can not be larger under act of Congress, while in some loc.alities they are very much smaller by local regulations. It takes hundreds of thousands of dollars to put any mine, no matter how valuable 

it may be, in a position to assume a paying basis. It has been determined wherever a mine was offered to American capitalists that there 

is great doubt and uncertainty about taking hold of it, notwithstanding the fact that in some cases they do offer a temptation to enterprising men; a premium must be offered, for the business is necessarily 

hazardous, and few persons are willing to inves~ in them notwithstanding the fact that a fortunate find of minerals may succeed in yielding, as is occasionally the case, very large profits. 

And what is the result? Take, for instance, the copper mines of 

Clifton in Arizona. IfI am not misinformed, some $6,000,000-$4,000,-

000 that I know of-were expended in the plant; and yet they have 

not paid, a.s I am informed, over 4 per cent. interest on the investment. 

Yet they have employed hundreds of American laborers, and they 

support the little farming localities in the ·neighborhood, and have 

been a blessing t-0 the people there; and there ba-s been no great rash 

of money from the United States, but they have put $100 here where 

they took away $10 in clear profits. And it generally follows in all 

these cases. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Ari- zona has expired. 

·. 

Mr. FRANK. I hope he may have more time. 

Mr. HOLMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask that the time of the gentleman 

from .Arizona may be extended. 

Mr. PAYSON. Mr. Speaker, l was recognized in my own right, and 

I will yield to the gentleman from .Arizona such time as he may desire. 

Mr. SMITH, of Arizona. Now, Mr. Speaker, while this is happening in several localities that I know of, where the same conditions have 

existed, yet there has been no complaint before the Public Lands Committee of this or any other Congress by any reputable man from the 

Western country, aiming directly at the mines and mining interests, 

where they have asked the passage of any such act. If there be such, 

I would like to hear of it. 

Mr. PAYSON. I will be very glad to state it. I think in the room of the Committee on Public Lands now, from the old files of the Fortyninth Congress and some from the Fiftieth Congress, I can resurrect a bushel-basketful of resolutions from Farmers' Alliances--

Mr. SMITH, of Arizona. Oh, I do not doubt that. 

Mr. PAYSON. From societies composed largely of foreigners in 

character, Knights of Labor, etc., and all that sort of thing, asking for 

and complimenting the passage of the alien land bill, as broad and 

comprehensive as it was, and as broad as language could make it, asking for it first and complimenting its passage afterward; all against 

any alien ownership of land in the Unfon. 

Mr. SMITH, of Arizona. That is just exactly what I know, and I 

have no doubt that we could have got an equal number of resolutions 

from the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty t.> Animals; but those 

Farmers' Alliance resolutions and those petitions of which the gentleman speaks have no more reference to mines than I have when I 

mention the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Yott can not show me where any mine has been held by foreign capital, 

where any complaint was made about it at the time by any individual 

from anywhere. 

I say that these societies did dQ it in relation to agricultural land, 

and I say that the Western people heartily agree with them. My peo· 

plea.re in just as strong sympathy as possible with the people of Illinois or Missouri on this subject, theyarejost as mnchopposed to alien 

holding of agricultural land. They understand the principles that led 

fo the enactment of that law and thoroughly sympathize with them, 

bot what has that to do with an estate which for a long time was con- sidered personal property in this country? 

Mr. HILL. Will the gentleman yield for a question, for information? 

Mr. SMITH, of Arizona. Yes, sir. 

:riu. HILL. Is there anything in the law to prevent capitalists and 

corporations from owning a large number of these mining claims you 

have mentioned? 

Mr. SMITH, of Arizona. None in the world; butthereisaphysical 

fact about that that confronts him. The more mining claims a man holds the worse off he is. 

Mr. DOCKERY. And therefore you want to unload them on foreigners. [Laughter.] 

Mr. SMITH, of Arizona. No, not at all, unless foreigners want to 

be loaded. That is their business, not ours. Mr. HILL. The more money, the more misery. 

Mr. SMITH, of Arizona. No, not at all, but a man is worse off for 

this reason: You do not know when you have got a mining claim un- til you have gone a considerable depth into the earth. You do not 

know it then until it has proven itself by returns to be a mining claim. 

Now, in order to hold any mining claim you have to expend money, 

and you never find a flock of mining claims together which are pr~ 

ductive. They do not go in flocks like geese. 

Mr. HILL. Is it not a fact that a large part of the valuable mining claims are held by corporations and wealthy capitalists? 

Mr. SMITH, of Arizona. Most as::.'"lll'edly. You. can not find a claim, ifit is a ~ood one, that is held by a poor man; for the minute 

he gets bold of itt if it is good for anything, he is not poor any longer. 

[Laughter.] He is bound to be rich. He is bound to be a capitalist 

when he has got a good mine. 

Mr. HILL. In his own imagination. 

Mr. SMITH, of Arizona. But in order to start it, so that it can ever become productive, it is necessary to expend large SUlll8 of money, 

and consequently many of them are corporations to start with; but as I say, I do not know of a single mine held by foreign capital that has ever done one-twentieth the good to the people of the foreign country 

that it has done to the laboring people of the United States, giving to 

the laboring man $3 and $4 a day for his labor and eupporting him 

through the years, and.only giving a very small profit to those who 

make the original investment of these vast sums of money in the en- terprise. Therefore, it seems to me that if the House understood the 

actual condition there would be no opposition to the passage of thiS 

bilJ. 

There can not be any monopoly in it. You can not monopolize itp 

A man does not want more than one good one. He has no need for 

it; and if he has one good one, he can not buy another good one, for 

the other man does not want to sell his. They are scattered at va.s~ 

distances apart, not running, as I said, in flocks, to be found anywhere 

together. It takesa lifetime to find one, and then often it is not found. 
,. 

•I 

: ........ -· -·- l, 

1890. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 8881 

Large amounts of money J1ave to be expended to employ American The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment 

labor. American machinists and American farmers derive a profit far and third reading of the bill. 

in excess of any injury th.it could possibly result from that'' un-Amer- Mr. BRECKINRIDGE, of Kentucky. I raise the point of order that 

ican thing" a foreign holding of title to real estate in this country. this bill ought to go to the Committee of the Whole; that it is a bill 

There is no title to real estate in it, nothing but the ore in the which contemplates and provides for a judgment against the United 

ground that is worth a nickel, and when the mine is abandoned the States. It is not simply for a right to bring an action, bot says that 

ground is worth no more for any purpose than the top of this desk at the courts ball render a.judgment; and under the provisions of the rules 

which I am standing. Now, Arizona., New Mexico, and Utah are the it seems to me that this bill, which might create a charge against 

only Territories left to-day under the operation of this act. A man in the Treasury and necessitate an appropriation, is therefore liable to 

Arizona can not sell to anybody in the world except an American citi- I the rule which requires the consideration of such bills in Committee 

zen. Go across the line into Idaho, Nevada, or Californiaor old .Mex- of the Whole. 

ico and they sell to anybody. With reference to these three p:>.rticu- 1 Mr. DING LEY. I wanttosugg~t to the gentleman from Kentucky 

lar Territories, Arizona, Utah, and New Mexico, there is a direct and that precisely this point was decided by the Speaker a few days ago, 

positive enactment, and yet there can be no fear of any harm t-0 anybody and the decision of the Speaker was sustained on appeal by the House. 

resulting from the repeal of this Jaw. This involves the same principle as was involved in the McKay bill. 

Certainly no harm ca,n result between this and the time when these Mr. BRECKINRIDGE, of Kentucky. I do not recollect whether the 

States will surely be admitted into the Union, leaving them all on the McKay bill carried with it the right to enter a judgment. This bill 

same broad proposition, and leaving the bill of the gentleman from expre.ssly declares--

Alabama [Mr. OATES] to pass. We will rnise no objection when it !Ir. DINGLEY. It was precisely the same. 

becomes a law. It will be equal in it.s burdens and equal in its ad van- , Mr. BRECKINRIDGE, of Kentucky. That the court shall render 

tages. That is all we have asked. I have no claimants to ask it for. a judgment. 

I, for one, have not seen any man representing foreign capital who a.sks Mr. BUCHAN AN, ofN ew Jersey. Whatev:er that judgment may be. 

this legislation. I have done it from the demand of the people who Mr. BRECKINRIDGE, of Kentucky. Yes. 

are in the hills, who go to the mountains, and spend their lives in dan- Mr. BUCHAi~AN, of New Jersey. Upon the point of order I have a ger, those men who, when they have found something, say, ''We do few precedents which I desire t-0 offer, and which I will print in the 

not want to be compelled to go to Mr. Ryan, who owns a good mine RECORD. The matter is a perfectly plain one which has already been 

next to us, but we want a fair chance in the open market (as the States decided by the Speaker. 

of this Union have) to dispose ot property which persons in these Ter- SPEAKER RANDALL'S RULINGS. 

ritories have acquired at so much larger expense of time and labor." [Second session Forty-fifth Con~ress, April 91 1878, Journal, page 819.J 

That is all they ask and that is all I ask; and this is all I have to say. The point oCorder being raised that H. R. 4247, to retire the circulation or the 

Mr. CARTER. I think, as the tiine bas been abouteqnaily divided na ional banks, must go to the Committee of the Whole, Mr. Randall overruled on each side in the discussion of this bill, I shall move the previous the point of order on the ground that the bill, thoui.th requiring action to be taken thnt would ultimat~ly involve an appropriation of money, did not contain question on the passage of the bill. such appropriation. 

Mr. HOLMAN. I moYe to lay the bill on the table. 

The SPEAKERprotempore. The gentleman from Montana dem:10ds 

the previous question on the passage of the bill and the gentleman from 

Indiana moves that the bill be laid on the table. The motion to lay 

on the table has precedence over the former motion, and the question 

is on laying the bill on the table. 

The question was put; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 

the "ayes" seemed to have it. 

Mr. CARTER. Division. 

The House divided; and there were-ayes 50, noes 27. 

So the bill was laid on the table. 

Mr. HOLMAN moved to reconsider the vote bv which the bill was laid on the table; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid 

on the table. 

The latter motion was agreed to. 

ORDER OF BUSINESS. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The call rests with the Committee on 

Public Buildings and Grounds. 

The Committees on Pacific Railroads, Levees and Improvements of 

the Mississippi River, and Education were called, 

AD.JUSTMENT OF ACCOUNTS UNDER THE EIGHT-HOUR LA. W. 

When the Committee on Labor was called, 

Mr. BUCHANAN, of New Jersey, said: I call up for consideration 

the bill (H. R. 11120) providin~ for the adjustment of acconnts of laborers, workmen, and mechanics arising undet the eight-hoar law. 

The bill was read, as follows: 

Be it enacted, etc., That whoever, nsa laborer, workman, or mechanic, has been 

employed by or on behalf of the Government of the United States since the 20th day of June, 1868, the date of t·he act constituting eight hours a.day's work, and has not been· paid the full price of a day's work for each eight hours he bas been so employed, shall h1we the right to bring suit in the United States 

Court of Claims to reco\·er such deficiency; and the said court is hereby au- thorized to take jurisdiction of all such cases without regarJ to the lapse of 

time; and if, in the opinion of the court, he was, under the said act of June25, 1868, or any other existing law, entitlec.l to the full price of a. day's work for eight hours' labcfr or service, adjudicate them upon the basis that eight hours con!!ti- tute a day's work, and for that length of service the claimants shall be entitled to recover the Cull price of a. day's work, whatever that may be, less the amount he 

has already received, and iu that ratio for any fraction of a day, if in the opin- ion of the court such was the meaning of the said act of June 25, 18G8,01· any other existing laws, and, if anything is found to be due,judgmen ts shall be given against the United States in favor of each claimant accordingly. SEC. 2. That no payment heretofore made of a less sum per day than the full 

price of a day's work, as provided in the first section of this act, shall affect the 

right of recovery; nor shall any terms submitted to by any such laborer, workman, or mechau ic, whether for piecework, stint-work, task-work, or any other 

kind of work, affect such right: Provided, That the said court shall find that 

such terms. either in the number of hours required to be performed in a calendar day or in the rl\te established for such piecework, stint-work, task-work, or any other kind of work:, required the performance of more tha.u eight hours' 

labor in each calendar day to earn the fu il price of a day's work, o..s set forth in 

the thst section of this act, and that such terms were made since the passage of 

the act of 25th of June, 1868, constituting eight hours a day's work, and a.re inconsistent with the first section of this act, and exacted by any officer of the 

Government a.s a condition of employment or retention in the public service: 

Provided, That all suits under this act shall be commenced within two years from and after its passage, and any number of claimants may join in the same suit: And provided further, That whenever a sufficient number of claimants of 

any one class shall join in the same suit, so that the amount claimed shall in th~ aggregate exceed the sum of$5,000, the said claimants shall have the right to appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States. 

XXI-556 , 

[Third session Forty-fifth Congress, January 21, 1879, Journal, page 244.] 

The point of order being raised that House bill 6130 must. go to the Commit- tee of the Whole, Mr. Randall overruled the same on the ground that the bill 

referred the claim to the Court of Claims, which might or might not give jud~­

ment in behalf of these. claimants, and that in event of judgment being in the1.r 

favor Lhe money to pay the same was appropriated in one of the general appro- priation bills, in accordance with section 1089 of the Revised Statutes of the 

United States. • 

PEAKER CARLISLE'S RUI,INGS. 

[First session Forty-eighth Congress, May 17, 1834, Journal, page 1247.] 

The point of order being made against H. R. 6074, to change ea.stern and north- ern judicial districts in Texas, etc., should go to the Committee of the Whole, l\lr. CARLISLE overruled the same on the ground that under previous decisions 

it had beeu held that unless the bill expressly made an appropriation, or directly required one to be made, the rule quoted did not apply, the (act that execution 

of the law mightin\'olve an additional expenditure of money not being sufficient to carry the bill to the Committee of the Whole. 

[First session Forty-ninth Congress, April 24, 1885, Journal, page 1373.J 

The point of order being made against H. R. 2929, to divide Missouri into two judicial districts, etc., Mr. CARLISLE overruled the point of order on the ground that it did not appear with certainty that an additional appropriation would be 

required to execute the law if the bill became one. He further held that where it does not appear on the face of the bill that additional appropriations would 

be required, but the matter is one oC argument or conjecture, the Chair could not decide that such neces3<'trlly would be the case. 

[Seconu session Forty-niuth Congre~. December 13, 1886, Journal, pages86, 87.J 

The point of order being made against B.R. 9125, to create a.school board for the District of Columbia., etc., that it must go to tb.e Committee of the Whole, l\Ir. CARLISLE overruled the same on the ground heretofore held that unless the bill on its face ma.de an appropriation, or plainly rt!quired one to be made to execute its provisions, it Wl\8 not subject to the re iuirement of clause 3 of 

RuleXXIII. 

. PEAKER REED'S RULING. 

[First se sion Fifty-first Congress, March 7, 1890, page 2046 CONGREBSIOs.u, RECORD.] 

The ruling of Speaker REED on bill H. R. 2390, referring to the Cou1·t of Claims 

the claim of"\Villiam E. 'Voodbridge for compensation for the use by the United 

States of his inventions relating to projectiles. 

The point of order 'vas made against this bill, that it was a proposition involving a. charge or a tax upon the people, and that it necessitated an appropriation of money. The Speaker overruled the point of order, using the folio wing langt!!1~ri~ princi pie which governs the question is that, iJthe bill does not itself evidently require an appropriation or if it can be executed without an appropria- tion, the rule does not require its first consideration to be had in the Committee 

of the 'Vhole." 

To these may be added the ruling recently by the present Speaker on 

the McKay bill. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is unable to see any difference between this bill and the bill upon which the same point of order 

was made in the Fifty-firdt Con~ress, on the 7th of March last. 

Mr. BRECKINRIDGE, of Kentucky. The provision to which I call 

the attention of the Speaker is clause 3 of Rule XXIII. Of course we 

all agree that if this bill ought to go to the Committee of the Whole it 

is not in orde1· at this hour. There is no doubt., and can be none, tha* 

in the morning hour it is not in order to consider a bill that should go 

-... 

·. 

'· 

·. , . 

• I 

-· 

... 

.. ·. 
·-

, 

... 

• I 

- , 

I' 

. -. 

' 

·. 

,, ·, . ·. i 

8882 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. AUGUST 20, 

to the Committee of the Whole. Now, clause 3 of Rule XXIII is as 

follows: 

3. All motions or propo itions involving a tax or c!1arge UJ?On the peo~le;. all proceedings touching appropriations of money. or b1_lls makmg appropriations of money or p:-operty, or requiring- such appropriation to be ~ade, or ~ut~1?rizing payments out of a.ppropriaUons already made, or releas1pg an~ hab1!1ty to the United States for money or property, shall be first considered ma Com- mittee of the Whole. and a point of order under this rule shall be guod at any time before the consideration of a bill has commenced. 

Of course bills to be considered in this hour are bills which properly are on the House Calendar and would have to be considered in 

Committee of the Whole. 

Now, this bill indubitably contemplates an appropriation. It is a 

proceeding--

Mr. BUCHANAN, of New Jersey. If the gentleman from Kentucky has concluded--

Mr. BRECKINRIDGE, of Kentucky. I did not bear what tlie gentleman trom New Jersey said. 

Mr. BIT CHAN A.N, of New Jersey. I ask~d, M:r. Speaker, if the gentleman from Kentucky bad concluded. 

Mr. BRECKINRIDGE, of Kentucky. No. This is a bill which 

has no other object than to appropriate money, and if it has no other 

purpose it would--

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Suppose the court finds that there was no claim. Then is not the provision of the bill execulied by the judgment of the court in favor of the Government and against the claimant? 

Mr. BRECKINRIDGE, of Kentucky. It is absolutely impossible 

that that can occur under the provisions of this bill. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair can not assume that to be 

true. 

Mr. BRECKINRIDGE, of Kentucky. It might not be true as to a 

particular case, but it is indubitably trne, and the Hou~e o~ R~presentatives knows and the country knows the fact that this bill is for the 

purpose of appropriating money; that it is a bill which creates a charge 

upon the Treasury, a bill the object of which is to take money out of 

the public Treasury. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The object of the bill is to take certa.in steps which may or m:iy not result at some future period in the 

necessity for an appropriation, and the test which the Speaker applied 

upon a similar question is stated in the extract from the Journal, which 

the Chair will have the Clerk now read. 

The Clerk read as follows: The said bill having been read, l\1r. HoLll!AN made a point of arder that the same must receive its first consideration in a Committee of the \Vhole under clause 3 of Rule XXIIl. The Speaker overruled the point of order, on the ground tltat it had been uniformly held that bills of this class did not come within the requirement of the clause cited, and that the principle which governed the question was that, if the bill did not require an appropriation orif it1 could be executed wit~outan 

appropriation, then the rule did not apply. For these rea:8ons the Chair h~ld. 

the pointof order not well taken and stated that the question was on the third reading of the bill. 

The SPEAKERpro tempore. The present occupant of the chair believes that the question now presented is the same ·as the question presented in that case, as well as in lormer cases of which the Chair takes 

notice, and tberetore overrules the point of order. 

l\Ir. BUCKALEW. Will the Chair state what bill it was that the 

Chair made that ruling upon? 

The SPEAKER pro temp01·e. The Clerk will read the statement of 

the bill. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

l\Ir. SIMONDS, by direction of the Committee on 'Var Claims, called up from the Speaker's lahle the bill (8. 235) referdng to the Court of Claims the claim of William E. \Voodbridge for compensation for use by the United States of his invention relating to projec-tiles. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question in that case, as the Chair 

has already stated, was identical with the one now presented. The 

fact that one claim goes to one court and the other to the other, makes 

no difference in Lhe principle involved. The bill pending before the 

Hon e can be fully executed without any appropriation. The Chair 

overrules the point of order made by the gentleman from Kentucky 

(Mr. BRECKINRIDGE]. 

Mr. CULBERSON, of Texas. Can the gentleman in charge of this 

bill tell us what is the probable amount involved in these claims? 

Mr. DOCKERY. Nothing, according to the decision of the Chair. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BUCHANAN. of New Jersey. That. question can be answered 

as soon a.q the bill comes up for consideration. I understand, Mr. 

Speaker, that the point of order is overruled. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. It is overruled. 

Mr. BUCHANAN, of New Jersey. I therefore take the floor now in 

advocacy of the bill, and I yield to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 

GF.ST]. 

A MEMDER. Will the Chair please state when the morning hour 

will expire ? 

The SP EA.KER pro tempore. The morning hour will expire in. seven minutes. Does the gentleman from Illinois desire to proceed? 

Mr. GEST. I can not make a statement of the provisions of the bill 

in seven minutes. I nsk unanimous consent that the morning huur 

expire at this time. 

The SPEAKER pro te~ipore. The gentleman from Illinois asks 

unanimous consent that the morning hour expire at this time. 

l\lr. ROGERS. I object. 

Mr. BUCHANAN, of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, Inasmuch a.s the 

gentleman from Illinois [Mr. GEST] prefel'3 not to go on at present, I 

will state briefly the character and purposes of this bill, giving a. short 

history of the legislation which bas heretofore been passed by Congress 

and which necessitates the presentvbill. . . 

There have been three bills upon this general subject reported at different times from the Committee on Labor. 

The hill which is now called up is bill No. 11120, which was reported on the 30th day of last .Tune. Gentlemen will find a full rfsume of the 

legislation precedent to this bill in report No. 489, which accompanied 

one of tbe earlier bills reported upon this subject, and by an examination of that report they will find the acts set out at length, the rulings 

of the Departments under those acts, and the equities which have arisen 

under those rulings, or at least such equities as are supposed to have 

arisen under those rulings, and which this bill proposes to refer to the 

Court of Claiftls for the determination of that court. This bill does not 

carry any appropriation. The bill is capable of being pertectly executed 

without a dollar being drawn from the Treasury, because, if the decision 

of tlle Court of Claims is adverRe to these equities, that ends the matter. 

The bill simply seeks to submit these equities to the determination of 

that court. 

On the 25th day of June, 1868, the Congress of the United States 

passed what is generally known as the eight-hour law, which provided 

in substance that no mechanic, laboring mlln, or workingman employed by or on behalf of the Government should be compelled to labor 

inore than eight hours each day. The substantial enactment was this: 

That eight hours shall constitute a day's work for allla.borers, workmen, and mechanics now em ployed or who may hereafter be employed 

by or on behalfoftbe Government of the United States. It would seem 

as though that was as plain, simple, and direct a. proposition as could 

be put into shape in the English lan~uage. It is not neces.:;ary, now, 

to go back and det..'\il the circumstances which gave birth t-0 that la.w. 

It is sufficient for the present purpose to say that the Ia.w was enacted 

by Congress and was placed upon the statute-book, and that from that 

time torth it became an absolute rule for every executive officer of the 

United States Government to observe. It was the law of the Jand and 

it was the duty of every executive officer to observe it. It was not, 

bowe-rnr observed in some of the Departments. This fact came to the 

attentio~ of General Grant, then President ofthe United States, whereupon he issued this proclamation: 

Whereas the act of Congress n{1proved June 25, 1868, constituted, on and after that date, eight hol!rs as u. day's work for all laborers, work~en, and mechan- ics emploved by or on behalf of the Government of the Uruted States and re- pealed acts and parts of acts inconsistent therewith : Now therefore I Ulysses S. Gmnt, President of the United States do hereby direct 'Lhat from 'a:id after this date uo reduction shall be 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 labor. 

Still the law was evaded. Notwithstanding the plain terms in which 

it stood upon the statute-book, notwithstanding the plain direction of 

the President of the United States to his subordinates in charge of the 

different Departments, the law in some instances was still evaded. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore (1\'Ir. GROSVENOR). The morning hour 

has expired. 

l\Jr. BUCHA.NAN, of New Jersey. I understand, Mr. Speaker! I 

shall be entitled to resume the floor when we next have a mormng 

hour. 

l\IESS.A.GE FROM THE SEN.A.TE. 

A message from the Sena te1 by M:r. McCOOK, its Secretary, announced 

that the Senate had passed bills of the following titles; in which the 

concurrence of the House was requested: 

A bill (S. 4312) to provide American registers for the steamers Stroma 

and Marco Aurelia; and 

A bill (S. 4335) to change the time of the sessions of the circuit and 

district courts of the western district of Missouri. 

JEWS IN RUSSIA. 

:Mr. HITT. Before the .House enters upon the consideration of the 

special order, I ask consent to take up a resolution reported from the 

Committee on Foreign A.flairs calling upon the President for information in regard to the reported threatened expulsion, harsh treatment, 

and sad condition of the Jews in Russia-a matter in which many 

American citizens are said to be involved. The Committee on Foreign 

Affairs recommend the adoption of the resolution which I send to the 

desk. 

The Clerk reatl as follo,v. ! 

Resolved, Tliat the President u requested to communicate to the House of Representati~es. if 11<1l incomputihl with the public int<>rest, any information in his possession concern in~ lht> enforcement of proscriptive edicts against the Jews in Russia reeent!Y ordered, ns reported in the public press, and whether any American citizen-. h:....-e, btc~use of their religion, been ordered to be ex- pelled from Hussia 01· forl>idtlen tile exercise of the ordinary privileges enjoyed by the inhabitants. 

There being no objection, the House proceeded to the consideration 

of the resolution; which was adopted. 

' ... 

. -, 
. i. 

' .. 

1890. 

IKSPECTION OF l\IEAT FOR EXPOBT.A.TIOY1 ETC. 

The SPEAKER. The business before the Honse under the special 

order is the consideration of Senate bill No. 2594, which will be read. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

A bill providing for an inspection of meats for ex:portatiop, prohibiting the im- portation of adulterated articles of food or drink, and authorizing the Presi- dent to make proclamation in certain cases, and for other purposes. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of 

.America in Congress assembled, That the E'ecretary of Agriculture may cause to be made a careful inspection of salted pork and bacon intendedfor exportation, with a. view to determining whether the same is wholesome, sound, and fit for human food, whenever the laws, regulations, or orders of the Government of ~y foreign country to which such J?Ork or bacon is to be exported shall require 

inspection thereof relating to the importation thereof into such country, and also whenever any buyer, seller, or exporter of any such meats intended for ex- portation shall request the inspection thereof. Such inspection shall be made at the place where such meats are packed or boxed, and each package of such meats so inspected shall bear the marks. stamps, or other device for identification provided for in the last clause of this section: Prot:idf!d, That an inspection of such meats may also be made at the place of ex- portation if an inspection has not been made at the place of packing, or, if in the opinion of the Secretary of Agriculture, a. reinspection becomes necessary. One COlJY of any certificate issued by any such inspector shall be filed in the De- partment of Agriculture; another copy shall be attached to the invoice of each sepaxate shipment of such meat, and a third copy shall be delivered to the con- signor or shipper of such meat as evidence that packages of salted pork and ba- con have been inspect~d in accord1mce with theprovisionsofthisactandfound to be wholesome, sound, and fit for human food; and for the identification of the same such marks, stamps, or other devices as the Secretary of Agriculture may by regulation prescribe shall be affi.:x:ed to each of such packages. 

Any person who shall forge, counterfeit, or knowin2'lY and wrongfully alter, 

deface, or destroy any of the marks, stamps, or other d~ices provided for in this section on any package of any such meats, or who shall forge, counterfeit, or knowingly and wrongfully alter, deface, or destroy any certificate in reference to meats provided for in this section, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine not exceeding $1,000 or imprisonment not exceediug one year, or by both said punishments, in the dis- cretion of the court. SEC. 2, That it shall be unlawful to import into the United States any adalter- ated or unwholesome food or vinous, spirituous, or malt liquors adulterated or mixed with any poisonous or noxious che::nical, drug, or other 'ingredient in· jurious to health. Any person who shall knowingly import into the United States any such adulterated food or drink knowing or having reasons to be- lieve the same to be adulterated, being the owner or the agent of t-he owner, or the consignor or consignee of the owner, or in privity with them, assisting in such unlawful act, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and liable to pros· ecution therefor in the district courtof the United States for the district into. which such property is imported; and, on conviction, such person shall be fined in a sum not exceeding Sl,000 for each separate shipment and may be impri~ 

oned by the court for a term not exceeding one year, or both, at the d~cretion 

of the court. SEC. 3. That any article designed for consumption as human food or drink, and any other article of the cwses or description mentioned in this act, which shall be imported into the United States contrary to its provisions, shall be for- feited to the United States, and shall be proceededaga.instunder the pronsions of chapter 18 of Title XIII of the Revised Statutes of the United States; and such imported property so declared forfeited may be destroyed or returned to the importer for exportatio11 from the United States after the payment of all costs and expenses, under such regulations as the Secretary of the Treasury may prescribe; and the Secretary of the Treasury may cause such imported articles to be inspected or examined in order to ascertain whether the same have been so unlawfolly imported. SEC. 4. That whenever the President is satisfied that there is good reason to believe that any importation is being ma.de, or is about to be made, into the United States, from any foreign country, of any article used for human food or drink that is adulterated to any extent dangerous to the health or welfare of the people of the United States, or any of them, he may issue his proclamation 

suspending the importation of such articles from such country for such period of time as he may think necessary to prevent such importation; and during such period it shall be unlawful to import into the Uniled States from the coun- trie1. designated in the proclamation of the President any of the articles the im· porta.tion of which is so suspended. SEC. 5. That whenever the President shall be satisfied that unjust discrimina- tions are made by or under the authority of any foreign state against the impor- ~tion to or sale in such foreign state of any product of the United States, he may direct that such p:::oducts of such fo1·eigu state so discriminating against any product of the United States a.she may deem proper shall beexcludedfrom im- portation to the United States; and in such case he shall make proclamation of his direction in the premises and therein name the time when such direction against importation shall take effect, and after such date the importation of the articles named in such proclamation shall be unlawful. The President may at any time revoke, modify, terminate, or renew any such direction as, in bis opinion, the public interest may require. SEC. 6. That the importation of neat cattle, sheep, nnd other ruminants and swine which are diseased or infected with any disease or which shall have been exposed to such infection within sixty days next before their exportation is hereby prohibited; and any person who shall knowingly violate the foregoing 

provision shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall, on conviction, be punished by a fine not exceedingS5,000 or by imprisonment not exceeding three years, and any vessel or vehicle used in such unlawful importation shall be for- feited to the United States. SEC. 7. That the Secretary of Agriculture be, and is bere'!:>y, authorized, at the expense of the owner, to place and retain in quarantine all neat cattle, 

sheep, and other ruminants, and all swine imported into the United States, at such ports as he may designate for such purpose and under such conditions as he may by regulation prescribe, respectively, for the several classes of animals above described; and for this purpose he may have and maintain possession of all lands, buildings, animals, tools, fixtures, and appurtenances now in use for the quarantine of neat cattle, and hereafter purchase, construct, or rent as may be necessary, and be may appoint veterinary surgeons, inspect-0rs, officers, and employes by him deemed necessary to maintain such quarantine, and pro- vide for the e:xf'>cution of the other provisions of this act. SEC. 8. That the importation of all animals described in this act into any port in the United States, except such as may be designated by the Secretary of Agriculture, with the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, as quarantine 

stations, is hereby prohibited; and the Secretary of Agriculture may cause to be slaughtered such of the animals named in this act as may be, under regula- tions prescribed by him, adjudged to be infected with any contagious disease or to have been exposed to infection so as to be dangerous to other animals; and that the value of animals so slaughtered a.s being so exposed to infection but not infected may be ascertained by the agreement of the Seeretary of Agri· culture and owners thereof, if practicable; otherwise, by the appraisal by two 

• I 

I '• 

ECORD-HOUSE. 8883 

persons familiar with the character and value of such property, to be appointed 

by the Secretary of Agriculture, whose decision, if they agree, shall be final; 

otherwise, the Secretary of Agriculture shall decide between them, and his de· cision shall ue final; and the amount of the value thus ascertained shall be paid to the owner thereof out of any money in the Treasury appropriated for the use of the Bureau of Animal Industry; but no payment shall be made for any animal imported in violation of the provisions of this act. If any animals subject to quaranUue according to the provisions of this act are brought into any port of the United States where no quarantine station is establisaed, the collector of such port shall require the so.me to be conveyed by the vessel on which they are imported or are found to the nearest quarantine station, at the expense of the owner, 

SEC. 9. That whenever, in the opinion of the President, it shall be necessary for the proteclion of animals in the United States against infectious or con- tagious diseases, he may, by proclamation, suspend the importation of all or any class of animals for a limited time, and may change, modify, revoke, or renew such proclamation, as the public good may require; and during the time of such suspension the importation of any such animals shall be unlawful. SEc.10. That the Secretary of Agriculture shall cause careful inspection to be made by a suitable officer of all imported animals described in this act, to as- certain whether such animals are infected with contagious diseases or have been exposed to infection so as to be dangerous to other animals, which shall then either be placed in quarantine or dealt with according to the regulations of the Secretary of Agriculture; and all food, litter, manure, clothing, utensils, and other appliances that have been so related to such anfmals on board ship as to be judged liable to convey infection shall be dealt with according to the regulations of the Secretary of Agriculture; and the Secretary of Agriculture may cause inspection to be made of all animals described in this act intended for exportation, and provide for the disinfection of all vessels engaged in the transportation thereof, an·d of all bargesorother>esselsused in the conveyance of such animals intended for export to the ocean steamer or otheT vessels, and all attendants and their clothing, and of all head-ropes and other applia.nces nsed in such exportation, by such orders and regulations as he may prescribe; and if, upon such inspection, any such animals shall be adjudged, under the regulations of the Secretary of AgricuUure, to be infected or to have been ex- posed to infection so as to be dangerous to other animals, they shall not be al- lowetl to be placed upon any vessel for exportation, the expense of all the in- spection and disinfection provided for in this section t-0 be borne by the owners of the vessels on which such animals are exported, Passed the Senate April 5~ 1890. 

The amendments reported by the Committee 011. Agriculture were read, as follows: • Insert the words "or drugs" after the word "food," in second line of section 2, and before the word "knowing" in seventh line, section 2; also the words "or any drugs" after the word "drink," in fifth line, section 4. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is upon agreeing to the 

amendments reported by the committee. If there be no objection, they 

will be considered as adopted. 

Mr. FUNSTON. Before the vote is taken on those amendments I 

desire to propose, by authority of the committee, another amendment: 

to strike out in line 2 of section 2 the words "or drugs" and insert 

the word "drug" after the word "adulterated " in the same line; ~o 

as to make it read: 

That it shall be unlawful to import into the United States any adulterated drug, etc. 

Mr. A.DAMS. Has the gentleman considered whether the amendment he now proposes would not exclude from the operation ot thd 

bill adulte:::ated food? It seems to me it would. The bill as he proposes to amend it would provide that it shall be unlawful to import 

"any adulterated drug or unwholesome food." Now, you want to include in the operations of the bill adulterated food as well as adulterated drugs. 

Mr. FUNSTON. It does include both. _ Mr. ADA.MS. The effect of the provision as proposed now to be 

amended would be to prohibit the importation of unwholesome food; 

but we want the prohibition to apply to adulterated food, whether it 

be unwholesome or not. That I understand to be the purpose of the 

bill. 

Mr. FUNSTON. What would the gentleman propose? 

1\Ir. A.DA.MS. I would leave the language just as it is. 

:Mr. BUTTERWORTH. As I understand, this clause of the bill is 

intended to make it an offense to import into the United States any 

adulterated or unwholesome food or drug, Then the clause goes onOrvinous, spirituous, or malt liquors, adulterated or mixed with any poisonous or noxious chemical, drugs, or other ingredients injurious to heaHh. 

Ought not the word ''any" to be inserted after the word "or" and 

before the word '' vinous? 11 

Mr. FUNSTON. Not necessarily. 

Mr. BUTTERWORTH. I understand the object is to prohibit the 

introduction of any adulterated or unwholesome food or drugs or any 

vinous or other liq.uors adulterated in a certain way. .A.s the clause now stands the word ''adulterated," used generally near the beginning 

of the second line, applies to all the classes of articles subsequently recited. I understand, however, that the section is not intended to apply to vinous, spirituous, or malt liquors, unless adulterated in a cer- tain way. I submit, 1\Ir. Speaker--

Mr. FUNSTON. As there appears to be some difference of opinion 

among the friends of the bill as to the form of the amendment.a which 

should be adopted, I suggest that we proceed with the general discussion, and before we vote upon the amendments such changes as may 

meanwhile be decid9:d to be proper can be made by unanimous consent. 

Mr. BUTTERWORTH. Then, before the gentleman proceeds t.o dis- cuss the bill I would move an amendment to insert after the word ''or, 1 ' 

and before the word '' vinous, '' in the second line of section 2, the word 

''any." 

•. 

" ~,. 

.... 

. \ 

. '; 

>·"'": 

.· 

_. 

"· . , 

, -. 
.. ·, .. 

·' 

: 

.· 

.. ' 

·- ~ . 

. · 

.. .. · . 

8884 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. AUGUST 20, 

Mr. FUNSTON. Very well; we will consider that hereafter. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The amendments will first be considered. 

Mr. FUNSTON. Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not understand that it is 

the design to ask a vote on these various amendments before the general features of the bill have been discuss~d. Am I right? 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair wouldsuggestthis, thatthe 

amendments proposed by the Committee on Agriculture be considered 

as adopted by unanimous consent. 

Mr. FUNSTON. I am perfectiy willing--

The SPEA.KER pro tempore. If there be no objection, that course 

will be pursued. 

Mr. MOl{GA.N. I object for the present. I desire to offer an amendment to the first section of the bill. 

The SPEA.KERpro tempore. The gentleman will have the right to 

offer the amendment. 

Mr. MORGAN. Then I withdraw the objection. 

The SP EA.KER pro tempore. In the absence of objection the amendments proposed by the committee will be considered a.c:; agreed to. 

There was no objection, and it was so ordered. 

Mr. FUNSTON. There will be an opportunity to offer amendments 

hereafter, I will state to the gentleman from Mississippi, but he can 

offer it now if he desires and have a vote at the close of the discussion. 

l\Ir. MORGAN. Then I will offer it now and discuss it at the proper 

time. 

I mo>e to amend line 4 of the first section by inserting the word 

"lard," after the word "of;" so that it will read if amended: 

That the Secretary of Agriculture may c:i.use lo be made a ca.reful inspection 

of lard, salted pork, etc. 

And if that is successful I shall move to insert the same word at all 

other proper places in the bill: 

The SP EA.KER pro tempore. The amendment will be considered as 

_pending. 

The Chair will state before the gentleman from Kansas begins that 

there are fifty-one minutes on each side for discuss\on remaining. 

l\Ir. FUNSTON. Mr. Speaker, it is with more than an ordinary 

degree of interest that I call up this bill for consideration, for I believe 

upon its passage depends the removal of restrictions and embarrassments which in a great degree have contributed to the present depression in the whole agricultural interest in this country. Mr. Speaker, 

he meat industry is one of the greatest sources of wealth that America possesse.c:J, being next in importance, I believe, to the breadstuffs, 

cotton being the first; and now, when a number of ports in foreign 

countries are closed against our meat products, where we might be reaping that wealth, it is pro~osed by this bill to open these ports by a 

proper inspection of .American meat profl ucts before bein~ shipped. 

Mr. CRAIN . . Will the gentleman parJon an interruption for the 

purpose of asking a question ? 

Mr. FUNSTON. I can not yield just now. I will further on with 

pleasure. 

Mr. CRAIN. I would like to ask the gentleman a question in con- nection with his remarks. 

Mr. "FUNSTON. After I am done I will answer the gentleman any 

question. 

Mr. CRAIN. It wil.l be useless then to yield for a question. 

Mr. FUNSTON. I say, Mr. Speaker, that by opening these ports as they should be by proper legislation on our part millions and 

millions of foreip:n gold can be brought here and converted into American money to relieY"e the embarrassed condition, not only of the farmers, but of all clas es of industries in all sections of the country. 

Up to the year 1881 our pork products had access to all foreign ports, 

of coarse subject to their revenue laws; bat in that year the French 

and German Governments declared against the admission of American 

pork and hence shut us out entirely; a)ld up to 1884 the markets of the 

world were open to the shipment of American cattle; but in that year 

the British shut us oat of their ports of entry except on the condition 

tbat we slaughtered our stock within ten days after they reached their 

port. 

The result of this has been that where the amount of exported pork 

product of this country bad reached the sum of $104, 000, 000 annually 

it immediately fell off to $59,000,000 and where the exportation of 

cattle amounted annually to $17,000,000 it immediately fell off to 

$10,000,000, thus ma~ing a.n absolute reduction in the exportation of our meat products of over $52,000,000 annually. This, Mr. Speaker, 

makes an aggregate daring the time that our pork and cattle products 

have been shut oat of the foreign market of not less than $450,000,-

000, which a.mounts to more than the largest volume of grP-enbacks at 

any time since their issuance. 

Now, under the provisions of this bill we make our own pork inspection for shipment under the direction of the Secretary of .Agriculture, and which inspection is made at the place of packinll, if re- quested by the packer or demanded by the foreign government to which 

it is to be shipped; and when that inspection is made by a competent 

chemist and it is ascertained that it is clean and good and not infected 

with trichinre, certificates are to be given, one to the shipper of the 

' --

pork, one to the Secretaryof .Agriculture, and theothertowhomsoever 

the shipment is made; and when that shipment of pork reaches its 

destination we will be enabled to insist that it shall be accepted as 

pure and healthful; and in case its admission is refused the President 

is empowered to declare our ports shut against everything such country 

produces. 

Also, Mr. Speaker, it provides an inspection for our export cattle, so that when they reach foreign ports the shipper will not be com· 

pelled to slaughter them, as now, within ten days, thus ab~olutely 

destroying a large per cent. of their value; but when they are inspected 

and the inspector declares that they have not pleuro-pneamonia, nor any other contagious disease, they can be shipped into England or any 

other foreign country and held indefinitely, so that they will have time 

to recover from shrinkage and bruise8 incident to a sea voyage; thus 

not only providing a market for our fat cattle, but for our stock cattle 

also; and in case England or any other country refuses us that privilege, 

we can Ra.y by the proclamation of the President, " Until you do this, 

we shall shut oat everything that England desires to ship into this 

country." 

In other words, Mr. Sp&'tker, it is an effort in the direction of lifting 

this great country up out of the dust and enabling it to stand qpon its 

feet, and not have to beg like a medican~ of other countries to accept 

onr produce, hut to enable our GovernJilent to say to them, "If you 

unjustly condemn the farm products of this country, we will cease to 

have any commercial intercourse with you until you do cease that unfair discrimination." B.v thic:J, Mr. Speaker, we will be enabled to do 

something material for the agricultural intereslc:J of this country. We 

will open the markets in all parts of the world. Why, sir, I forgot to 

say while dwelling upon that point that this charge of trichirire in 

American pork is false. There are more persons in America who die 

from stroke of lightning than ever die from trichinre. 

There are no trichinre in American pork; and, in my judgment, it is 

only a pretext that they make this decree. As to pleuro-pnenmonia, 

it bas been almost eradicated. There is scarcely a case of it in existence, and yet we are compelled, when we ship our cattle into Europe, 

to be snbjecled to laws and regulations the same as if every herd were infected with it. Why, l\fr. Speaker, there is no pleuro-pneumonia 

among the cattle that 've ship to-day. In my mind the decree is a 

makeshift of the British people, who ha•e declared themselves to be 

free-traders, to substitute something instead of a tariff to protect their 

own farmers and producers against American competition; and, in my 

iudgment, it is an effort on the part of the German and French Governments to protect the producers of swine in those countries from the 

competition of American producers. 

By the passage of this bill we will force them to remove the ban of 

condemnation under which they have placad our products and to admit them to their shores upon fair and reasonable terms. After the 

enactment of this biH into a law we can suy to them, "Our pork is inspected and our cattle are inspected; we bring yon pure food, and lay 

it down in your country, and we ask, yea, we demand, the consideration that any other respectable Governments are teceiving." 

Now, in addition to this, ~Ir. Speaker, it also makes provision for 

the inspection of all animals brought into this country, in order that 

it may be ascertained whether they are not infe<:ted with some contagions disease, and it provides for the inspection of drugs and food and 

drink. 

It is a bill in fact in the direction of pure food to all this country 

and all the world; and I will say to you this is what the farmer asks 

most of everything. He asks that lvhen he produces a good and unadulterated article upon his farm, that when he produces an article of 

pork that is superior, when he has produced an article of beef that is 

superior, these articles may go into the market and command all they 

are worth, and that they may not be unjustly condemned. 

~ow, Mr. Speaker, I think I have said all I desire to say at this 

time, and I will therefore reserve my time. 

:Mr. BUTTERWORTH. Mr. Speaker, before my friend takes his 

seat, I would like to ask him if the provisions of this act may not be 

extended a little with great advantage to the agricultural interests. I 

see that it provides for the inspection of salted pork, bacon, etc. The 

gentleman knows that one of our largest exports, or an export which 

was 3mong the largest, was lard. Why not insert an amendment covering lard? 

Mr. MORGAN. There is an amendment pending, which I have 

offered, covering that subject. 

.Mr. BUTTERWORTH. I was not aware of that. It seems to be 

thoroughly appropriate here. 

Mr. MORGAN. I am glad to have the suggestion from my friend. 

Mr. FUNSTON. I am glad to ha\e the gentleman put the question 

at this time, because I wanted to speak of that matter and of general 

legislati.on upon the subject. There are a number of things that you 

might attach to this bill apparently to the advantage of the farmer, but 

I want to say to you now that whenever you begin to attach this thing 

and that thing you will load down the bill and sink it and that will 

be the end of it. Now, I want to say that we have a good bill here. 

It has come.from the Senate reduced to a point which meets just exactly the issues of to-day~ salt pork and the Ii ve cattle of this country. 

-' . 
.. : .. : :_, , 

-! ~ .. , - -.. # 

": .. -

1890. CONGRESSIONAL REOORD-·HOUSE. 8885 

And if you attempt to load the bill down with everyt,hing else you 

will destroy it. 

Now, as to the question of lard, that is a different question. Neither 

the English people nor any foreign nation have c:Ieclared against the 

lard of this country. They have declared against cattle because of 

pleuro-pneumonia, and they have declared against pork because of 

trichinre. 

Mr. STRUBLE. Alleged. 

Mr. FUNSTON. Alleged, I mean, of course; but thereis no pleuropnenmonia worth mentioning among our cattle and no trichinre in our 

pork. It is utterly impossible for lard to be infected with trichinre, because, as every man knows, when lard or pork is subjected to heat 

that insect is destroyed. 

. I reserve the balance of my time. 

Mr. MORGAN. Mr. Speaker, I was very glad indeed to have the 

gentleman from Ohio [Mr. BUTTERWORTH] suggest the amendment that 

I have already presented, and which I am glad to know will receive 

his support. Now, sir,• when we come to the consideration of this 

measure I will say that I hope it will have the support of everymember of this House, or at least it ought to have it. I bold in my band 

the last report of our statistician, and out of $845,293,828 of exports 

this year $629, 785,917 were agricultural products, or 72.87 per cent. 

of all the exports of this country are agricultural products. 

It is gratifying also, M:r. 8peaker, to look at the reports in regard to 

our hog product, especially under consideration in this bill, because it 

applies only to pork and bacon. I find that in the year Just closed 

531,899,677 pounds of bacon were exported, as against 357,397,399 

pounds last year. We sold a.broad this current yearin round numbers 

76,000,000 pounds of hams in arldition. We sold of lard 471,385,000 

pounds, as against 318,240,000 pounds last year. Here we have, Mr. 

Speaker, exchanges upon which nearly the whole of our revenue is 

dependent. From agriculture and from its produc s comes the revenue 

principally which supports this Government; $629,000,000 of oar exports of$845,000,000 come from the farms of this country. 

This raises the question here presented in this bill, and I do not make 

the assertion in the spirit of exaggeration when I say that we practically clothe and foed the world, and if not at present, if given a fair 

chance, will soon do so; and if this be true I ask if it is not our 

highest duty, when we send forth agricultural products, that we should 

give them a certificate of good character; and what I have said as to 

tbe!le products, our bacon, our lard,, and our pork, that I have enumerated, also holds good as to our breadstuffs anrl our beef products. 

When we come to look into oar methods in the advanced stage of man- ufacturing these products, does it not behoove us to have the same law 

that we apply to pork and bacon apply to lard as well? 

Mr. Speaker, we have had th{\ subject of pure lard before the Committee on Agriculture for a number of years, for at least three years; 

not this particular bill, because it is of recent origin, but the subject 

of lard. We have had it before us and have given it great Consideration, greater than any other one subject considered by that committee. 

Everything that can be said about it, everything that would affect its 

market value at home or abroad, or show its cleanliness, has been said 

to that committee. 

The evidence is all in. I am prepared to say that the people of this 

country demand pure food in all its branches, and that a certificate of 

good character should accompany it to every household, if that could 

be done. I ask gentlemen why lard should be singled out and ma<le an 

exception f>f, and why should they prefer one branch of industry against 

another? I am told by my friends that these two branches are separate; that lard is a separate subject; but how cJin you say that lard is 

separate from bacon and pork? 

Mr. FUNSTON. If the gentleman will permit me. There is no 

necessity for this amendment about lard, and we have received nopetitionR in that connection. 

Mr. MORGAN. There are thousands of petitions. The liECORD is 

full of them. Now, sir, I bold in my band the petition of the Board 

of Trade of the city of Chica~o. Mr. Hately appeared before the Committee on Agriculture, and in his own statement says that this organization numbers 1,900 members, and that they purchased in the last year 

actual farm products of the value of $350,000,000 or $400,000,000. 

Here is the petition: 

Whereas rendered fat from the hog, in its pure state, bas al ways been branded and known as lard, and under this name has become one of the necessitie!:' of lite, universal in its use, unquestioned in its quality, and has grown to be one of the most important articles of export; and Whereas during the last few yeacs competition among refiners and dealers has caused them to seek for cheap fats with which to adulterate lard for the purpose of underselling each other, thus causing large quantities of a compound made from the fats of various animals and vegetables to be placed on the home market, shipped abroad, and branded lard; and 'Vhereas such ad alteration of lard has grown to be ·a national scandal, and has seriously damaged the good name of American lard, both in this country and abroad; and Whereas a few years ago shippers and curers, in their anxiety to get busi- ness by underselling each other, made shipments to Europe of partially cured men.ts which were branded "fully cured," thus giving a pretex• to France and Germany to prohibit the importation of American hog meats, on the ground that they were infected with trichina, thereby placing an unjust stigma upon American meats, resulting in great loss to our agricultural interests and to our export trade; and 

'. 

Whereas, judging trom the action of France and Giirmany against our meats, we fear the refiners a.broad may induce foreign governments to prohibit the importation ofo.Jl American lard, thus damaging the export trade diminishing tlie consumption of honest lard at home, to the financial detriment of the agri- cultural interests of this country, which to-day own about 50,000.000hogs, worth over $300,000,000, and further damaging America's good name in tile commerce of the world: Therefore the board of directors of the Board of Trade of the city of Ch lea.go 

hereby petitions the Congress of the United States to pass such laws and regll- lations as will compel all refiners and dealers to brand all adulterated lard "compound lard," or with some brand such as will plainly distinguish the pure from the impure article, in order that the consumers at home and abroad may know the one from the other. 0. L. HUTCHINSON, President. GEO. F. AM.ES, Secretary. 

Mr. CONGER. Then you bad better pass the lard hill. 

Mr. MORGAN. Yes; but we ought to take lard and place it in this 

bill. 

.Mr. FUNSTON. We take it np in the next bill. 

Mr. MORGAN. We should take it np in this branch of the sub· 

ject. Yon do not propose in that bill to have anything to do with 

·foreign commerce, and that is one of the points you make. In that 

bill yon propose to take up compound lard, which is only one part of 

the lard product of this country, and yon propose to put npon it the 

stamp of condemnation. 

I say that we are here as representatives of the people. demanding 

that a certificate of good character should be put on those articles which 

are sent abroad, a certificate upon which yon can get the trade of the 

countries of Europe. and not have our trade damaged there. They demand that the same protection that is given to salted pork should be 

given to lard, and it is because there has been such a fight between 

those interested parties that our meat bas received such condemnation 

abroad. 

Mr. BLISS. Where is this petition from? 

Mr. MORGAN. It is from the Board of Trade of the city of Chicago, 

representing $350,000,000; and they are in favor of the Conger bill. 

Mr. BLIS8. That is the trouble. It is wealth that is behind this, 

and not the farmers. 

Mr. MORGAN. Yes, I have petitions here, and I could stand and 

read them by the hour, and not one of them is in favor of having it 

discriminated against. If yon are to have a certificate of good character placed upon the meat products of the country, why do yon stop and 

leave out lard? Gentlemen come here and denounce lard compound 

as a fraud. If you want t-0 protect th~e products and give a certificate 

of good character to the meat the inspector of the Government should 

go and inspect the slaughter-houses. the lard-kettles, and place a cer- tificate of good character.upon their products; and I ask only that it 

be placed where that certificate of good character can be given. 

If Jard compound can not stand the test Jet it go to the world condemned. Bat its friends challenge its enemies to meE.t it in any contest with American-made lard before any board of health or school of 

morals or tribunal on common decency in the world without any fear 

of the result. Lard compound demands the right to be placed in this 

bill, and challen~es its competitor to the test provided by the bill for 

the benefit of the consumers of the world. 

Mr. CONGER. Will the gentleman permit an inquiry? 

Mr. 1\IORGAN. Yes, sir. _ 

Mr. CONGER. Is t.here any foreign Government which, by edict or 

legislative enactment, or anything of that kind, has ever discriminated 

against American lard ? 

Mr. MORGAN. No; but it is said they will do it unless this thing 

is done. 

:Mr.CONGER, They have, however, discriminatedagainstourpork. 

Mr. MORGAN. Yes, sir; and why have they done it? Ha'i not 

France put a tax: of five-ei~bths of a cent a pound upon our Jard? 

Mr. CONG EH.. What for? 

l\Ir. MORGAN. I do not know, unless it is to get even with us for 

putting taxes here upon some of her products. Such would be very 

reasonable, would it not? 

Mr. CONGER. They have not discriminated against our lard, 

though? 

Mr. MORGAN. That is not an answer to the proposition. These 

gentlemen bring forward their petitions, and it is the basis of the ar- gument in favor of the Conger bill. that you are using lard compound 

as an export and that it is damaging to us abroad, that it gives us a bad name. Now I not only want this inspection on accountot the com- · 

pound-lard-makers, bot I want it in order that the facts may be sent 

out to the world, and I want it for the purpose of contrast with this 

nasty lard that is "rendered" from everything in the world that is in 

a bog, from his snout to the end of his tail. [Laughter.] . 

Mr. HEARD. I understand that the i:;ent1eman's opposition to the 

Conger bill is because it does not provide a guaranty of inspection of 

this article for our foreign customers. 

l\Ir. MORGAN. It provides for nothing except ta.xinp: compound 

lard out of existence as a competitor. It is ~n appeal to Congress to 

suppress a competitor. 

l\Ir. HEA.l{D. Am I correct in my understanding that the gentle- man said that one o~jection he bad to this bill was that it did not 

proYide for inspection for the benefit of 9ur foreign customers"? 

........ '. 

,._ . 

.. : .. 

.' 
.1 • 

,( 

·-

.... -

,, ... · 

,·' 

; • 1 ... "'. · . 'I •'"' . 

8886 CONGRESSIONAL BECORD-.HOUSE. AUGUST 20, 

Mr. MORGAN. The gentleman from Iowa asked me if there had gress what Mr. Bartlesaid, I say every member on this floor who knows 

been any condemnation of American lard abroad-- that man is descended from the loins of Adam, who knows that the 

Mr. HEARD. I understood the position of the gentleman from heart of man is "deceitfalaboveall thingsandisdesperatelywicked,'t 

Mississippi to be as I have stated it, and I desire to ask him, would it not must consent to the truth of his statement. Mr. Bartle says that no 

be easy to so amend the Conger lard bill as to guaranty tb'e inspection man but an expert can tell whether a hog is afflicted with chol~ra or not. 

which he desires? Hesu.ysthatwhenevercholera breaks outinanyportionofa.Statewhere 

l\!r. MORGAN. Is not that a way of :fighting us off? How much hog-raising is carried on, those hogs are rushed to market. And yotJ 

easier would it be than placing the provision right here? can not tell whether they are infected with the cholera or not until 

.Mr. HEARD. But the other bill applies directly to lard, and this they have been killed, cleaned, and opened; and then you will see the 

does not. Jittle traces of the cholera infection. But, as he says, those hogs go 

Mr. MORGAN. And this applies to our exports of salted pork and into bacon; and the question with the man who has purchased those 

baeon. What objection has my friend from Ohio [Mr. BurrERWORTH] hogs is whether he will throw the bacon away or not when he discovers 

to inserting lard right here? He is the author of one of those bills. these traces of disease. 

Mr. BUTTERWORTH. None whatever. My friend has said that Mr. SWENEY. Will the gentleman allow me a word? 

there has been no edict against our lard on the oth~r side of the ocean. Ur. MORGAN. Yes, sir. 

That is true. But there bas been an edict against that which purports :Ur. SWENEY. I represent a district that produces a grent many 

to be lard. That my friend knows. bogs, and 1 come from a State that _produces more hogs than any other 

Mr. MORGAN. No. State of the Union. I wish to say that I know the statements made 

Mr. BUTTERWORTH. Well,Iknowitis a fact. It bas been ban- by the gentleman are untrue. 

ished from Antwerp, from Liverpool, and from many other of the great Mr. MORGAN. I refer to the statement of this gentleman who demarkets of Europe. Now, I am perfectly willing, in order ~hat each :fied the whole Board of Trade of St. Louis to meet him. 

article may stand upon its merits as my friend suggests, that that shall Mr. SWENEY. As quoted by you. 

be inserted here, and then everybody will know what he is buying and Mr. MORGAN. I have quoted it correctly. 

what he is paying for. Mr. STOCKDALE. Why did not the board before whom he made 

Mr. l\!ORGAN. That is exactly what I am after. Now, when my that statement turn him out? 

friend says here that the edicts of Germany and of France are based Mr. MORGAN. He said, "I stand here with my witne.:;s; I waive 

upon the idea of trichinosis, I say that is not correct. The true ground the question ofjurisdiction; turn me out of the Board of Trade, if you 

is set forth in the resolutions of the Chicago Board of Trade, and it is can." H e stood there in the face of those stock raisers and dealers 

that these meats are impure and ill cured. and he detied them, saying that he would meet them with the proof. 

Neither has lard compound been banished from the countries named He said further, that whenever you see a drove of hogs come on in the 

by my friend BUTTERWORTH. In those countries their laws require cars with an order to sell them on delivery, you may look out for cholera 

these articles to be sold ae and for what they are by description, as in that neighborhood, and no human being can tell wheth1::r those hogs 

mixed or otherwise; and no country in the world has ever pronounced are infected with it or not. 

against the wholesomeness of lard compound, and we challenge the After slaughtering the hogs the taint of cholera. could be detected, 

scientists of the world to test the article, and we in vHe the consumers and then the question would be whether the meat should be thrown away 

ot the world to try it. We defy all enemies to meet us in the light of or whether it should go into bacon; and he said that the pit ckers under 

day ciu equal terms. such circumstances would let it go into bacon, and did and do let it go 

Because of the fear of unwholesomeness our meats have been con- into bacon. He did not say that men would take hogs that died of 

demned in the European markets, and the correspondence of our min- cholera and sell their flesh as bacon, but be says that these smothered 

ister to France, Mr. Whitelaw Reid, recently published, shows that to hogs were rendered into lard and those discovered after slaughter to be 

be the fact. That correspondence shows that it is not true that our inlccted went into bacon. 

meats are kept out because of trichinosis, but that the real reason is But there are other witnesses. Mr. Fairbank, the largest manutheir want of the assurance that Government inspection would give. facturer of compound lard in the United States, tells us exactly how 

Why, it would make the cold chills run through gentlemen to read this lard is made; and we have also the testimony of Mr. Armour, Mr. 

the testimony in regard to this matter. Turn to the testimony of Ur. Sperry, Mr. Jewell, Professor Wiley, of the Agricultural Department, 

William G. Bartle, long a member of the St. Louis Board of Trade. and a number of other gentlemen, who tell us how lard is made and how 

Can any man doubt the trnth of his staliements? He came before the compound. lard is made. One oi these tells yon that for more than 

Committee on Agriculture, and I have his testimony here, in which he twenty years the article known as prime steam lard has been adulgives a graphic account of the mode and manner of the manufacture tera.ted, the leaf lard being taken from it and sold to butter-makers, 

of bacon in this country. When he bad delivered his testimony, all of the remainder being sold as prime steam lard. . 

the pork-packers of the country assailed him, and the newspapers were Mr. Mixer, the inspector at Chicago for a number of years, made a 

flooded with denunciatiomt of him from one end of the land to the statement, which I hold in my hand. He was asked in regard to the 

other. He was threatened with ex.pulsion from the St. Louis Board of different grades of lard. He said there were just two grades: the 

Trade, and they went to the extentofpreferringchargesagainst him be- choice lard, then the prime steam lard. He was asked how the rule 

fore that board. What was the result? He defiantly walked in and of the trade required choice lard to be made. He said it was made of 

told them that what he had said was the truth, and he would stand by the leaf of the hog and the trimmings. He was then asked how prime 

it before the world, and he challenged them to a trial. steam lard was made, and he said it was made from the fat, from the 

What was the further result? The charges were preferred on the offal, from the feet, the head, and the trimmings. He was asked whether 

statement of Mr. Whitaker, a very prominent packer there. The there was on the market any choice lard made out of the leaf. He 

Board of Trade decided that they had no jnrisdiction, and they were answered, "Not a particle." 

about to dismiss the matter when Mr. Bartle, by his counsel, walked He was asked by one of the counsel, Mr. Fox, whether a family dein and waived the question of the jurisdiction of the board and de- siring leaflard or choice lard could boy such int he market in Chicago, 

manded a hearing, and he forced them to back down in order to pre- and in reply to that question this inspector stated that he had not seen 

vent the disclosure of the truth, for he said he had witnesses tosustain a sample of such lard in the city of Chicago for two years. He was 

all that he had charged. This gentleman stated that he knew of as asked whether he could not getit there. He said, "Yes, youcanget it 

many as 2,240 smothered hogs to go into the lard tank at one deal. if you will go to the packer, buy the leaf, take it home and render it; 

Mr. CONGER. I wish to ask the gentleman another question. Did then you will have some choice lard, but not otherwise.'' 

you believe the testimony of Mr. Bartle before that committee? A MEMBER. If the hog has the cholera will it be "choice lard? " 

Mr. MORGAN. I state to this House that I did believe the testi- Mr. MORGAN. I should say not. Butitisstated theyrendersuch 

mony of Mr. Bartle before that committee, and I believe it now. He into lard; and that is another reason why there should be inspection. 

challenged the world to contradict it and he refused to take back a. Mr. Hately was also brought forward in the interests of the refiners 

syllable of what he said. They threatened to dismiss him from the and packers oflard. He was placed upon the stand in connection with 

St. Louis Board of Trade, but. he appeared there with his witnesses .Mr. Mixer with regard to this manufacture. Mr. Fairbanks had said 

and they conveniently found themselves without jurisdiction. He that the different parts of the hog, the leaf and trimmings excepted, 

waived the question of jurisdiction, as I have stated, and demanded a were put in intact; that the feet were put in without taking the hoofs 

trial. The result is he is still a member of the board and the whole off, that the heads are put in with the ears on, that the entrails are 

agitation has died out, but his testimony stands unimpeached and his put in, having been ripped open and washed around in a trough, and 

accusers stand mute. out of this they get lard; thn..t when be bought a hundred tierces and 

Mr. CONGER. Did be not t-estify that he himself had been practic- refined it he would frequently get as much as n. tierce or two of mud 

ing the same things that he described; that he had been killing smoth- 1 as Mack as your coat. 

ered hogs and selling them for pure meat? Are you not willing, then, as our prime steam la.rd goes to the con- .Mr. MORGAN. I will read his testimony. tineut of Europe, that these operations should be inspected? Would 

Mr. CO.N"GER. Did.he not say that? And ifhe did say that, I do .not these gentlemen who ell this product upon the market be benenot believe that the gentleman from Mississippi or any other man in fited by having tlle stamp of the Government placed upon it? Does 

this Bouse would believe such a man's liitatements. not the character of the American farmer abroad, that my friend here 

Mr. MORGAN. Mr. Bartle s.'lid this. And when I tell this Con- and all of us are so willing to defend, demand that the product of his 

, I 

·' 
J.. .. •• 

., - , -\ 

1890. CONGRESSIONAL REOORD-HOUSE. 8887 

bog should be neat and clean and branded by the Government and it;s 

purity in this way guarantied? 

I will say to my friend from Iowa that I can vindicate every farmer 

in his district, every single one of them, and by bis own testimony here. 

He knows that when he and I were boys we used to stand around at what 

was called "hog-killing" time to see the hogs slaughtered, and then 

we consumed or sold our own pork, and we baconed it ourselves, and 

made our lard, sent it off, and sold it. To-day you simply kill enough 

for your own use and every hog in the State of Iowa is sold to the packers on its feet and you ha.ve no control whatever over the business of 

making bacon and lard except for your own household. 

Mr. SWENEY. I want to say to the gentleman from Mississippi 

[Mr. MORGAN] that by the law of Iowa under severe penalties the 

tran,;portation of a bog dead with disease is prohibited over any part 

of the State. And cholera hogs do noli go into the slaughter-houses, 

as has been stated in the testimony to which the e;entleman refers. 

Mr. MORGAN. Weare nottalkingaboutdead hogs at home. Your 

hogs that leave the State leave there, as your farmers believe, in a 

healthy condition. By the time they reach the market they may become infected with disease. They may become diseased on the way 

from the farm to where the packers slaughter the animals; and when 

they reach the packer, if it happens that they are diseased, the packer 

never ships to consider the question or have an investigation made, but 

he simply slaughters them and puts them into bacon. 

It is u t the packing-houses, therefore, that the examination should be 

made, not on the farm. The farmers do not know whether they are 

diseased or not when they are shipped. He sends them off for fear or 

dis~a e. Possibly they may be, but they are unable to determine. But 

yet, Mr. Speaker, when the cholera breaks out among the bogs it is 

only human nature for the man to get his stock off, to getit away from 

his farm as soon as possible, sent to the market to avoid danger. 

What does Ur. Fairbank say in his testimony on this point as to 

the manufadure of a pure-lard product? Here is the testimony; it is 

of a character that I could not undertake to read now. A reading of 

that character of ~vidence in this presence would empty the gallery of 

ladies. It is enoagh to say that it is taken from every part of the hog. 

Here is a part of it: 

The packers went on until they began to put in a. whole hog; trimmings, 

heads, guts, and everything went in making one straight brand known as steamed lard. A prime steamed lard was the product. That process reduced the quality of prime steamed lard, a.nd it got it to such a point ~t the people began to complain of a. bitte:r taste in it. Now, m the great packing-houses of the West they do not stop to clean the guts or make sausage cases of them. There a.re only certain particular entrails used for that purpose, nnd all of the gut fat. They just wash around, not thor- oughly, and then throw all into the tank. 

By l\lr. GEORGE: 

Q,. Guts and all? A. Guts, bea.ds, feetl and everything. The lard tank to-day in a packing- house is a. sewer for cleaning out everything in the shape of grease. To-day there is not a packing-house that makes-I will not say a tierce-but there is no such thing as white grease from packers on the market. Q. That is worked up into the lard? A. It all goes into the la.rd; a.11 the product tha.t we used to buy as white aTease. There is no such thing as No. 1 lard any more. It all goes in, and is all prime steamed lard. The quality of it had deteriorated to such an extent that we had to get something to mitii'Q.te it, to do a.way with the taste and the smell. 

Out of 100 tierces of lard we took out a tierce or two of mud. It was as black as your coat. There were one or two tierces of those settlings, of impurities of that kind. That is what we call refining. 

Byl\Ir. PLUJIIB: 

Q,. The packers' lard produces that result? A. Yes, sir; all the packers' lard made is made in that way; it conta.ins a.11 of this filth necessarily from the throwing into a tank of guts and everything, and steaming it a.ll together; it is then allowed to precipitate itself, and then the impurity is drawn off. 

Again, in reference to the dirt, the black stuff settling to the bottom, 

Mr. Hately, Fairbank's adversary, testifies: 

Q. l\fr. Fairbank spoke about dirt settling to the bottom; that a very large amount of it settled there. You say the same thing happens in your manufact- ure, that the dirt settles on the bottom? A. Yes, sir; before it goes into the prime steam lard. Q. l\Ir. Fairbank says he gets his lard from the pa<:kers. A. Yes, sir. Q. He says it settles in that way. You say you"I" dirt settles in that way? So I say the mere fact of the dirt settling is not material, if there is a.proper render- ing afterwards, because that eliminates the dirt. The fact that the dirt has been in it does not make any difference. Q. Suppose you take out the dirt, would it be possible to make out of the fat of the hog-take it all-such an article as Mr. Fairba.nk describes, an article that. would have a boggy smell and be offensive to the taste? A. Yes, sir. 

Vfhat does Jliir. H.!ltely say about it, in answer to a question by Mr. 

PLUMB, I believe? . 

Q,. Does not this process take place: Instead of the fat being pulled from the gut, is not the gut split open and the ordure pulled out, and the entire thing 

put into the tank? 

A. Thereare certain guts that are cut. open in that way that can not be voided. They are not used by the sausage-maker. Well, there is no other way to use them. You can not afford to lose them. The guts are thoroughly washed and just as wholesome as the !l.ausaire we eat. 

So you see they have been putting the whole entrails of the animal 

all of the guts right in the kettle. And this quest.ion was asked: ' 

Does the gut go into the tank? A. Yes.sir. 

'. 

Now, here is some good reading, if gentlemen will take time to examine it, upon this subject, for those gentlemen who are attacking compound lard and seem opposed to having an inspector. They want to 

confine the pure article at home, I suppose, and let these gentlemen 

go with their compound lard, cotton-seed oil, etc., and all of that into a foreign market. This question is asked by Senator PLUMB: 

From what part of the bog do you get what is called white grease? 

White grease is an article formerly known, I will say for the information of those present, among pork-packers as a low gradeofoil. It 

was used for lubrica.ting oil, made from the entrails and the unnamable 

parts of the hog. 

Here is the testimony: . 

Q. From what part of the hog do you get what is called white grease? A. There is no such thing as white grease ma.de in the va-0king-houss now. In the march of events the progress in packing has been just as great as it. has 

been in almost any other industry. 

In the advance in the making of lard, having eliminated the whole 

of the substance that is worth anything to make butter out of, then 

comes the refuse, and that is all brought down to prime steam lard, 

and the white grease that was known in years gone by has become unknown in the progress of the manufacture of lard. 

Here is the statement of Mr. Hately, the gentleman who bas come 

h ere from the Chicago Board of Trade to break up compound lard as the 

official representative of pure lard: 

Q. From what part of the hog do you get what is called white grease? A. There is no such thing as white grease made in the packing-house now. In the march of events the progress in packing has been just. as great. as it has been in almost any other industry. It has not been a great many years ago since the whole entrails as they were taken from the hog-the greater portion of the fat on them-were taken away, carried out and buried. It bas not been many years ai"O since some packer>! on the l\:li!ISissippi River thought the head or feet or anything of that kind was of no value whatever. They only killed in the winter time, and one packer remarked to me: "What a fool we were. We had big profits in those days if we had only known it. We u:0ed to take the heads and feet and guts and ran them out on the Mississippi River and pile them up there. and when the ice broke up in the spring away they went." Q. Then, what was called white grease now goes into the manufacture of lard? 

A. Yes, sir. The lard system is now so entirely different that we could not make white grease. Q. Then, whatwas formerly known as white grease now becomes lard by the process of manufacture? A. Yes, sir. It never was really white grease at all. It was really only the lard, but not a product that would pass inspection. 

All of the leaf-lard has gone into butter. Mr. Fairbank says that 

in one of his houses he has the names of fifty dairymen in the United 

States who buy oleo and this leaf-lard product from him. And so every 

particle of the entire leaf of the American hog that is slaughtered is, 

according to this testimony. sold in the shape of oleomargarine, butterine, and butter, and the statistics in reports show that 68,218,098 

pounds of it were shipped abroad la.st year in addition to supplying the 

home market. 

Mr. Mixer says if yon want any genuine leaf-lard now, yon have 

got to buy the leaf yourself and render it yourself. He is the inspector 

for the city of Chicago and knows what he is talking about. 

Hately further says: 

Now, as soon as. the hog is killed and comes down on the bench and the hair is scraped off of it, it is put onto a rail a.nd hunit by the hind legs. A man takes a knife and cuts down the stomach and takes out the entrails. Then, as that drops out, he catches hold of bum-gut, and that is cut out and thrown toa man who takes care of it, and it is then sold to people who prepare sausage-cases for sausage-makers. 

He also says: 

I think there has been somethina- said about the heads. After the guts are taken out the head is cut off and the tongue taken out. '£he blood is then washed from the head, and it is also put into the tank. Then the lard from the fat of the head a-oes in with the rest. Any sinew or gut or skin, or anything of that description that may get into the tank-and a large quantity of skin does get in on the fat pieces or the meat-under the action of the heat is rendered down to a gluey substance that will not remain in the la.rd. It settles right dowDin the water. In fact, U will go as low down as the dirt that is found in the lard at that time, because it is merely a. vegetable matter. This bum sub- stance will usually settle lower than the dirt. That is carried ofl and is made into the packin~-bouse fertilizer that we know of in commerce. That is the way lard is made. 

Here are Mixer's words: 

"Choice Zard.-Choice lard to be made from leaf and trimmings only, either steam or kettle rendered, the manner of rendering to be branded on ea.ch tierce." "Prime steamlard.--Standard prime steam lard shall be solely the produc' of the trimmings and other fat parts of hogs, rendered in tanks by the direct. application of steam, and without subsequent change in grain or character by the use of agitators or other ma<lhinery, except as such change may unavoid- ably come from transportation. It shall have proper color, flavor, and sound- ness for keeping, and no material which has been salted shall be included. The name a.nd location of the renderer and the grain of the lard shall be plainly branded on each package at the time of packing." 

Byl\Ir.Fox: 

Q. Will you please tell me whether or not this choice lard is often seen on tha market? 

A. No, sir; it is not often called for. Q. Is it ever delivered on fnture contracts? A. No, sir. Q. Prime steam lard is the lard of commerce? A. Yes.sir. Q. The choicest pa.rt of a hog is rendered out a.nd sold at a. higher price than prime steam lard? A. I have not seen a lot of it in two years. Q. As a matter of fact, is not the leaf roodered sepa.ratelyandsold for separate 

purposes? Could I, if I were a family man living in Chicago, get pure leaf lard t 

I' ' 

.-

-.. ~ 

"·· , .. 
,- ... 

.· 

8888 CONGRESSIONAL REOORD-HOUSE. AUGUST 20, 

.A. Yes, sir; but Ithink you would have to go and buy the leaf yourself and hav~ it rendered. It is not, commercially speaking, in the market. It IS not made; there is no· demand that calls for the making of it. 

Now, my friends who are in earnest about thic; thing, I ask you,when 

the representatives of the pork-packers of Chicago,_Hately and Mixer, 

representing over $:150,000,000, come and give this testimony before 

the Committee on Agriculture, and, representing that interest, come and state to you what Mr. Fairbank says, that no less than a tierce of 

mud in refining is taken out of a. hundred tierces of this stuff, and 

Hately tells you where it comes from and calls it 4ium substance, and 

says it is taken from the bottom, where it has settled, and carried off for 

fertilizer, can you hesitate for a moment to insert the word "lard" 

here, and let us inspect these tanks also? 

Mr. HEARD. Will the gentleman permit an inquiry? 

Mr. MORGAN. Certainly. 

Mr. HEARD. Does he think we can do justice to the consumers of 

American lard on this statement by simply inspecting the lard which 

is exported ? 

Mr. MORGAN. When we come to the consideration of the Conger 

bill we will offer amendments and take in the whole subject. Can I 

have your support for that? 

Mr. HEARD. You certainly will. Now, one word further. I have no objection to the inspection of lard. I think it ought to be made as rigid as possible, but this inspection ought to protect our people at 

home as well as abroad. 

Mr. MORGAN. Certainly. 

Mr. HEARD. Therefore, if the amendment is put in the right bill, 

which is the lard bill, it will protect our own people as well as the foreigners. 

Mr. STOCKDALE. Do you not want to protect the foreigners? 

Mr. HEARD. The other bill will protect them, too. · Mr. MORGAN. Hereistheplaceto putit, Mr. Speaker. Here you 

have got the constitutional power. Here you offer a premium to every 

manufacturer in the United States to invite you to inspect his tanks 

and give him a certificate of character, and every packer who declines 

the invitation will stand branded with infamy and his goods will be 

covered with suspicion on the ground that he is a man who is afraid to 

stand the test. You can not reach it in any other way. Congress can not invade the States to inspect these of its own wil1. 

Herc we are seeking at this moment reciprocity with South America, 

and as we are seeking trade with all the world why shall we ·not send a certificate along under the seal of the Government that the article 

we seek to sell is.pure and wholesome? You can get no such certificate 

elsewhere. Why should you neglect this opportunity? Why should 

you allow the products of our country to be debased and degraded before the world when you have the opportunity to place them in the 

highest rank? 

Mr. FUNSTON. Will the gentleman allow me to ask a question? 

Mr. MORGAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. FUNSTON. Are yon willing to add, after the word "pure," ~he words ''wholesome and unadulterated?" 

Mr. MORGAN. It depends upon what you say is adulteration. Do 

you adulterate coffee by putting sugar and cream into it? [Laughter.] 

Mr. FUNSTON. Are you willing to have those words put in? 

Mr. MORGAN. I am willing to have the food inspector of the Government inspect it at any time in the world, from the time that the 

cotton-seed oil goes in until the time it goes into the market. 

Mr. FUNSTO:N'. Are you willing that the words "unadulterated 

with any other substance" shall go in there? Will you answer my 

question? 

Mr. MORGAN. Directly; and, while it is not necessary, I am willing to put the whole business in if you will say that there has been 

nothing extracted from lard. Are you willing to say that it shall not 

have extracted from it the leaf, and that nothing has been taken from 

it to adulterate it by reducing the value of its properties? 

Mr. FUNSTON. Yon are uot willing to answer my question. 

Mr. MORGAN. I am willing to make this bill apply to it in this or any other part of the world. Will you say that when you take 60 

per cent. of lard such as I have described, 30 per cent. of the cottonseed oil and 10 per cent. of the srearine of the leaf fat of the hog or 

beef, that such product is an adulteration? 

I want an examination by the Government of the United States. I 

want the Government to say whether this is an adulteration. I want 

it inspected, so that we can make it become a part of the commerce of 

the world, as I know this will be the result. Our whole country is beginning to feel the necessity for such action. Our Secretary of State, 

nnd if my friend from Ohio [Mr. BUTTERWORTH] will permit me to as- sociate him in that matter, I will say be, too, are responding to the views 

of the people requiring that there shall be commerce with the whole 

world with proper restrictions and that there shall be reciprocity; and 

in answer to it we are seeking a market for our agricultural products 

and agricultural machinery. 

I say, let us send them out to the world with the stamp of the Ameri- can Government upon them, and declare that it is what we say it is, 

and then when we have had \t :Wsp-ected, or caused it to be inspected 

under our fows, we will make it to the interest of every manufacturer 

.-

to have inspected both his meat and his lard; and if we do so we will 

have a further increase over the six hundred and twenty-nine million 

of this agricultural product that enters into our commerce with the 

world, because it will have the stamp of this great Government upon 

it. Every article will bear official assurance of purity, and then we 

will receive in exchange the commerce of other countries. 

Then, all this petty trifling, all this petty swindling and petty thieving will be brought to an end and we will have a plane upon which 

the packers and refiners can all stand. Then every pound of lard will 

have upon it the stamp of the Government and it will go into this 

branch of commerce with its kindred pork and bacon. We are now to 

say whether the Government of the United States will put its stamp 

upon it or not. The poor of foreign co an tries have to be fed, and the 

price controls everything. That is the reason why our exports of lard 

have increased from three hundred and twenty mi1lion to four band red 

and seventy-one million. That has bron~ht about these enormous demands from abroad for our agricultural products. 

We talk about the pauper labor of Europe. It has to be fed, and we have got the bread and the meat products to do it. We are told that 

they have meat only for their breakfast on Sundays. It is the reduction in the price that makes the demand, and we have got the articles 

here cheaper than they have got them. We have got corn burning in 

Kansas. The people there want: to have that corn fed to hogs and beef 

cattle and then exported. 

Mr. FUNSTON. If the gentleman will permit me I will state to 

him that corn is not being burned in Kansas, but that it is now selling 

at 50 cents per 1>ushel. 

Mr. MORGAN. I am glad to bear it. I am glad to know that the 

winter is over. [Laughter.] I hope that it was not all burned up 

lastwinter and the farmers are now buying at 50 cents. 

Ur. KELLEY. I would like to make a statement right there, and 

that is that the greate.st advance in the price of com has taken place 

since the silver bill was passed. 

Mr. MORGAN. I am very glad to know that something has done 

it. Wherever we have got any testimony before the committee it shows 

thab the man who makes corn ought to feed it to bis hogs, rather than 

burn it for fuel, if he can, and be enabled to buy his fuel and ha.ve 

money left. It is unnatural and sinful to be forced to burn corn with 

millions hungry for meat and bread. And now when we come to this, 

I ask you if you can not rise above all this contemptible fight between 

the packers and the cotton-seed oil men and take the whole of this 

great subject into consideration and let the Conger lard bill go "to the 

hogs." [Laughter.] That is a fight between the bog and the negro; 

between the packers on the one side and the cotton-seed-oil men on 

the other. I am for the negro. 

Mr. FUNSTON. But we have not gotten to lard as yet. 

Mr. MORGAN. I am giving you a little foretaste of what we will 

have when we come to that subject. 

We brought before our committee one of the most distinguished men in the United States, so far as the manufacture of lard is concerned, Mr. 

A bra ham S. Jewell, a gentleman who is the father of the refiners, who 

originated the process of rennin~ lard forty yenrs ago. He stated in 

bis testimony that in the year 1850 he was manufacturing lard and he 

found that it was "rendered" in the country everywhere in different 

ways. so that he never could get as much as a hundred tierces that 

would give a like run. It was of every shade of color, some of it being burned a little and 

some not sufficiently cooked, and he conceived the idea of buying up 

that lard, bringing it wgether and remelting it and making a 1ard of a uniform consistency and color. He says he did that, and he brought 

out ~n article of which he could ship as much as one hundred tierces 

all of tlre same quality und the same hrand. He said further that to 

his very great surprise be found there was a demand for it in the Eu· 

ropean markets, but he soon discovered that this Jard melted, or at least 

became softened, at about 75 or 80 degrees, and therefore he was com- pelled to look for a remedy to fit the lard for use in southern climates. 

At that time there was, he said, a. great quantity of lard oil in use, 

and the stearine, which is t,he fiber left after 50per cent. of the oil bas 

been expressed from the leaf, was the substance that be made use of. 

He cooked that in with bis lard and "rendered" the whole toiether, 

"to make it stand up," and when he got through be found that he 

had made a brand that in the European markets commanded from 1 to 

2 cents a pound more-than any other brand oflard. That is how the 

business of lard refining began, and be said that it went on until the 

competition grew so active and so great and the profits were so close 

that some adulterant bad to be sought for in order that the refiners 

miaht make money, and they commenced using water, and he said that 

he bad known as much as 35 per cent. of water to be injected into lard 

in that way. I asked how much it would carry--

Mr. HILL. I will ask the gentleman whether that same sample of 

lard in which 35 per cent. of water was found did not contain also some cotton-seed oil, showing that it was really what is called "compound lard.'' _ Mr. MORGAN. My friend is right as to that sample examined 

by Professor Wiley, of the Agricultural Department, but I am speak-
.,, ... ,· .. . ..... .· . -· '· 

1890. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 8889 

ing of the subject aa testified to by Mr. Jewell, before the use and value 

of cotton-seed oil were known. Here is what he said: 

Tbe competition in the manufacture of lard grew so rapidly that refiners, as they were called, sought to get something to cheapen the product, and many used water; they made the la.rd pure, and then added water to it to cheapen the price. This went on for a number of years, but finally the practice fell of its own weight. There was so much water in the mixture that the buyer re- jected it, and. then, of course, they had to come back to pure Jard. Then the effort was to find some other article that would answer the purpose. About this time cotton-seed oil came upon the market, and that seemed to be just the article. 

By Mr. BURNETT: 

Q. You l!lpoke a.bout the Jard containing a great deal of water. How much percentage of water has ever been forced int-0 lard? A. I don't know that more than 35 per cent. has ever been put in, thou~h 

some claim more. It is well known that 35 per cent. ha.s been added. Q. This la1 d tha.t you are speaking of was known in the trade twenty·fi>e or thirty yea.rs ago a.s pa-0ker's lard, and it is now called prime steam lard? A. It is called prime steam lard. Q. Packers in those days adulterated it to an. extent that the trade revolted and rejected it? A. No, sir; not at all. It was not the packers; it was the Jard refiners. Q. Now, l understand you that the introduction of cotton·seed oil and stear- ine hast&ken the place of a.ter? A. Thnt is the point exactly; to cheapen the price of lard. Q. Then it il!I a. continuation of the same clasg o! bu.sines~ in tho.t direction, and the effect is to cheapen the price of lard 'l A. That is the obiect. 

The SPEAKER. The time of the gentleman bas expired. 

Mr. MORGAN. I ask unanimous consent to proceed a little longer. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The whole of the time on the gentleman's side has been occnpied. Any farther time which he may occnpy 

mnst come out of the time of the other side. 

Mr. MORGAN. We were entitled to an hour, I believe. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. That side wa.s entitled to :fifty-one 

minutes, and the time has all been used. 

Mr. MORGAN. Well, I ask for unanimous consent for time to 

answer the question ot the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. HITT] more 

fully. 

Mr. FUNSTON. I object. The gentleman from Mississippi bas 

certainly occupied as much time as this House can afford to give him 

for that kind of talk. [Laughter.] I will now yield :five minutes to 

the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. HITT]. 

Mr. DINGLEY. I ask the gentleman to yield to me a moment in 

order that I may offer an amendment and have it pending. 

Mr. FUNSTON. I will yield to the gentleman to offer bis amendment. 

The amendment was read, as follows: 

Amend section 6, line 10, by inserting, after the word "importation," ns fol· lows: "\Vith the knowledge of the master or owner of said vessel or vehicle that such importation is diseased or bas been exposed to infection, as herein described." 

Mr. DING LEY. I understand, Mr. Speaker, that this amendment 

receives the assent of the committee. It is simply designed to carry 

out what was undoubtedly the intention of the framers of the bill. As 

it stands the bill provides that any vessel or vehicle used for such un- lawful importations shall be forfeited to the United States. Of course, 

the intention was that that should apply only to a vessel or vehicle 

used for such purposes with the knowledge of the master or owner; 

but the bill does not say so. Mr. FUNSTON. The amendment is satisfactory. I now yield to 

the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. HITT]. 

Mr. HITT. ?!Ir. Speaker, the inspection of meats for exportation, 

which this bill provides, is timely and prudent. It will complete the 

vindication of our large meat export from the charge or pretense that 

it is unhealthful or poisonous and dangerous from trichina. Upon this 

unjust pretense American meats have been excluded from several coun- tries, and onr foreign trade has seriously fallen off. We shipped and 

sold to France in 1880 over 68,000,000 pounds of pork, but last year 

only 82, 000 pounds, say $5, 000 worth. This falling off is not because 

American pork is burdened by France with a too heavy duty, but be- cause it is entirely excluded. It can not be imported, no matter how 

high a duty the importer might be willing to pay. 

This war upon American pork was begun about ten years ago under 

the influence of those interested in French pork, which could not stand 

competition in the market with the cheaper nnd better .American product. The pretense made to justify the exclnsion was that the American po.ck was unhealthful and dangerous as compared with theirs. 

This has long since been shown to be utterly untruthful, but the false 

charge was not withdrawn. They were not willing to deal with our 

pork by putting it under their tariff, and if they put a special duty on 

Amerfoan pork, of course prompt retaliation would meet such discrimination. Nor is it in accord with ordinary treaty stipulations or the 

usage of friendly nations. So they kept up t.he c1~im that it was for the 

national health, the safety of lire. 

What makes this specially offensive to .Americans is, not only that it 

is untrue, and we believe pertectly known to be untrue, but it is a kind of defamation; it is an injurious and continuonsslander, impairing, and intended to impair the commercial standing of an extensive 

product which once lar~ely entered into our foreign trade, and in which our farmers, who all raiee pork, are deeply interested. 

The inspection system provided in this bill will have its virtue, in 

that it will remove by official proof of incontrovertible character the 

last vestig~ of the pretense upon which pork is excluded. It will clear 

the way for a speedy change of the present situation by a removal of 

the prohibition or by retaliation from our side; beginning on wines, 

for instance. The farmers who produce pork to send abroad do not 

question the right of any and every nation to subject it to an import 

duty, no more than they permit any other Government to question us 

as to the tariff we choose to adopt for the interest of our own country, 

not in the interest of English manufacturers or French wine and silk 

merchants. But we do it on honest ~ounds, in straightforward fashion, 

not on a commercial slander and a baseless pretense ofregard for some one's health, when it is really for some one's profit; not by total e~­

clusion, but by a dnty which we deem proper, and upon paying which 

all men can enlier and trade. 

We will not complain of any duty imposed on pork from this coun- try as from other pork-exporting countries; but our people strongly 

feel that total exclusion is a wrong, made worse by resting on an injurious and unjust pretense of the unwholesomeness of American pork. 

Congress does well to give this attention to the farming interest, the 

largest in the country, and provide an inspection which will give the 

final answer to that accnsation against an immense product. The 

pressure of fact bas been so strong already upon tlie French Government that the minister of foreiJ?n affairs, I learn with pleasure, has 

inti mated that be would propose to the Parliament the repeal of the 

prohibition. -

As the latest word on this important subject I will ask.the attention 

of the House to a dispatch, clear, cogent, and in excellent spirit, by 

Minister Reid, our representative in Paris, to M. Ribot, the French 

minister of foreign affairs, an enlightened and able statesman. 

The whole subject is well covered in this dispatch, especially the 

point that we object, not to a tariff, high or low, but to exclusion, and 

the point t.bat the hour is close at hand to consider the exclusion of 

wines, which even French exper~ say are adulterated and deleterious 

to health. 

Several MEMBERS. Let it be read. 

Mr. HITT. I am reluctant to take up too much of the time the 

gentleman so kindly has yielded me. 

Ur. FUNSTON. How much time will it occupy? 

Mr. HITT. Probably ten minutes. Mr. Reid's dispatch is as follows: 

LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, Pm-is, July 3, 1890. 

SIR: Referring to previous correspondence concerning t.h0 French prohibi- tion of American pork, and to recent conversations on the subject, I venture to remind Your Excellency that my Government is attentively waiting for the ful- fillment of the assurance unot'ficially given to M. Vignaud, in response to my reply, sent last April from Wa'lhington, to your representations about the )1cKinley administrative bill. You will recall that, while advising you of my earnest efforts to procure the desired removal of needless or unjust restrictions upon your trade, I pointed out once more that the greatest obstacl0 arose from wha.t our peofle cousider the persistent injustice of France in continuing the prohibition o a great staple American product on the indefensible ground tha.t it is uuwholesome. Your Excellency Wa.::! good enou~h then to intimate that the Government would be willing to propose th0 repeal of this prohibition. Such a step now would be most timely and could not fail to have a beneficial effect. While the belief was current that this course would be l!lpeedily taken, the House of Representatives voted to remove the existing duty of 80 per cent. on pictures and statues. Seeing nowtha.t it is not ta.ken, and beginning to be- lieve that it will not be, the Senate committee has already a.mended the ta.riff bill by reimposing this duty, and there is danger that the Senate will approve their action. It is only candid to expla.in that the majority of the Sena.tors and Representatives, including especially those from the great corn-growing and pork·producing States, regard the attitude of France as without warrant in fact, and unfriendly. This old and growin~ feeling arises, unlike your recent complaints about our tarilfbills, from no mere objection to the size of the dnty you choose to imrose, although within recent years you ha.ve greatly increased it, or to minor details in your custom-house methods. It springs from a griev- ance more serious and deep-seated: your persistent discrimination in favor of the products of Germ1my, Italy, England and other countries against those of your historic friend, which you absolutely prohibit on the charge of their bad quality. ASKED AS A..'i • .\CT oy,• JUSTICE. 

We ask the repeal of this prohibition as an a.ct of naked justice, too long de- ferred. It has been excused only by alleging unhealthfulnel!ls of American pork. Now, this product is perfectly known not to be unhealthful, and we ll4 longer hear of any .serious belief in any quarter that it is. Your academy Gt medicine long since decided in its favor. Your own exposition gave it the higb- estaward last year, in competition with all the world. After that award, through a letter which I had the honor to address to your predecessor, l\L Spuller, we challenged and invited a most rigorous examination by your scientific expertc, and it was ma.de, to their apparent satisfaction. \Ve forwarded all the infol'-

mation that was then asked, and have never been told that it was insufllcien• or that any more was desired. Certainly, it seems to us that there is no reaso11 to seek for more. Tb is pork is cheap and wholesome, and enormously used; but nowhere so much as by our own people. They are the largest pork-consuming nation in the world, and yet, from the time the disease of trichinosis was first observed down to this day, it is believed that there ha'Ve uot been in the United States so many actual deaths from it altogether as there have been in a single year from strokes of lightning. There is not an authentic case of the disease known t-0 be recorded except when the pork was eaten raw. If it were a question of impor- tation among a nation of savages, pos.-sibly here might be a valid reason for its exclusion, but not in the nation which marches at the head of the civilization of Europe! 

Relations between government.'! are best and most enduring when they rest upon a basis of mutual good will and mutual interest. Of the mutual good will i 11 the case of ou1· countries there is bapl)ily no doubt; the world has seen rnore than a century's evidence of it. Bat I would like to show that the action we now ask is in the mutual interest of the two countriee, that it is greatly to 

the benefit of France, and that it is specially hi the interest of the very classes in F1·ance for which a wise government always cherishes the most solicitous 

·-

. . 

.,,.. 

.-

. ,,.. 

.• 

.. t "• :_ 

, 
... . 

'J '! 

': 

, . 

."' ' ~ '• .: ~ .: 

" 

8890 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. AUGUST 20, 

ca.re and to which a republican government is especfally bound. This might eeedi to tend towards a questionablediscu9Slonofyourdomeatic affairs. Relying however upon the courteous permission Your Excellency has given me to p~ue this phase of the question, I beg you to believe that, even with this per- ~ion I onlv do so in the firm belief that the facts demonstrate your inter- ests and ours to be harmonious. &ud not conflicting. 

THE COMMERCIAL LOSS TO FRANCE. 

In the last year before the prohibition of American pork (1880), France im· ~orted in all 38,722,300 kilos of pork, of which 84,2,7,300 kilos came from the 

l,Jnited States. Aa :vour import from all other sources has averared for the past 

r1'ee years just about the same as it was in 1880-say in yound numbers. 4,600!roo 

lO'J per year-it ia plain that you ha:ve not made up tn duties on this article rom other countries what you have lost in duties from the United States. That 

lol!IS, at the old ra.te of duty and assuming .that there W?uld have been no nat- ural growth in the busineas- most unlikely supposition-would still have 

been for the past nine yea.rs of exclualon, in round numbers, twelve and a quar- ter ~illions of francs. At the prMent ra.te of duty, and assuming that the ad- vance was not t-00 great to check importations, even if it did prevent the natu- ral 1?rowth of the business, your loss bas been 2,911,000 francs per ann~m, or, for the nine years of exclusion, in round numbers, 26,000,000 francs, which we should have pa.id into your treasury. But considerable as this ewn seems, it would appear to be the smallest part 

of yo~ actU&l loBll, for, bel!lidea- You have d~prived your French steamers of a valuable line of freight; You have deprived your grocers and country peddlers throughout France of a staple and useful trade; 

And above all, you have deprived your people, particularly the poor laboring cla.sse~ of a.{!heap and hi~hly prized article of food, which they used lara-ely, and 

for whi'ch you have been able to furnish no adequate substitute. Statistics of your importations o.nd the recular quota.tlons of your domestic prices show that 

wha.tyou shut ou\ from us you have not 1mpplied from other sources. Surely an abundant and cheap supply of healthful food for the la.boring classes is one pf the most important essentials for the happiness of a people, the growth of Its productive energies in competition with neighboring and rh'al countries, 

and the development of the national prosperity. 

These then are some of the thinJtS the exclusion of American pork has cost France ' In r~turn, what .rood has it done France? Has ii. helped the natloual health? There has been no more disease from eat- ing pork in England or Bela-fum, where the American product is freely used, 

than in France, where you deprive yourselves of it. Has it helped the French farmer? He can sell the swine he grows for no more now than he could before the prohibition-not even for as much. 

NO HELP TO THE Fl!.~OH CONSUMER. 

Has iii helped the consumer? He can buy French pork no cheaper now than 

before the prohibition. The figures on these points are most SURestive. In June, 1880, before prohibition and when, according to theories now advanced in some quarters, the 

French pork-grower suffere-d from the American competition, French swine 

sold live weight1 Paris, at 138.61 francs per 100 kilograms. The same quality is curr~ntly quotea now at 114 francs per 100 kilog~rns. Th~ average price of 

French swine for 1880 was from 25 to 30 percent. higher th1tn m 1889. In 1880. the French la.borer, if he bought French ealted pork at all, pa.id for it 

the retailer6' varying profits over the wholesa.le price of from 160 to 200 francs per 100 kilograms for eides and hams. Now, if he buys French ea.lted pork, he pays for the same qualities the retailers' profits over the current wholesale 

price, substantially the same as in 1880, of from 160 to 200 francs per 100 kilogTh1:~nclusion from these.statements and from the fullest comparison of facts 

and price" that can be made is irresistible: France has no greater exemption from trichinosis than England or Belgium; 

i, e.., French health has not been benflted. . . . . French swine are lower than before prohibition; i.e., French farmers have not been ben~fited . The retail prices of French pork are no lower; i.e., French consumers have not been benefited. 

Who then has been? Only the small class of middlemen, who are enabled to exact. yet larger profits, in the absence of American competition and of an adequa.te domestic supply at the eeason of scarcity, namely, the summer months. But it mav be thouJht, in epite of all this, that a return to the old order of 

things wouid now inJure tb.e French farmer. To that suggestion the current quotation of prices furni8hes a striking reply. 

French swine, with American pork prohibited, are now selling in Paris for 86 centimes to 1franc14 centimes the kilogram. English ewine, with .American pork freely admitted, are now selling in Lon- don for 28. 6d. to u. 2d. per 8 pounds, or 82~ centimes to 1 franc 37i centimes the 

kij{~~i:hue,tbe English workingclasse~ {and the Belgians a.swell), competing 

with you in ma.nufa.ctures for the world, have the advantage of a liberal and caeap supply of wholesome American m~ats. How great that advant•ge is may be infened from thefollowin&"compa.ra.Uve statement of the present prices, 

who1esale and retail, of French salt pork and the corresponding wholesale 

prices of American salt pork delivered in France, with an estimate of wha.t the 

retail prices would now be, at the same advance upon the wholesale price which 

the retail dealers charged in 1880. The figures include the present wholesale 

price of pork in America, the present rates of freight, and the present French 

duties and other charges. It is also to be noted that for the very cheapest kind 

of American salt pork, wholesaling &t 75 to 78 francs per hundred kilograms 

and retailing from 90 to 95 centimes per kilogram, there is no French equivalent in the market. 

French. American. 

Articles. 

Wholesale, 

per 100 kilm1. 

Retail, per Wholesale, 

kilo. per lCO kilos. 

Salt pork, 1890: Francs. Francs. 

Shoulders ...................................................... .. Sides.................... 130 to 165 2. 00 to 2. 20 Hams ........... ...... 175 to 200 3. 00 to 4. 00 

Barreled.............. 130 to 145 4.00 Fresh pork ... ...... ... ... ...... ...... .. ... ...... 1. 90 t-0 2.10 

.Francs. 

75 to 78 

95to100 

150to100 

105 to llO 

NO COMPETITION WITH TIIE FRENCH PRODUCT. 

Retail, per kilo. 

Francs. 

• 90 to .95 

1.20 to L30 

1.80 to 2.00 

It. should be further noted th~t there is no real competition between the 

American salted pork and the French fresh pork. They are sold to entirely 

different cl:u!ses, and the statistics do not show that the price of French pork has any time been affected by the presence or absence of the American impor- tation. French fresh pork is consumed only roasted or broiled. The Ameri-

;'. 

can salt pork is used for boiling with vegetables, and for that purpose is highly 

prized by poor families, particularly the lowest paid among the working classes. 

'l'hese a.re the people who have fel~ the depnva.tion most keenly. \Vith the same money they could formerly have meat twice as often as at present, and 

could have it in many places where the French salted pork, particula.rly in the summer, is not procurable. American pork, being dry salted, is easily carried to remote districts by traveling peddlers, and. unlike the French article, is freely retailed in groceries. The g'l'eat competition among these grocers' shops 

insures sale at a low profit, while the magnitu '1e of the business makes it a valuable addition to their trade. I have ventured upon no word of com plaint against your duty on pork, which 

in late years you have more than doubled. 'Ve fix our own duties from our owu view of the public need and can not take c x:ception to your doing the same. But, considering the large advance which you have already made, you will allow me t-0 suggest that in our varied experience on this subject it 'has been 

found that lower duties often produce greater i evenues than high ones. They permit a liberal importation which an excessfrc duty checks or destroys. Pre- cisely for that reason our House of Representatives has now voted to advance 

certain duties, to rednce an excessive revenue. In view of the facts that the production of salt pork in France does not meet the demand and that your revenue is not excessive, it can not in this case be in your interest any more than in ours to impose a duty which would check importation from the country which bas the largest supply and can furnish it at the lowest rate. It is hoped that, in any case, the facts and considerations here eet forth may be found sufficient to convince Your Excellency that the early withdrawal of the 

existing decree would be an act alike of friendliness, of duty, and of policy. At 

the outset I ventured to explain that our people, from their point of view, 

thouo-ht the prohibition unfriendly and unjust. Will you permit me to add one mor;reason why it seems to them to be &!so-from your point of view-unwise? 

A SUGGESTION OF RETALIATIO!o. 

You have a product-to take one example out of many-more important to France than pork is to the United States. We import it more largely tha.n you ever imported our pork. Nobody in the United States sayl!l that our pork is diseased but your own public men have again and again admitted the adulteration of French wines. Never in late years, in the Benale of the United Stales, 

ha.s such a whisper been hP.ard about our pork; but it is less than a month since 

the French Sen at~ has been debatinir a bill to prevent a. perce-ntage of sulphates or of !'Oda in French wines which the French Academy of Medicine pronounced 

deleterious to health; and in the course of that debate it was openly admitted 

that other drugs were used, apinst which it was not so easy to guard. 

There is a growing and already successful wine industry in the United States. 

Surely it is not wise for French statesmen, by persistence in what our people 

think a. calumniation of our product. to drive American statesmen to listen to French exposures of their own 1md to consider whether, if France still prefers 

prohibition to duties, the United 8tates has not greater reason to do the same. But I refuse t-0 follow that thought. Keenly as we feel the indefensible nat- ure of your decree, we are most anxious to aYoid even a. suggestion of poBBible retaliation. That is a. path not to be entered lightly or without full consid· 

eraLion of the mutual injuries to which it may lead. The business of diplo· macy at any rate is to make trade easier and national relations more cordial, not to lmbitter them. We prefer to present the factB and rely upon French 

good will, French jus~ice, an<!- French sagacity. . . I avail myself of this occasion to renew the assurance of the high consider· 

ntion with which I have the honor to be, Your Excellency's most obedient servant, 

To Ilis Excellency M. RIBOT, 

Mini:;t~r of Foreign Affairs. 

WHITELAW REID. 

Mr. FUNSTON. I yield three minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.ADAMS]. 

:Mr. ADAMS. Mr. Speaker, this bill, although it comes from the 

Committee on Agriculture of the House and was prepared after con- sultation with the Committee on Ai;triculture of the Senatet wa.s in the 

Senate reported and taken in charge by tlie Committee on Foreign 

Affairs. The reason why it ca.me from that committee was that H re· lated to foreign affairs. The purpose of the measure is to strengthen 

the bands of our Government in certain diplomatic correspondence 

with several foreign governments that has been going on for the last 

ten years. 

We ought to bear. this in mind in considering proposed amendments 

of the bill. It will be a stronger piece of legislation for the purpose 

for which it is designed if we see to it that it is kept within the scope 

of the international questions to which I have alluded. If that ia so we ought not to include lard aa one of the articles made subject to inspection. I think we ought not to inc1ude drugs either. We ought 

to include merely those articles in regard to which Germany, France, 

and England have discriminated against the products of the United 

States or have subjected the importation of those products to unreasonable restrictions. 

Another thing, there ought to be a slight change in the wording of 

the second line of section 2. It will be observed that the bill covers not merely inspection of American products intended for export. It 

provides also for a restriction upon the importation into this country 

of certain products of foreign countries. 

This applies mainly t-0 French and German wines and brandies. 

They are believed to be adulterated to a very great extent. It readily 

occurred to our diplomatic and consular officers that if Germany and 

France exclude our wholesome American pork on the allegation that 

it is unwholesome or likely to be unwbolesome we might very prob-

.ably exclude the wines and brandies of France and Germany, which are admitted to be very largely adulterated, without niising the q nes- tion whether they are unwholesome or not. 

The President ought to have the right to exclude them by way of re- taliation, if you choose to put it so, on the ground that they are "doctored" or adulterated, whether they .are believed to be unwholesome or not-without raising the question of their unwholesomeness at all. 

Therefore I believe, and I am confirmed in this view by the judgment 

of my friend from Ohio [Mr. BuTIE&WORTH], that the second line of 
. 

• I ' . . ''1 ... , ' 

1890. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 8891 

section 2 ought to receive a verbal change. Before the word ''vinous" tests of color, odor, and taste demanded by the inspectors at Chicago. 

the word "any " ought to be inserted. Then the clause would read: It is just like refined su2:ar or many other commodities that I might 

That it shall be unlawful to import into the United States a.ny aduUerated or name, which, in the course of their progress in the various stages of 

unwholesome food or drug- manufacture, present such a filthy and nasty appearance that none of 

That is one proposition; here comes the other- us, I apprehend, would care to put them to our tongue, and yet the comor any vinous, spirituous, or malt liquors, a.dultera.ted or mix:ed, etc. pleted commodity is pure and white, and we are very glad to get it for 

. " ,, " . . . consumption. If we do not msert any the words vinous, spmtuous, or malt Mr. FRANK. What is to become of this lard compound in the event 

li<I;uors" ha.ve a connection with the words which go before that I I the amendment of the gentleman from Mississippi is adopted? 

think they had better not have. M:r BROSIDS. I say to the gentleman that I cannot answer that. 

Mr. CONGER. Ought not the word" any" to be put in before the I do ~ot know. That is for the gentleman to say. 

word ''drug?" . , . Mr. FRANK. You propounded the inquiry. . Mr. ADAMS. I thmk the "":ord 'di:ig" ought not to go m. I do Mr. BROSIUS. Yes, I did propound the inquiry in order to get 

not know how you can define with certamty an unwholesome or adul- somebody to answer it if it could be answered. I was asking for interated drug. But if the word ''drug'' is inserted, the clause ought to formation simply. ' 

read: I was asking whether the compound lard would answer the condiAny ndnlterated or unwholesome food , or any adulterated or unwholesome tions of that inspection. Whether it is able to do so or not I am not 

drag. able to say. But it is not on the ground of impurities that the com-

:Mr. CONGER. There ar~ a great many people who insist that all pound lard complaint is made, but on the ground that it is adulterdrugs are unwholesome. ated, that it is masked, concealed, tha.t it is a fraud, and goes on the 

Mr. ADAl\IS. Then you ought to leave out the word altogether. market to the world under a mask~ something which it is not, and 

Mr. FUNSTON. I desire to explain the words ''adulterated or goes Cl.own the throats of the people who have no means of knowing 

unwholesome" do not now apply to the word "drug." We have what there is in it. That is the objection that is made to it. 

submitted an amendment to insert the word ''drug" after '' adulter- I ask, Ur. Speaker, permission to print, in connection with this matated," so as to read, ''It shall be unlawful to import into the United ter, a very interesting and important item, taken from the reports of our 

States any adulterated drug or unwholesome food," etc. consuls. This is of great interest and would illustrate some facts in 

Mr. ADAMS. I hope that change will not be made. regard to this subject. 

Mr. COX GER. If you put it in that way, the word "adulterated" There was no objection. 

does not refer to food at all. Mr. BROSIUS. This bill, l\fr. Speaker, derives its importance from 

Mr. ADAMS. Therefore it ought not to be put in that way. That the fact that not only the reputation of the food products exported, but 

is not the real meaning of the committee, I am sure. I think it should the reputation of Americans for honor and commercial integrity is inbe ''any adulterated or unwholesome food or drug'' (if you choose to volved in this legislation. Too long have we been careless of the esteem 

put in the word "drag"), and then it should go on ''or any vinous, in which we are held by our neighbors on the other side of the sea. 

spirituous, or malt liquors adulterated or mixed with any poisonous or The preservation of a clear commercial characteramongthe nations with 

noxious chemical, drug," etc. I move to insert the word ''any" be- whom we trade is an object worthy the solicitude of an honest people. 

fore "vinous" in line 2 of section 2. Whether justly or unjustly, a suspicion is widely prevalent in EuroThe SPEAKER pro tempore. Theamendmentofthegentlemanfrom pean countries that American pork is inferior in quality, and not inIllinois will be considered as pending. frequently infected so as to be deleterious to health. The evidence of 

:Mr. FUNSTON. I think I can say that the committee do not object this attitude of the European mind toward American pork products is 

to the insertion of the word ''any.'' With the consent of the House found in great abundance in the newspapers, legislative discussions, and 

that amendment may be considered as adopted. consular reports during the last decade. 

Mr. CONGER. I object to its insertion, unless it be put in before Among reeent instances I have observed two are from Sweden and 

the word "drug." I think there is where it ought to be placed. Germany. In the former case in the Swedish legislature in May last, 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question on the am1mdments is on a motion to remove the duty on American pork not smoked, one 

not to be taken at this time. member argued strenuously that all American pork sent to Europe was 

Mr. FUNSTON. How much time is left for debate on this side? bad and that the good pork was consumed at home. (Consular ReThe SPEAKER pro tempore. Twenty-seven minutes. port No. 116, May, 1890, page 135.) 

Mr. FUNSTON. I yield now five minutes to the gentleman from In the latter there was a rumor in circulation in Germany that the 

Pennsylva.nia [Mr. B&osros]. law in regard to the prohibit'ion of American pork was to be modified 

Mr. BROSIUS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to direct the attention of the or repealed under circumstances. That bare rumor produced great 

House, and particularly of my friend from Mississippi [Mr. ~ioRGAN], alarm and corresponding commotion among the German a~ricultara.l 

to the fact that bis whole argument has proceeded upon a very gross classes. Their great argument was that if we export adulterated lard 

misconception of the facts of this case. If he hail been dealing with we will deceive them in pork. 

fact.s, rather than with assumptions that are without foundation, his The following is from report of Consul Fay: 

argument would have been very conclusive and convincing. The fact AllERICA...~ LARD IN GERJILU.-Y. 

is, and I state it after some investigation, that no European that I am [Report of Consul Fay, of Stettin.] aware of ha.CJ ever complained of American lard on the ground of the I begtoincloseberewitba.clippingf'romanagriculturaljournalprintedin this 

impurities contained in it. neighborhood relative to the adulteration of American lard. 

Th l · ts hi h h b d f th A · 1 d It appears, since the report was circulated to the effect that the law in regs.rd e comp ain W C ave een ma e O e mencan ar were to the prohibition of American pork was to be modified or repealed under cer- distinctly upon the ground that it was adulterated, and the very com- ta.in circumstances, that there is and has been a. great deal of comment, both 

modity manufactured in Chicago and called the steam-rendered lard favorable and unfa.vorable to the proposition. The agricultural classes, a.s might of commerce, the manufacturers of which have been animadverted upon be expected, are energetically clamoring a.gainstsuch-an "unwarrantable meas- ure." as they style it. The argument is used that if we export adulterated lard 

with such severity by the gentleman from l\fississippi, that very lard we would in like manner deceive people in pork. The following is a transla· 

is subjected, as I understand it, to an inspection in Chicago, and it tion of the inclosure: 

uniformly passes the tests to which it is sub1ected by them and goes "As we have ah·eady me.de reference la.st yea,r to this subject, we again quote ., the following: 'According to the Revue internationale des falsifications, the 

upon the markets of the world with the certificate of the inspector upon adulteration of lard in North America. is expanding to horrible proportions. it. Therefore it happened, I apprehend, that when the Senate com- Formerly they restricted themselves to mixing 15 to 20 per cent. of water with 

"tt d th S te "d ed th· ti' th d'd t t th the l:l.rd, and thus sold water a.t lard prices. Now they pla<)C lard ma.de from. Jlll ee an e ena CODS! er IS ques on ey 1 no pu e cheap cotton-seed oil, with a sufficient quantity of stea.rIDe to form the same word ''lard'' into the bill, because the insertion of that word could consistency as pu.re lard. According to the i'..:nglisb chemist, Dr. Heh mer, 35 

subserve no useful purpose. per cent. or the lard product of America, namely, 2,700,000 cwt., is adulterated. 

Th ·1 · t• f h' h l · t d · · TbehouseofArmour&Co.prodacesyearly270,000cwt.,a.ndusesthereinl20,000 ere was no evi exIB ing O W lC comp am was ma e requ.Inng cwt. of cotton-seed oil, with 30,000 cwt. of stearil-.e. The lard is then sold under 

such a remedy, and, after due consideration, they passed the bill as it the beautiful name of "pure refined lard." A health commission in a canton now stands. And I am quite certain, I may sa.y for the committee, in Switzerland has given especial attention to the subject and confirmed the re- that we attached little importance to the omission or insertion of the sults before mentioued of this extraordinary percentage of adulteration.' "In accordance with this st!l.te of affairs, the chemist, Dr. Ambahl, suggests word. that the State authorities should, wit.bout clelay, either prohibit the importation If it was inserted what would become of compound lard? Would ~fr~~~!~ch a high duty thereon that the lard woul_d soon disappear from the 

it stand the test of the inspection or go down and the whole industry ANDREW F. FAY, Consul. 

be destroyed by the insertion of that one little word in the bill? It U ?\J:TED STATES ~SULATE, 

is a misconception, I think, to suppose that because in the process of Stettin, Febmary 10, ~. 

manufacturing a commodity there are impurities involved (as.<iuming It is quite possible, if not highly probable, that the prejudice exa portion of the statement of my friend from Mississippi to be correct)- isting abroad against our meats arose more from a sentiment in favor 

it is a misconception to suppose tha.t these impurities follow and in- of the protection of their domestic products from American competifect the completed commodity. tion than from any actual discovery of the in ferior quality or deleteriThe lard manufactured-I do not care how much dirt goes into it in ous character of our goods. The latter, however, is the ostensible 

the large caldrons in which its boiled-when the lard comes out, I ground of their prohibitory measures, and whether fact or fancy, it is 

understand, it is pure enough and sweet enough to answer all of the our duty to remove any real cause of complaint, if any exist, and, if 

'· 

........ , 

. ' 

. , 

\• 

: 

- .. 

. '. 

.-

.... 

: .... 
.. ' , 

·. 

.-

8892 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. AUGUST 20, 

not, toe..<:tablish such safeguards as will keep our export products above 

susnicion. It is noteworthy in this connection that the sentiment against American pork products assumed an epidemic form and sprea<l like a con- tagion over Central Europe after it was once started. 

Italy was perhaps in advance of other countries in prohibiting the 

importation· of the .American hog. This was in February, 1879, and 

within two years, Germany, France, Austria, Hungary, Switzerland, 

Spain, and the Ottoman Empire. 

The act of interdiction in Germany preceded that of France and arose from the supposition that a number of persons !;ad been taken 

seriously ill with unmistakable sympto~ of trichino1is. after eating of an American ham. The circumstance derives some interest from the 

fact that the sequel showed that the ham was not an American but a German product. 

The incident is described by the United Stat~ consul at Crefi.eld, as follows: 

On the 25th of December, 1880, nu upholsterer by the name of Hermann Thelen, purchased in Dusseltlorf a ham from a. grocer by the name of Joseph Brors. The fiesb of this ham (which had been smoked a.nd wa, called "sugar-cured") wa'I eaten, uncooked, by the members of Thelen's family, and by others living in his house, and also by relatives who called upon him on ChTistmas day. In all eighteen persons partook of the meat and were all soon after taken ill, some the day after eating the ham and others from five to ten dl\ys later, but all with 

unmistakable symptoms of trichinosis. Of these eighteen persons five have already died and seven are still very ill, with little hopes of their reco"Very,and 

six are considered out of danger. 

Joseph Brors, the person from whom the ham was bought, stated that he dealt 

only in American hams, and that be purchased the lot from which tliis was taken of Messrs. !samba.rt & Co., American provision merchants, in Antwerp, 

aud with whom he has long dealt, and who are known as selling only first-class 

goods. The barrels in which the barns were packed were examined, and on one appeared the name of Jones & Stiles, Chicago. ·.rhere were nineteen hams 

in this barrel, weighing together 300 pounds, and of these he sold several. One 

be sent to his parents M a present and some were cut up and retailed in bis 

shop. Of these himself and wife partook repeatedly without any ill effects, and, 

with the exception of the one sold to Thelen, he has not heard of any com- plaints. 

As soon as the case of the Thelens became known all the hams then in his 

possession, nine in number, were seized by the police, besides a number of 

others in the hands of a dealer by the name of l\Iauser, which were bought at the same time from the same house in Antwerp, and all were submitted to a strict examination, but without finding the slight-Ost trace of trichina. So it was proved thnt only the ham sold to Thelen was in any way affected, and 

this, Thelen declares in his evidence before the police, was sold to him as a Holstein (German) ham. 

The decree of prohibition in France was put upon the ground that 

American pork was so pervaded with trichinre as to be injurious to the 

public health, Here, too, as in Germany, it is said an outbreak of 

trichinosis in a family who were supposed to have eaten American 

pork occurred, and affected the nation with alarm, and hurried the 

Government needlessly into an act of prohibition which was not only 

extremelydiscourteoust.o America, but put a very grave indignity upon 

the American hog. It turned out that the infected meat was not an 

American export, but a genuine French production-home-bred-and 

eaten raw. Those Europeans who eat pork raw and get sick can not make very 

effective appeals t.o our sympathy; still I would like to know that our pork sent abroad is so pure and sweet that it might be eaten raw or cooked, in large portions or small; that indeed thewholehogmi~ht be 

swallowed without danger to health. 

It is open to grave doubt whether any trichina-infected pork from 

the United States ever entered a European port. I ha>e not found a single well a11thenticated case of trichinosis originating in any European 

country from the consumption of American salt pork. 

Negative evidence in support of this view of no inconsiderable weight 

is found in the aetion of the House of Representatives of Belgium, 

which, after a full investigation and a report from the minister of the 

interior, declined to take any precautionary measures, on the ground 

that no cases of trichinosis bad been known in Belgium. 

The existence, however, of the belief, however destitute of foundation it may be, amon~ the people of Ce"ltral Europe is just as deadly 

in Us effect upon our pork exports as though the accusation was supported by the fact. 

Under such circum.c;tances we owe it to ourselves that hereafter not one pound of the suspect goods sball be suffered t.o leave our shores 

without a certificate of character from an inspector under the seal of 

the United States. 

Mr. MORGAN. I was cut off in the midst of an inquiry addressed 

to me by my friend from Illinois a few moments ago. I ask unanimous consent to be permitted to insert the answer in my remarks. 

There was no objection. 

Mr. FUNSTON. I believe there is but little more to be said on this 

question, and I will make only a few remarks, and we will then have a vote upon it. 

Now, I am very sorry that the discussion of this question has led 

in this direction, and that it bas brou~ht up the manufacture of lard, 

with all the filth that can possibly be heaped upon that article. There 

was no design t.o discuss that question to-day and it was certainly 

reaching ahead con:iidcrably to bring it up now. I only deem it proper 

at this time to say to the gentleman from Mississippi who makes these 

charges against that industry in this country that he slanders a class 

of men who are as pure and clean as he is·himself. 

-. 

I only go out of my way to say that the testimony you refor to as given before this 'committee was given by men who themsel.ves admitted that they had been engaged in this same work. I asked the 

question of one of these men myself, whether he had been cngagecl in 

that kind of business, and he said he bad been for a number of years. 

I believe him to be a villainous perjurer, a liar, a scoundrel unworthy 

to be an American citizen. 

l\Ir. FRA.NK. What for; for telling the truth? 

Mr. FUNSTON. The man who would engage in that business, and 

who justifies it before an intelligent people, deserves to be considered as not only being a scoundrel, but one who has the impudence of the 

devil when he admits it; and his evidence ought not to be qnoted, even before this body. 

Ur. MORGAN. Why did they not turn him out of the St. Louis 

Board of Trade ? 

Mr. FUNSTON. Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to discuss that question. Suffice it to say that it will be discussed by other gentlemen wli& are ready for it when the proper time comes. All I desire t.o say is that 

if you be~in to add other articles to this bill there will be no end to it. 

What is the gentleman's design in adding Jard ? He simply hopes to 

have some inspecting board say it is good and pure food, when no board 

would declare that· it is lard at all. I object to adding this amendnient 

for the sa.me reason, that if we begin by addfog one article we will add 

twenty more, and there will be no end to it bn t the destmction of the 

bill. Now, Mr. Speaker, I ask that the amendments be taken up and 

considered in their orcler. 

The SPEA.KERpro tempore (Mr. GROSVENOR). The Clerk will re· port the first amendment. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

By 1\Ir. MORGAN: 

Insert the word" lard" in line 4 before the word "salted," making it read 

"careful inspection of lard, salted pork, and bacon." 

The question was taken upon the amendment; and the Speaker pro 

tempore announced that the noes appeared to have it. 

Mr. MORGAN. Division. 

The House divided, and there were-ayes 31, noes 69. 

Mr. MORGAN. I would like t.o have the yeas and nays. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

The question was taken; and there were-yeas 44, nays 131, not vot. 

ing 152; as follows: 

Bland, 

Blount, 

Brickner, 

Burton, 

Candler, Ga. 

Carlton, 

Catchings, 

Cheadle, 

Chipman, 

Clements, 

Crisp, 

Adams, 

Allen, Mich. 

Anderson, Kans. Atkin!'<>n, Pa. 

Baker, 

Bankhead, 

Banks, 

Bartine, 

Barwig, 

Bayne, 

Belknnp, 

Bergen, 

Bingham, 

:Bliss, 

Boothman, 

Breckinridge, Ky. 

Bronkshire, 

Brosius, 

Brower, 

Brunner, 

Buchanan, N. J. 

Butterworth, 

Bynum, 

Oannon, 

Carter, 

Caruth, 

Caswell, 

Cheatham, 

<:Janey, 

Clarke, Ala. 

Cogswell, 

Comstock, 

Conger, 

Abbott, 

Alderson, 

Allen, Miss. 

Anderson, Miss. 

Andrew, 

Arnold, 

Atkinson, W. Va. Barnes1 Beckw1th, 

Belden, 

Biggs, 

Blanchard, 

YEAS-44. 

Elliott, 

Ellis, 

Featl.erston, 

Forney, 

Frank, 

Grimes, 

Hayes, 

Henderson, N. C. 

Kelley, 

Kerr, Iowa Kinsey, 

J,ewis, 

:Mason, 

l\lcClammy, 

McRae, 

Moore, Tex. 1\Iorgnn, 

Peel, 

Penington, 

Price, 

Richardson, 

Rowland, 

NAYS-131. 

Connell, Laidlaw, 

Culbertson, Pa. Lane, 

Cummings, Lansing, 

Dalzell, Lawler, 

Darlington, Lester, Va. Dingley, Martin, Ind. 

Dockery, l\IcClella.n, 

Dorsey, l\:lcCord, 

Dunnell, l\IcCormick, 

Edmunds, McDuffie, 

Evans, l\IcKenna., 

Farquhar, McKinley, 

Flick, Mc!\Iillin, 

Forman, l\[offitt, 

Fowler, :Montgomery, 

Funston, l\[oore, N. H. Gear, Morrill, 

Gest, l\Iorse, 

Goodnight, Mutchler, 

Grosvenor, Niedringhaus, 

Hatch, Norton, 

Haugen, O'Donnell, 

Haynes, O'Ferrall, 

Heard, O'Neil, l\fass. 

Henderson, Ill. O'Neill, Pa. Henderson, Iowa Owen, Jud. 

Hill, Owens, Ohio 

Hitt, Paynter, 

Holman, Post, 

Houk, Pugsley, 

Kennedy, QuRckenbusb, 

Lacey, Raines, 

La Follette, Ray, 

NOT VOTING-152. 

Boatner, Burrows, 

Boutelle, Caldwell, 

Bowden, Campbell, Breckinridge, .Ark. Candler, Mass. Brewer, Clark, Wis. 

Brown, J. B. Clunie, 

Browne, T. M. Cobb, 

Browne, Va. Coleman, 

Buchanan, Va. Cooper, Ind. 

Buckalew, Cooper, Ohio 

Bullock, Cothran, 

Bunn, Co verb, 

.-

Sayers, 

Skinner, 

Stewart, Tex. 

Stockdale, 

Stone, Ky. 

Tillman, 

Turner, Ga. 

Turner, N. Y. Wheeler, Ala. 

Whiting, 

Wilkinson. 

Reed, Iowa Reilly, 

Rife, 

Rockwell, 

Rowell, 

Russell, 

Sawyer, 

Simonds, 

Smith, Ill. Smyser, 

::Springer, 

Stockbridge, 

Htone, Mo. Struble, 

Sweney, 

Tarsney, 

Taylor, E. B. Taylor, Ill. 

Taylor, J. D. Taylor, Tenn. Townsend, Pa. Tucker, 

Vandever, 

Venable, 

Waddill, 

'Valker, 

Wike, 

Williams, Ohio 

Wilson, l\Io. 

Wilson, 'Vash. 

'Vright, 

Yardley. 

Cowles, 

Craig, 

Crain, 

Culberson, Tex. Cutcbeoo, 

Dargan, 

Davidson, 

De Haven, De Lano, 

Dibble, 

Dickerson, 

Dolliver, 
-· 

~? • ' 'I 

r 

1890. CONGRESSIONAL REOORD-HOUSE. 8893 

Dunphy, Lanham, Parrett, Stephenson, 

Enloe, Laws, Payne, Stewart. Ga.. .!Jl Na.rt, Lee, Payson, Stewart, Vt. Finley, Lelilbach, Perktns, Stivers, 

Fitcb, Lester, Ga. Perry, Stump, Fithian, J,iud, Peters, Thomas, 

.J:l'lood, Lodge, Phelan, Thompson, 

Flower, Magner, Pickler, Townsend, Colo, 

Geissenhaincr, Mai!.'b, Pi rce, Tracey, 

Gibson, Mansur, Quinn, Turner, Kans. 

Gifford, l\Ia.rtin, •rex. Randa.II, Van Schaick, 

Greenhalge, McAdoo, Reyburn, Vl\ux, 

Grout, McCarthy, RoberLsou, Wade, 

Ilall, Mccomas, RogerR, Wallace, 1\Iass, 

!Iansbrough, McCreary, Rusk, Wallace N. Y. Hare, l\Iiles, Sanford, 'Vashington, Harmer. l\Iilliken, Scranton, 'Vatson, Hem phill, l\Iills, Rcull, Wheeler, l\Iich, Heruert, ·r.rorey, Seney, Whitthorne, 

Hermann, Morrow, ShP.rman, Wickham, 

Hooker, Mudd, Shively, Wiley, 

Hopkins, Kute, Smith, W. Va. 'Villcox, Ken·. Pa. Oates, Snider, Williams, IlJ. Ketclrnw, O' Neall, Ind. Spinola., Wilson, Ky. 

Kilgore, Osborne. Spooner, \Yilson, W. Va. Knapp, Outhwaite, St:i.blnecker, Yoder. 

So the amendment was rejected. 

'lhe following pairs were announced from the Clerk's desk: 

Until further notice: 

Mr. EWART with Mr. STUMP. 

Ur. VA..~ Scl:IAICK with Mr. PARRETT. 

l'tlr. LEHLBACH with Mr. CoTHRAN. 

Mr. ARSOLD with Mr. MAGNER. 

Mr. SCRANTON with Mr. STAHLNECKER. 

Mr. PEl'ERS with Mr. MANSUR. 

Mr. GROUT with Mr. FITCH. 

Mr. BOUTELLE with Mr. HERBERT. 

Mr. TlIO.llAS M. BROWNE with Mr. W ASHINGTOX. 

Mr. BAKER with Mr. EJ,LIOTT. 

l\Ir. CANDLER, of :Massachusetts, with 1\ir. STEWART, of Georgia. 

Mr. DE IIA YEN with Mr. BIGGS. 

Mr. WILSON, of Kentucky, with Ur. PERRY. 

l\Ir. SPOONER with l\Ir. DARGAN. 

l\Ir . .MCKENNA with l\lr. CLl.'SIE. 

Mr. BELDEN with Mr. !<'LOWER. 

Mr. DE LA ·o with Mr. DUNPHY. 

Mr. SANFORD with Mr. RUSK. 

Mr. STEPHENSON with l\Ir. DA VIDSOX. 

l\Ir. LLND witl1 Ur. PIER<JE. 

Mr. NUTE with 1\ir. BARNES. 

Mr. STEWART, of Vermont, with M:r. BLA.NCHARD. 

:Mr. PERKINS with Mr. KILGORE. 

M1·. SMYSER with Mr. SEXEY. 

Mr. Fm LEY with Mr. CA:SDLER, of Georgia. 

l\Ir. Momw with Mr. GEISSENHAIXER. 

l\Ir. ATKINSON, of West Virginia, with Mr. Ar.DER.SON. 

l\Ir. CULBERTSON, of Pennsylvania: with l\Ir. VAUX. 

Mr. HAmIER with Mr. LEE. 

Mr. IlELKNAP with Mr. ANDERSON, of Mississippi. 

Mr. WHEELER, of Michigan, with Mr. COBB. 

l\Ir. BOWDE~ with Mr. McCARTHY. 

l\Ir. MCCO:U:AS '7ith Mr. GIBSON. 

1\Ir. MORROW with Mr. WHITTHORXE. 

Mr. LAIDLAW with Mr. ALLEX, of Mississippi. 

Mr. BREWER with !'!Ir. HOOKER. 

1\Ir. GIFFORD with Mr. HARE. 

Mr. WATSON wilh Mr. MCADOO. 

l\Ir. TGCKER with Mr. GREESHALG E. 

Mr. SHER.:U:AN with l\Ir. 'VILE¥. 

Mr. COLE:IIAN with Mr. MARTIN, of Texas. 

Mr. , NIDER with l\Ir. BOA..TXER. 

1\Ir. Cr.,ARK, of Wisconsin, with Ur. COWLES. 

l\Ir. CRAIG with Mr. OUTHWAITE. 

l\lr. LODGE with Mr. A~DREW. 

Mr. PAYNE with Mr. CHANA~. ot Virginia.. 

1\fr. S:\IITH, of West Virginia, with Mr. BULLOCK. 

Mr. TOWNSEND, of Colorado: with Ur. ENLOE. 

Mr. REYBURN with Mr. TRACEY. 

, 

Mr. STIVERS with l\Ir. COVERT, on all political questions, until Friday 

next. 

Mr. o. n.~E with Mr. MILLS. 

Afr. HALL with Mr. SHIVELY. 

Mr. PWKLER with Mr. DICKER o~. 

Mr. MILES with Mr. SPINOLA. 

Mr. MILUKEN with Ur. Annor.r. 

Mr. CUTCUEON with Mr. HmIPHILL. 

Mr. KETCHA:\1 with Mr. CAMPBELL. 

Mr. TOWNSE:'.lrD, of Pennsylvania, with Mr. O'NEALL, of Indiana. ~Ir. WICKHAM with Mr. YODER. 

For the rest of the dav: 

Mr. SCULL with Mr. KERR, of Pennsylvania. 

Mr. HERMANN with Mr. QUINN. 

·. 

Mr. HANSBROUGH with Mr. LANHAM. 

Mr. BROWNE, of Virginia, with Mr. CRAIN, for this day • 

Mr. HOPKINS with Mr: CULBERSON, of Texas, for this day. 

Mr. MUDD with Mr. DIBBLE, on this vote. 

The result of the vote was then announced as above recorded • 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the next amend· 

ment. 

Mr. FUNSTON. :Mr. Speaker--

The SPEAKERpro tempore. For what purpose does the gentleman 

rise? · 

Mr. FUNSTON. I desire to ask unanimous consent to make some 

cbanges in section 2. I will say that in section 2 there has been some dispute as to what the langnaf(e should be, and in order to avoid controversy about the matter it has been agreed that there shall be no 

amendment made in line 2 of section 2 except to insert the words "or 

drug , ' after the word ''food'' and the word ''any '' after the word 

"or:" before the word "vinous;" so that it shall read: 

That it shall be unlawful to import into the United Stat.es any adulterated or unwholesome food, or drug, or any vinous, spirituous, or malt liquors, etc. 

I ask unanimous consent that it mav be so amended. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection ? The Chair hears 

none, and it is so ordered. The Clerk will report the next amendment. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

Amend section 6, line 10, by inserting, after the word" importation," the fol- lowing words: 

"'Vitb the knowledge of the master or owner of said vessel or vehicle that 

such importation is diseased or has been exposed to infection as herein de· 

scribed." 

The amendment was agreed to. 

The bill was ordered to be read a third time, and was accordingly 

read the third time. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is upon the passage of 

the bill. 

The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempo re announced that 

the ''ayes" appeared to have it. 

Mr. SAYERS. Division. 

Pending the division, 

Mr. SAYERS said: Mr. Speaker, I desire to ask unanimous consent 

of the House simply to call the attention of the Honse to one provision 

in that clause of this bill. · 

The SP EAKER pro tempore. Is there objection? 

Mr. FUNSTON. There is. [Cries of" Oh, no." "Let him have 

time."] 

The 8PEAKER pro tem11ore. Is there objection? [After a pause.] 

The Chair hears no objection. 

Mr. SAYERS. On page 8, Mr. Speaker, I find the following language: 

And the Secretary of Agriculture may cause inspection to be madeofall ani- m a ls described in this act intended for exportation, and provide for the disinfection of all ve11sels engaged in the transportation thereof, and of all barges or other vesse.ls used in the conveyance of such animals intended for export to the ocean steamer or other vessels, and of all attendants and their cloth in~. and of 

all head-ropes and other appliances used in such exportation, by such orders 

and regulations as be may prescribe; and if, upon such inspection, any such 

animals shall be adjudged, under the rei;culatlons of the Secretary of Agricult- ure, to be infected or to have been exposea to infection, ;io as to be dangerous to other animals, they shall not be allO\Yed to be placed upon any vessel for exportation, the expense of all the insp~ction and disinfection provided for in 

this section to be borne by the owners of the vessels on which such animals are exported. 

This clause confers upon the Secretary of Agriculture most extraordinary powers in regard to the exportation of cattle. It is well known 

to many members that Texas cattle are charged with havin~ the effect 

of communicating to other cattle what is known as Texas fever, a splenetic disease, while at the s:i.me time the Texas cattle are just as 

healthy as any other cattle for food, and what I desire is that a . clause 

be put in this bill which shall except Texas cattle unless affected with 

pleuro-pnenmonia or diseases of tbat kind. I only ask that the same 

provision be put in this bill that is in the animal-industry bill which 

has been reported to this House. It may be readily seen that the Secretary of Agriculture, under this clause, can exclude Texas cattle from 

exportation altogether. 

Mr. ADAMS. Will the gentleman from Texas permit me to make a suggestion? The bill is intended to help the Government in certain 

diplomatic correspondence now going on. It is not a question as to 

Texas cattle, but a question of difference with the English Government. 

Mr. SAYERS. But suppose the Secretary of Agriculture may determine that Texas cattle shall not be exported nuder the clause of 

this bill? 

Mr. ADAMS. Why, you can not presume that the Secretary of 

Agriculture in this country will take action against the exportation of an American article. 

Mr. SAYERS. Then the gentleman should not object to having a clause inserted which I think will be entirely satisfactory to the Committee on Agriculture, because they have reported the same clause in 

the animal-indnstry bill. 

Mr. ADAMS. I will say to the gentleman that for my part, not 

being a member of the Committee on Agriculture, I should not object, 

but I want to remind him that we want to give the Secretary all the 

-. 

•. 

·-

.· 

- ' J .II 
.. 

. --

. ,... 

. ·. 

.. 

~..- . ' 

. ' 

· .. -

. .. · . ... , ... . ,• .· -. - ....... 

8894 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. AUGUST 20, 

power we can, because we do not know exactly how much power he 

requires. 

.Mr. SAYERS. I am willing to give the Secretary all proper power, 

but at the same time I do not want to give him a power which will 

enable him to cripple one of the greatest industries we have in Texas. 

I hope gentlemen will look into the question and be willing to make 

this exception in favor of Texas cattle. 

Mr. CHEADLE. Will the gentleman please read from the animnlindustry bill the words he wishes to insert in this bill? 

Mr. CANNON. Will the gentleman propose his amendment so that 

we can see what it is? · 

1\!r. SAYERS. The amendment is this: 

Provided, That the so-called splenetic or Texas fever shall not be considered a. contagious, infectiolli!, or communicable disease in the meaning of this act. 

Ur. CANNON. Let me ask my friend right there, is not the object 

of this bill so to legislate as to bring about largely the exportation of 

cattle alive, so that we can ship them to Great Britain and other countries where they may be slaughtered, instead of being slaughtered as now at the port of entry? and if the exception that the gentleman asks 

shall come in, would not the result be that they would know as we 

know that splenetic fever is injurious and communicable to cattle on 

entrance in Great Britain as it is on entrance into Illinois? If that be 

true, then the amendment of the gentleman from Texas would defeat 

the very object of this bill, which is the development of that industry. 

1\!r. SA YEHS. Mr. Speaker, under the operation of this bill, if it 

should become law, it may be within the power of a hostile Secretary 

of Agricultnrtl to strike down the cattle that are bred in Texas. 

l\Ir. BUCHANAN, of New Jersey. Not unless they are ruseased 

cattle. 

Ur. FUNSTON. I wish to ask the gentleman a question. 

Mr. SAYERS. Verv well. 

Mr. FUNSTON. DO yon admit that Texas fever is a disease before 

it is developed? 

Mr. SAYERS. No, sir; I do not. 

Mr. FUNSTON. What objection have you to letting it go, and have 

them inspect it as other cattle? 

Mr. SAYERS. I have the same objection now that I urged before 

your committee when they were preparing the animal-industry bill. 

You listened to those objections and inserted a clause in thatbill which 

protected Texas cattle against the exercise of arbitrary power by the 

Secretary of .!.gricnlture, or any of his subordinates, in shipments from 

Texas to any other State or Territory. If you allow that exception 

with reference to the exportation of Texas cattle to the States and Territories of this Union, why should you not allow the same exception 

in favor of the shipment of Texas cattle abroad? 

Mr. CON' GER. Because we are on the ground and understand that 

and they do not. 

Mr. FUNSTON. The gentleman, unintentionally, no doubt, is not 

correct in the statement of the object of the bill. We were legislating 

then to prevent diseased cattle, such as pleuro-pneumonia cattle, from 

being shipped and the disease being spread. 

Mr. SAYERS. Which is quite right. 

Mr. FUNSTON. Which is right enough. We provided that splenetic 

fever, known as Texas fe>er, should not go in this bill. We provided 

that certain rules and regulations should be made; that they should 

be watered and fed at certain places along the line, provided for in the 

law. Now, that is the reason for making such an exception; but yon 

can not mak~ this exception in cattle that are being shipped abroad. 

You can not have them fed and watered at certain places when you 

ship them to another country, and therefore theca.se is not parallel. 

Mr. SAYERS. I will show the gentleman the parallel. 

Mr. CONGER. I rise to a question of order. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it. 

Mr. CONGER. Consent was given to the gentleman from Texas 

simply to make a. statement and not for a discussion of this matter. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. This discussion has all proceeded out 

of order. 

Mr. SAYERS. I trust gentlemen will give me an opportunity to 

make my statement. 

Mr. CONGER. Well, then, make your statement, but we do not 

want to spend time discussing the question. 

Mr. 8AYERS. Very well. Now, Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to offer 

this amendment, to come in on page 9, at the end of line 28: 

· Provided, That so-called splenetic or Texas fever shall not be considered a. contagious, infectious, or communicable disease within the meanin1? of this act. 

Mr. FUNSTON. I shall have to object to that, Mr. Speaker. 

Mr. HATCH. I want to ask the gentleman a question. Do you 

export any cattle now from Texas to other countries? Do not all the 

Texas cattle that are sold go to the other States? 

Mr. SAYER.8. We are endeavoring to obtain deep water upon the 

Texas coast, and just as soon as that is obtained we shall be able to 

ship our cattle and all other products directly to Europe, and we do 

not desire to be cut off from the shipment of our cattle directly from our own ports. 

Mr. HATCH. I do not share the gentleman's views as to the force 

of the language of that section. I think he is unnecessarily alarmed 

i . 

/ .· 

about it. My own impression, however, was that the Texas cattle 

were all first sent to the other States farther north and there fatten"d, 

and that if they were exported at all it was only after they had been 

acclimated in those States. 

Mr. SAYERS. I ask unanimous consent to offer my amendment and 

have a vote upon it. 

l\Ir. FUNSTON. lifr. Speaker, as we came to a halt in the middle 

of a vote I ask that the affirmative vote be again taken . 

The SPEAKER pro temp01·e. Without objection, the Chairwm again 

put the question upon the passage of the bill. 

The question was again taken; and there were-ayes 107> noes 15. 

1\!r. SAYERS. Mr. Speaker, unless the gentleman will allow me 

to present my amendment and have a vote upon it I shall have to make 

the point that there is no quorum present. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore (having counted the House). There is 

a quorum present; the ayes have it and the bill is passed. 

Mr. SAYERS. I appeal to the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. FUNSTON] to let me offer my amendment. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The House will now proceed to the 

specialorder> which is the bill the titleofwhich the Clerk will read. 

Mr. FUNSTON. Before we proceed with that bill I move to reconsider the vote by which the last bill was passed. 

Mr. SAYERS. Before that motion is put I ask the gentleman in 

charge of the bill to allow the House to take a vote upon my amendment. 

.Mr. FUNSTON. AB far as I am concerned, if nobody else objects, 

I shall not object to that. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill is passed, and the question 

now is upon the reconsideration of the vote by which it was passed. 

Mr. SAYERS. I ask unanimous consent that the vote be reconsidered and that I be permitted to offer my amendment and have a vote 

upon it. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. SAYERS] asks unanimous consent that the vote by which the bill was 

passed be reconsidered. Is there objection? [After a pause.] The 

Chair hears none, and the question recurs on the passage of the bill. 

Mr. SA.YERS. Now, I ask unanimous consent to offer my amendment. 

The SPEAKEUpro tempore. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. SAYERS] asks unanimous consent to offer an amendment to the bill, which 

the Clerk will read . 

The Clerk read as follows: 

At the end of line 28, page 9, insert the following words : "Provided, That the so-called splenetic or Texas fever shall not be considered a. contagious, iniectious, or communicable disease within the meaning of this 

act." 

Mr. HILL. Does the gentleman from Texas propose to have a yeaand-nay vote upon that? 

l\Ir. SAYERS. No, sir. 

The SPEAKER pro tempo1·e. Is there objection to the req nest of the 

gentleman.from Texas? 

There was no objection. 

The question was taken upon the adoption of the amendment of Mr. 

SAYERS; and the Speaker JJro tempore declared that the noes seemed 

to have it. 

Mr. SAYERS. I ask for a division. 

The House divided; and there were-ayes 52, noes 97. 

So the amendment was rejected . 

Mr. FUNSTON. Now, l\Ir. Speaker, I move that the bill be put 

upon its passage. 

The question was again taken, and the bill was passed. 

Mr. FUNSTON 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. 

INVESTIGATION OF THE P~SION OFFICE. 

Mr. MORRILL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for the 

present consideration of the resolution which I send to foe desk. 

The resolution was read, as follows: 

Resolved, That the special committee to hvestigate the char~es n~ \inst General G. B. Raum, Commissioner of Pensions, have leave to sit durinir thesessions of the House. 

The resolution was adopted. 

COMPOUND LA.RD. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The next business under the special 

order is House bill 11568, which the Clerk will read. 

Mr. BROSIUS. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading of the bill, so tbat there may be more time for the discussion. 

Several members objected. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

A bill (H. R. U568) detining "lard," also imposing a tax upon and regulating the 

manufacture and•snle, imporlation, and exportation of compound lard. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of ReprP,sentatives of the United States of America in Congress a~sembled, That. for the purposes of this act the word "lard" 

shall be understood tomean the food product usually known as lard and which 

is made exclusively from the fresh fat of slaughtered swine. 

' -

: 
·- ..... . , .•. . ·, . \ 

1890. , t CONGRESSIONAL. REOORD-HOUSE~ 8895 

SEc. 2. That for the purpose of thls act any article manufactured or com- pounded in imitation or semblance of lard a~ defined in section 1 of this act, which slJall be made of any ingredient or ingredients other than la.rd, or which l!lhall be composed of any other ingredient or ingredients in combination with lard, shall be known as "compound lard," and it shall be unlawful to manu- facture, sell, export, or import the same except in accordance with the provis- ions of this act. ~EC. 3. That before any person, firm, association, or corporation shall manu- facture for sale within the jurisdiction of the United Slates any compound lard, as the same is defined in section 2 of this net, such person, firm, association, or corporation shall procure a license from the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, who is hereby authorized to issue the same and to make all necessary rules and regulations in that. behalf. Such license will continue in force from the date thereof to the lst day of May following; but the said Commi83ioner may re- voke the same for any violation of any of the provisions of this act. Any per- son, firm, as~ociation, or corporation desiring to manufacture compound lard for sale shall make application in writing to said Commissioner of Internal Revenue, setting forth the name of the applicant, the place in which and at which the said compound is to be manufactured, and the names of all the in- gredients of which such compound is to be composed. If none of the ingredi- ents to be used in such manufacture are deleterious to health, then, upon the payment by such applicant, under 13uch reguls.tions as the Commissioner of In- ternal Revenue may prescribe, of the special tax hereinafter provided for and the execution of the bond hereinafter provided for, the said Commissioner shall issue to such applicant a license authorizing the said applicant to manufacture such compound of the ingredients named in such application (which iugredi- ents shall be specified in such license) at the place named in sucll application, which place shall also be specified in such license. SEc. 4. That special trutes are imposed as follows: l\Ianufacturers of compound lard shall pay S96. Every ptorson who manufactures compound lard for sale shall be deemed a. manufacturer of compound la.rd. \Vholesale dea.ler3 in com- pound la.rd shall pay S24. Every person who sells or offers for sale compound la.rd in quantities of not less than 50 pounds at the same time shall be deemed a wholesale dealer in compound lard. But any manufacturer of compound lard who has given the required bond and paid the required special tax and who sells only compound lard of his own production at the place of manufact- ure in the original packages to which the tax-paid stamps are afilxed shall not be required to pav the special ta.x of a wholesale dealer in compound la.rd on account of such sales; Retail dealers in compound lard shall pay Sl.92. Every person who sells or offers for sale compound lard in quantities less than 50 pounds at one time shall be regar.ded as a. retail dealer in compound la.rd. And section~ 3232, 3233, 3234, 323.5. 3236, 3?....a7, 3238, 3239, 3240, 3241, and 3243 of the Revised Sta.tut.es of the United States are, so far as applicable, ma.de to extend to and in- clude and apply to the special taxes imposed by this section, and to the persons upon whom they a.re imposed. SEC. 5. That every person who carries on the business of a manufactnrer of compound lard without having procured the license required by this act and without having p&id the special tax therefor, a.s required by law, shall, besides being liable to the payment or the tax, be fined not less th11.n two hundred and My and not more than five thousand dollars; or who, having procured such license, uses in such ma.nufooture any ingredient not named in such license, ehall be fined as last above provided; and every person who carries on the busi- ness of a wholesale dealer in compound lard without having paid the special ta.x: therefor, as required by law, shall, besides being liable to the payment of the tax, be fined not less than one hundred nor more than two thousand dollars; and every person who carries on the business of a retail dealer in compound la.rd without having paid the special tax therefor, M re.quired by law, shall, be- sides being liable to the payment of the tax, be fined not less than fifty nor more than five hundred dollars for each and every offense. SEO. 6. That every manufacturer of compound lard shall file with the col- lector of internal revenue of the district in which his manufa.ctory is located such notices, inventories, and bonds, shall keep such books and render such returns of materials and products, shall put up Slllili signs and affix such number to bis factory, and conduct his business under such surveillance of officers and agents a.s the Commissioner of Internal .Revenue, with the approval of the Sec- retary of the 'rreasury, may by regulation require. But the bond required of such manufacturer shall be with sureties satisfactory to the collector of inter- nal revenue, and in a penal sum of not less than $>,000; and the sum of said bond may be increased from time to time, and additional sureties required, at the discretion of the collector or under instructions of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. A.nd any wholesale dealer in compound lard i'lllall keep such books and render such returns a.s the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, with the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, may by regulation require. And any manufacturer of or dealer in compound lard who fails to keep such books or to render such returns, or who fails to enter the article subject to tax under this act by name as compound lard iu all books of account, bills of sale, other bills a.nd invoices, shall be liable to a penalty of not more than .,.1,000 fol' every such failure. And any a.gent of any railroad, and a.uy officer or a.gent of any common carrier who shall foil to enter said article by name as compound la.rd in his books of account, bills, manifest, way biHs, and bills of lading, shall be liable to a. penalty of not mo.re than S500 for each offense or failure. SEC. 7. That all compound lard shall be packed by the manufacturer t-hereof in tierces, barrels, half-barrels, firkins, tubs, or tin pails not before used for the purpose,each containing not les<> than 3 pounds, and marked, stamped, and branded in a conspicuous place thereon by burning in the letters, if the vessel be of wood, and by stamping in the metal of the vessel, if the vessel be of tin, 

in letters of such size as the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, wi~h the ap- proval of the Secret&ry of the Treasury, shall prescribe, the words "Compound 

La.rd," together with the name of the manufacturer, and the name of each ingredient. used in such compound, which names shall correspond with the names specified in the manufacturer's license; and all sales ma.de by ma.nu· fa.cturers of compound lard and wholesale dealers in such compound shall be in original stamped packages. Retail dealers in compound lard must sell in quantities not exceeding ::>O pounds, such sales to be in original stamped pack- ages when the quantity sold is not less than 3 pounds, and from original 

stamped packages when the quantity sold is less than 3 pounds, and when the sale is from an original stamped package they shall pa.ck the said compound lard so sold by them in suitable wooden, tin, or paper packages, which shall be marked and branded as the Commis."ioner of Internal Revenue, with the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, shall prescribe. Every person who knowingly sells or offers for sale, or delivers or offers to deliver, any such compound lard in any other form than in new wooden, tin, or paper packages as above de- scribed, or who packs in any packa~e any compound lard in any manner con- trary to law, or who falsely brands any package or affixes a stamp on any pack- age denoting a less amount of tax than that· required by law, shall be fined for each offense not more than $.1,000 and be imprisoned not more than one year. Whenever any person ships, transports, or removes, or causes to be shipped, 

transported, or removed, any compound lard in any packatrt> on which all the marks, brands, and stamps required by the regulations of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue are not affixed, or on which any of such mnrks, brands, or stamps are illegible or defaced, or a.re wholly or partially concealed from view, or ships, transports, or removes a.ny compounfflard, in any package incased in any cask, package, bale, bag, or any inclosure whatever, he sh.a.II forfeit the compound la.rd and the package or pack.ages so shipped, transported, or re- moved, and be su.bject to pay a. fine of not more than $.500: Provided, That this 

.· 

section shall not be construed to prohibit the transportation ot' compound lard on any vessel a.s defined by section 3 of the Revised Sta.tut.es of the United States or in any closed car or vehicle as defined by section 4 of said statutes. SEc. 8. That every manufacturer of compound lard shall securely affix, by 

pasting on each package thereof manufactured by him, a label, on which shall be printed, besides the brandlng required in section 7 of this act., the number of the manufacturer's factory and the district and St.ate in which it is situated, these words: "Notice.-The manufacturer of the compound lard herein con· tained has complied with all the requirements of the law. Every person is cautioned not to use either this package a.gain, or the stamp thereon again, nor to remove the contents of this package without destroying sa.id stamp, under the penalty provided by law in such cases." Every manufacturer of such com- pound lard wllo neglects to affix such label to any package containing such com- pound made by him, or sold or offered for sale by him or for him, and every per- son who removes any such label so affixed from any such package, shall be fined $50 for each package as to which such oftense is committ~d. 

SEO. 9. That upon compound la.rd which shall be manufactured and sold, or removed for consumption or use, there shall be assessed and collected a. tax of 2 mills per pound, to be paid by the manufacturerthereof; and a.ny fractional pa.rt of a pound in a package shall be taxed as a pound. The tax levied by this section shall be represented by coupon stamps; and the provisions of the existing la.ws governing the engravimr, issue, sale, accountability, effacement, cancellation, and destruction of stamps relating to tobacco and suutf, as far as applica.ble, are hereby made to apply to stamps provided for by this section. SEO. 10. That whenever any manufacturer of compound la.rd sells or removes for sale or consumption any compound la.rd upon which the tax is reqnired to be paid by stamps, without the use of the proper stamps, it shall be the duty of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, within a period of not more than two years after such sale or removal, upon satisfactory proof, to estimate the a.mount of tax which hl\S been omitted to be. pa.id, and to make an assessment therefor and certily the same to the collector. The tax so assessed shall be in addition to the penalties imposed by law for such sale or removal. SEc. 11. That upon all compound lard imported from foreign countries, in ad· dition to any import duty imposed on the same, there shall be assessed and col~ 

lected an internal-revenue tax of 2 cents per pound, such tax to be represented 

by coupon stamps, as in the case of compound lard manufactured in the United States. The stamps shall be affixed and canceled by the owner or importer of the same, while it is in the custody of the proper cust.om·house officers; and the said compound lard shall not pass out of the custody of said officers until the stamps have been so affixed and canceled, but shall be put up in wooden or tin packages, each containing not less than 3 pounds, as prescribed in this act for com pound lard manufactured in the United States before the stamps are a.tllled • and the owner or importer of such compound lard shall be liable to all the penai 

provisions of the act prescribedforthe manufacturers of compound lard manu- fact.ured in the United States. Whenever it is necessary to tak.e any such com- pound lard so imported to any place other than the public st.ores of the United States for the purpose ofat'lixing and canceling such stamμs, the collector of cus- toms of the port where the same is entered shall designate a bonded warehouse to which it shall be taken, under the control of such customs officers as such col· lector may direct; and every officer of customs who permits any such compound lard to pass out of his custody or control without compliance by the owner or importer thueof with the provisions of this section relating thereto shall be guilty of n. misdemeanor, and-sha.11 be fined not less than $1,UOOnor more than $.5,000 and imprisoned not le'!B than six months nor more than three years. .ll:very person wh9 sells or offers for sale any imported compound lard, or com- pound lard purporting or claiming to have been imported, not put up in pack· ages and stamped, as provided by this act, shall be fined not Jes;i than $500 nor more than $5,000, and be imprisoned not less than six months nor more than two years. SEc. 12. That every person who 1..-nowingly purchases or receives for sale compound lsrd which has not been branded or stamped according to law shall be deemed guilty of a. misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof, shall be liable to a penalty of $50 for each and every offense. SEC. 13. That every person who knowingly purchases or receives for sale any compound lard from any manufacturer who has not paid the said special tax shall be liable for each offense to a penalty of $100, and to a forfeiture of all articles so purchased or received or of the full value thereof. SEC. 14. That whenever any stamped package containing compound lard is 

emptied it shall be the duty of the person in wbose hands the same is to destroy 

utterly the stamps thereon; and any person who willfully neglects or refuses so to do shall for each such offense be fined not exceeding $50. and be impris- oned not less lhan ten days nor more than six months. And any person who fraudulently gives away or accepts from another, or who sells, buys, or uses for packing compound lard any such stamped package shall, for ea.ob such offense, be fined not exceeding $100 and be imprisoned not more than one year. A.nY revenue officer may destroy any emptied compound-lard package upon which the tax-paid stamp is found. SEC. 15. That there shall be in the office of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue two assistant chemists, who shall be appointed by the Secretary of the Treasury, whose duties shall be prescribed by said Commissioner and who shall receive a. salary of $1,200 per annum; and the Commissioner of I.nteroal Revenue may, whenever in his judgment the necessities of the service so re- quire, employ chemists and microscopists, to be paid such compensation as he may deem proper, not exceeding in the aggregate any appropriation made for that purpose. And the Commissioner of Internal ReYenue may lease, at a rent not exceeding Sl,200 per annum, such room or rooms as may be necessary to the proper and efficient discharge of the duties of the analytical chemist, the microscopists, and the two assistant chemists in his office, and said Commis- sioner sh&ll be entitled to purchase such chemical apparatus and supplies as may be necessary to the proper and efficient discharge of the duties of such offi- cers, the cost of such apparatus and supplies and the rent of such rooms to be pa.id monthly by warrant of the-Secretary of the Treasury on the Treasurer of the United ~ta.tee out of any money arising from internal duties not otherwise appropriated. And the said Commissioner is authorized to decide what sub- stances or compounds wllich may be submitted for his mspection in cont.ested cases are to be taxecl under this act, and bis decision in matters of taxation under this act shall be final. The said Commissioner may decide whether any substance or ingredient mentioned in the application for license, to be used in the manufacture of such compound lard, is deleterious to health; but, in case of doubt or contest, his decision in this class of cases may be appealed from to a. board hereby constituted for the purpose, and composed oft he Surgeon-Gen- eral of the Army, the Surgeon-General of the Navy, and the Secretary of .A..,."Ticulture, ancl the decision of this boa.rd shall be final in the premises. SEc. 16. That all pa.ck.ages of compound lard subject to tax under this a.ct that shall be found without stamps or marks as herein provided, and all com· pound lard intended for human consumption which contains ingrPdients ad- judged, as hereinbefore'Provided, to be deleterious to the public health shall be forfeited to the United States. Any person who shall willfully remove or deface the stamps, marks, or brands on pack.ages containing such com pound la.rd taxed as provided herein shall he guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall be punished by a fine of' not less than $100 nor more tha.n $2,000 and by imprisonment for not less t-ha.n thirty days nor more than six month!!. Sxc. 17. That compound la.rd may be removed from the J;>lace of manufacture forexporttoa.foreigncountrywithout.pa.ymentoft:i.xora.tlllingsta.mpsthereto, 

under such regulation and the filing of such bonds and other security as tile 

.· . . ; ,. 

. . 

' ' 

: ,, 

· .. 

"1 

. ' 

(,_ 
. · .. \ 

,· 

·~ 

. , . 

·-

8896 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. AUGUST 20, 

Commissioner of Internal Revenue, with the approval of the Secretary of the from such examination that any of the provisions of this act have been vio- •.rreasury, may prescribe. Every person who shall export compound lard shall lated the Secretary of Agriculture shall at once cause a report of the fact to be stamp and brand every package containing such compound as provided in sec- made to the proper United Stales district attorney, with a copy of the results tion 7 of this act. of the analysis duly authenticated by the analyst under oath. S.F:c. 18. That whenever any person engaged in carrying on the business of "SEC.4. That it shall be the duty of every district attorney to whom the food manufacturing compound lard defrauds, Qr attemptB to defraud, the United division shall report any violation of this act to cause proceedings to be com- States of the tax on the compound lard produced by him, or any part thereof, he menced and prosecuted without delay for the fines and penalties in such case shall forfeit the factory and manufacturing apparatus used by him, and all com- provided, unless, upon inquiry and examination, he shall decide that such pro- pound lard and all raw material for the production of compound lard found in ceedings can not probably be sustained, in which case he shall report t.11e facts the factory and on the factory premises, and shall be fined not less than S500 nor to the food division. more than $5,000, and be imprisoned not less than six months nor more than "SEC. :>. That the term 'drug' as used in this act, shall include all medicines three years. for interno.1 or external use. The term• food,' as used herein, shall include all SEC. 19. That if any manufacturer of such compom1d lard, any dealer therein, articles used for food or drink by man, wliether simple, mixed, or compound. or any importer or exporter thereof, shall knowingly or willfully omit, neglect, "SEC. 6. That for the purposes of this act an article shall be dcemecl t-0 be or refuse to do, or cause to be done. any of the things required bJ" l::i.w in the adulterated- carrying on or conducting of his business, or shall do anything by this a.ct pro· "In the case of drugs: 

bibited, if there be no specific penalty or punishment imposed by any other "First. If, when sold under or by a name recognized in the United States section of this act for neglecting or omitting or refusing to do, or for the doing Pbarmacopreia., it difters within the knowledge of the seller from the standard or causing to be done, the thing required or prohibited, be shall pay a penalty of strength, quality, or purity, according to the tests laid down therein. of $50!); and if the person so offending be the manufacturer of or a wholesale "Second. If, when sold under or by a name not recognized in the United dealer in compound lard, all the corn pound lard owned by him or in which he States Pharmacopreia, but which is found in some other pharmacopreia or other has any interest ns owner shall be forfeited to the United States. standard work on maleria mediea, it differs within the knowledge of the seller SEO. 20. That all fines, penalties, and forfeitures imposed by this act may be matel"ially from the standard of strength, quality, or purity, according to the i·ecovered in any court of competent jurisdiction. tests laid down in said work. SEC. 21. That the Commissioner of Internal ReYenue, with the approval of "Third. If its strength or purity fall below lhe professed standard under which the Secretary of the Treasury, may make all needful regulations for the carry· it is sold. 

ing into effect of this act. "In the case of food or d!'ink: SEC. 22. That this act shall go into effect on the ninetieth day after ils pas- "First. If any substance or substances has or have been knowingly mixed sage; and all wooden or ttn packagescontainini: thrf'e or more pounds of com- and packed with it so as to reduce or lower or injuriously affect its quality or pound lard found on the premises of any dealer on or after the ninetieth day strength, so that such product, when off'ered for sale, shall be calculated and succeeding the date of the passage of this act shall be deemed to be taxable un- shall tend to deceive t.he purch,tser. der section 9 of this act; and shall be taxed, and shall have affixed thereto the "Second. If any inferior substance orsubstanceshas orha.ve been knowingly 

stamp, marks, and brands required by this act, or by reaulaUons made pursu- substituted wholly or in part for the article, so that the product, when sold ant to this l\ct; and for the purpo:IB of securing the affixing of the stamps, shall be calculated and shall tend to deceiye the purchaser, ' marks, and brands required by this act, the said compound shall be regarded as ••Third. If any valuable constituent of the article bas been knowingly wholly 

having been manufactured and sold, or removed from themanufact-0ry for con- or in pai·t nbstracted, so that the product, when sold, shall be calculated and sumption or use, on or after the day this act takes effect; and such stock on sliall tend to deceiye the purchaser. hand at the time of the taking eftect '>f this act may be stamped, marked, and .. Fourth. If it be an imitation of and knowingly sold under the specific name branded, under special regulations of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, of another article. 

approved by the Secretary of the Trea-'mry; ,.nd the Commissioner of Internal "Fifth. If it be knowingly mixed, colored, powdered, or stained in a manner Revenue may authorize the bolder of such packages to mark and brand the whereby damage is concealed, so that such product, when sold, shall be calcu- same and t-0 affix theret-0 the proper tax-paid stamps. lated to deceive the purchaser. 

11.r CONGER M S k b fi th d" · b · I · h t "Sixth. If it contain wit.Lin the knowledge of the seller any added poisonous mr. .r • r · pea er, e ore e iscus.sion e~ms, WlS 0 ingredient or any ingredient which may render such article injurious to the ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. health of the person consuming it. 

BROSIUS] who made the majority report and the gentleman from North "SeYenth. If it consists within the k:;owledge of the seller of the whole or 

Carolina [Air. MCCLAMMY] who made the minority report may have nny vart of a diseased, fillhy, decomposed, or putrid animal or vegetable sub- stance, or any portion of an animal unfit for food, whetbermanufactured or not charge of the time to be occupied in debate. or ifH is the product of a diseased animal, or of an animal that has died other~ 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection-- wise than by slaughter: Provided, That an article of food or drug which does .Mr. McRAE. Mr. Speaker-- not contain within the knowledge of the seller any added poisonous ingredient shall not be deemed to be adulterat~dThe SPEAKER p1·0 tem,pore. For what purpose does the gentleman "First, in the case of mixtures or eompoundswhich may be now or from time 

from Arkansas rise? to time hereafter known as articles of food under their own distinctive names M M RAE I h b · f t th f f th tl and not included in definition fourth of this section; ' r. C · ave no O ~ec ion O e sugges ion ° e gen eman "Second, in the case of articles labeled, branded, or tagged so as to plainly 

from Iowa (Mr. CONGER]; but before we proceed further I want to indicate that they are mixtures,.comp~unds, combinations, or blends; 

offer an amendment. "Third, when aey matter or mgredient has been added to the food or drug 

Th SPEAKER t W'th t b" t" th t' fi d" because the same is required for the production or preparation thereof iw an e pro empore. 1 ou 0 ~ec ion, e ime or iscus- article of commerce in a state fit for carriage or consumption, and not fraudusion will be equally divided between the friends and the opponents of lently to increase the bulk, weight, or measure of the food or drug, or conceal 

the bill, the timein favor of the bill to be con trolled by t.be gentleman from the inferior quality thereof; 

Pennsylvania [Air. BROSIUS] and the time in opposition by the gen- "Fourth, where the food or drug is unavoidably mixed with some extrirne- ous matter in the process of collection or preparation. tleman from North Carolina [!\fr. MCCLAMMY]. The Chair hears no "SEc. 7. That every person manufacturing, offering, or exposing for sale 01• 

objection. delivering to a purchaser any drug or article of food included in the provisi~ns 

:Mr. MASON. I desire to offer a substitute for the pendinJ? bill; and of this act shall furnish such drugs or article of food to any person interested ~ or demanding the same, who shall apply to him for the purpose, and shall ten- I understand it is desired by the friends of the bill that the substitute der him its value of a sample suffinient for the analysis of any such article or 

may be considered as pending, reserving all questions of order. food which is in bis possession. And upon the presentation of such drug orar- ,... BROSIUS I · h t 11 · ts f d h t th ticle of food to the proper officer of the food division by a responsible person .LUf. • WIS O reserve a porn ° or er, w a ever ey with a request from such person for an official analysis of the same, the chief 

may be, against the substitute. of such division shall make, or cause to be made. such analysis of the drug or 

The SPEAKER pro te1npore. Unanimous consent is asked that, a ai·ticle of food so p~esented, under rules and regulations to be prescribed by 

substitute submitted by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. MASON] may the Secretary of Agriculture. . . . . . . . I "SEC. 8. That whoever refuses to comply, upon demand, with the require- be cons1de1·ed as pendmg to be pnnted lil the RECORD, as the Chair un- men ts of section 7 of this act shall be guiltv of a misdemeanor and upon conderstands, for the information of the House, all questions of order to be yicti~n, shall be fined ~ot exceeding one hundred nor .less th~n te1

1

1 dollars or 

reserved. Is there objection? The Chair hears none. impnsoned notexceE'.dmg one hundred. nor lesst_han .thirty days, o~ both. And . . any person found guilty of manufacturmg, offermg tor sale, or selling an adul- The substitute of Mr. MASON lS as follows: terated article offood or drug under the provisions of this act shall be adjudged 

Strike out all after the enacting clause and iruiert: to pay, in addition to the penalties hel'etofore provided for, all the necessary costs ··That, fortbe purpose of prote<'ting the commerce in food vroductsnnd drugs and expenses incurred in inspecting and analyzing such adulterated articles of between the several States and Territ;ories of this Umon and foreign countries, which said person may have been found guilty of manufacturing, selling, or the Secretary of Agriculture shall organize in the Department of Agriculture a offering for sale. division to be known as the food division, and ma.ke necessary rules governing "SEC. 9. That in prosecutions for violations of this act proof of the act done the same to carry out the provisions of this act, and appoint a chief thereof, at shall be held to imply knowledge and intent on the part of the accused, unless a salary of $3,000 per annum, whose duty it shall be to procure from time to such knowledge and intent shall be disproved on the trial. time, under rules and regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary of Agricult· "SEc.10. That this act shall not be construed to interfere with commerce ure and cause to be analyzed or examined, samples of food and drugs sold or wholly internal in any State, nor with the exercise or their police powers by offered for 11ale in any Stat.a or Territ-0ry other than where manufactured. The the several States." 

Secretary of Agriculture is hereby authorized to employ snchchemists, inspect- Mr. McRAE. I desire to offer an amendment, to add to section 1 f~-~~l~~~hlsr!~~.nd other employes as may be necessary to carry out the provis- the following: · 

"Sxc. 2. That the introduction into any State or Territory from any other State And rendered in open kettles, the process used by farmers and but<~hers. 

or Territory or foreign country of any article ot food or drugs which is adul· terated within the meaning of this act is hereby prohibited, and any person The SPEAKER ]Jro tempore. The Clerk will report the amendment who shall willfully and knowingly ship or deliver for shipment from any State for information. or Territory or foreign country to any other State or Territory, or who shall Mr. McKA.E. Can we not now move amendments and have them 

knowingly receive in any State or Territory from any other State or Territory or foreign country, or who, having so received, shall deliver, for pay or other· pending? 

wise, or offer to deliver to any other person, any such anicle so adulterated The SPEAKER pro tempore. Not at this time. within the meaning of this act, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and for such . Ur. HATCH. 'Ve have not yet bad the general debate. offense be finE'd not exceeding $200for the first offense, and for each subsequent oftense not exceeding $300, or be imprisoned not exceeding one year, or both, The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will state that"at this time in the discretion of the court. amend men ts can onl.v be offered by unanimous consent, and for the in- " Sxc. 3. That the chief of said food division shall make, or cause to be made, formation of the House they can be printed in the RECORD. under rules and regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary of Agriculture, examinations of specimens of food and drugs which may be coUected from time Mr. l\IcRA E. Why is that? I trust it is not the intention to oc- to time under rules and regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary of Agri- cupy all the time in debate and allow no opportunity lor amendments. culture under its dil'ection in various parts of the country, and publish in bul- Mr. BLOUNT. I wish to know w bether any O'entleman obtaining lelins the result of such analyses. But the names of manufacturers or venders t--

of such food or drugs analyzed shall in no case be published in such bulletins the floor can offer amendments to this bil1 or whether we are to be cut until after conviction in the courts of violation of this act. If it shall appear off from that opportunity by the previous question? 

·.I 
... , . 

-· ·, 

·. -........... .; .. :' :• .. - .~ 

1890. CONGRESSIONAL 'ItECORD~HOUSE. ·_ 8897 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Amendments which may be offered 

will be considered as pending at the close ot the general debate. They 

are covered by the order of the House. 

Mr. BROSIUS. Mr. Speaker, I have not yielded the floor for any 

purpose of this kind. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore.· Tue Chair did not understand that the 

gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. BROSIUS] had taken the floor. 

Mr. BROSIUS. Why, sir, I bad the floor--

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman took the floor for t,be 

purpose of reserving questions of order upon the substitute offered by 

the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. UASO:N], who bad been recognized. 

Mr. McRAE. That was all; the gentleman from Pennsylvania. re· served points of order, and then the Speaker recognized me to move my 

amendment. 

The SPEAKEilpro tcmpore. The amendruent bas been offered and 

is pending. 

:Ur. BLOUNT. Is the amendment of the gentleman from Arkansas 

vending? 

The SPEAKER pro temp:ire. The Chair recognizes it as pending. 

Mr. CONGER. I rise to a parliamentary inquiry. 

The SPE.AKER 1Jro tempore. The gentleman will stai:e it. 

1\ir. CONGER. Is not the gentleman who reported the bill entitled 

to be first recognized ? . Mr. MA.SON. That is the intention. I have no intention of assum- ing either the opening or the closing of this case. I simply want to 

know in advance what my rights are. I have offered a substitut-ei for 

the bill; the gent1emau from Pennsylvania ha.s reserved all points of 

order on it. I desire no legislative trick; I wish to have this matter 

properly understood, so that I can have a direct vote on this substitute 

at the proper time. That is all I ask. With that understanding, I am perfectly willing to yield the floor or do whate>er may be proper 

in the matter. 

Mr. BROSIUS. Mr. Speaker--

The SPEAKERp»o tempore. The Chair will say to the gentleman 

from Illinois [Mr. l\IASON] that his substitute is pending and will be 

a pending question at the time the general debate upon the bill terminat~s. 

Mr. MASON. That is all I desire. . The SPEAKER pro temporc. It will be in order to be voted on under 

the order of the House, subject, however, to such points of order as 

may be made hereafter. 

Ur. MASON. I understand that. ~ow, I wish to ask a parliamentary questioQ. I understand (and I address the remark to the gentle- man from Pennsylvania) that we have now the right, after his opening 

argument, at any time between this and the close of the debate, t-0 

offer amendments, and have those amendments discussed and voted on, 

regardless of the amendments offered by the committee. In other 

words, I wish it understood that the committee is not to offer al 1 amendments or control the offering of all amendments to this bill. 

I will state to the gentleman that I expect to offer no amendment 

for the purpose of delaying the bill, and I have not attempted to do 

that. I want a full, free, and fair discussion of t·he whole bill and to 

have it perfected as- early as in my judgment it can be perfected be· 

fore it is passed. I offer no amendment, therefore, for the purpose of 

delay; aud ina'3much as I have offered this substitute only for the purpose of getting the seuse of the Honse upon it, if it can be considered as pending I am perfectly willing that the gent.leman shall proceed 

with the consideration of the bill. 

Mr. BROSIUS. I regret exceedingly, Ur. Speaker, that my friend 

from Illinois has placed me in a position which forbids any further consent in the coarse of the management of this bill on my part. The 

last understanding, I am constrained to say, that I had with my friend 

from Illinois, only a few moments ago, was to the effect that he would 

withhold bis substitute until to-morrow morning, and when I took my 

feet I expected to offer two small amendments, which I had been directed to offer by the committee, and then proceed with the discussion 

of the case. Bnt my friend from Illinois took the floor first and submitted the substituk 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman can offer his amendments now. Mr. MASON. Before that, Mr. Speaker, Ithinkthegentlemandoes me a great deal of injustice in this matter. I did not understand that 

I was to hold the substitute back until to-mouow. If he wishes tb:it, or if the House wish it, or the friends of this measure, I .am perfectly 

satisfied to do so. But to insinuate that! have broken faith with him 

is unjnst and unfair to me. M1·. BROSIUS. Allow me to say that if the gentleman from Illinois says that that was not his understanding of course I do not intend 

to impute anything improper to him. 

Mr. MASON. Very well; and I repeat, if offering the substitute 

will interfere in any way with his amendments I shall not ask to do it. 

TheSPE.A.KERpro tempore. It does not. 

Mr. BROSIUS. The gentleman from Illinois can appreciate my sur- prise when he rose and offered the substitute. 

Mr. MASON. I did not understand that I was expected to withhold it. 

XXI-557 

-. 

Mr. BROSIUS. And I am glad to know that it was offered through a misapprehension on the part of my friend from Illinois. 

Mr. MASON. I did not understand the agreement to be anything 

different from that. ., Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of order. - Mr. MORGAN. One moment. I wish to ask, Mr. Speaker,first, 

whether in the offering of these amendments the House is to be con- fined to the strict rule of parliamentary procedure. If amendments 

are to be offered now and voted on hereafter, I desire to ofter an 

amendment. 

The SPEA.KERpro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois rises to a 

question of order, which he will state. 

l\Ir. SPRINGER. I rise to a question of order in regard to the priority of the order of amendments that can be submitted and accepted 

under the order of business as lai.d d'lwn iu the rule under which we 

are proceeding. 

That order, as I understand it, is simply to consider tjle bill from 

this moment until 4 o'clock on Saturday, e"(:cluding Friday, and between now and then the order of business is just the same as during 

the consideration of any other bill, namely, if a substitut.e is offered it 

is in order for the friends of the bill to first perfect by amendments the 

text of the bill, and they must be considered before the House can 

proceed to the substitute. 

The SPEAKERpro tempore. Thepoint of order is sustained. The 

order under which we are operating does not affect the rule of the 

House relatin~ to amendments, bat the gentleman from Pennsylvania. 

has procured the floor and says he desires t-0 offer two amendments. 

Mr. BROSIUS. I have already sent them to the desk. 

I\Ir. McRAE. But, Mr. Speaker, I have sent an amendment to the 

desk also. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. That shall not be lost sight of. 

Ur. McRAE. The gentleman from Pennsylvania can only ofter one 

amendment, then, if mine is pending. 

Mr. BLOUNT. I rise to a parliamentary inquiry. 

The SPEAKER p ro te111porP.. The gentleman will state it. 

Mr. BLOUNT. I wish to know if any gentleman who is recognized 

and gets the floor may offer an amendment subject to the rules that 

there can be but a certain number of amendments pending • The SPEAKER p1'0 tempore. By unanimous consent, I suppose any 

amendment may be offered and printed in the RECORD. The rule au; 

thorizes a certain number of amendments to the text of the bill and 

then a substitute for the whole. 

Mr. BLOUNT. But I understood the Spaaker of the House to rule 

upon this question some time ago under a similar order that where a 

gentleman obtained the floor for debate he might offer an amendment 

to the bill and demand the previous question; this, of course, to be 

subject to the rule that there can be only a certain number of amendments pending. 

The SPEAK.ER (having resumed the chair). The Chair -thinks the 

gentleman from Georgia states it correctly. There can be but one 

amendment pending to the bill at a time. The gentleman from Penn· 

sylvania has presented two amendments, either of which can be con- sidered now. The Clerk will report the first. 

Mr. McRAE. But I have an amendment also, Mr. Speaker. 

'l'be SPEAKER. But the gentleman from Pennsylvania was entitled t-0 the floor under the practice of the House, and after bis amendment is disposed of then, if the ge.ntleman obtains the floor, he can offer 

his amendment. 

1\Ir. McRAE. But the gentleman did not have the .floor to offer his 

amendment. 

The SPEAKER. The Chair thinks tha.t was a mistake. In the con- fusion he was not recognized, but being in charge of the bilJ it is the 

invariable custom of the Honse that any amendments he may desire 

to offer shall be first offered by him and the usual methods proceeded 

with to perfect the text of the bill, after which other members may 

obtain the floor. The Chair think~ the gentleman from Arkansas will 

acquiesce in that statement. 

Mr. McRAE. Of course he may be entitled to that privilege, but he 

did not exercise it. 

The SPEAKER. Th~ Clerk will report the first amendment submitted by the gentleman from Pennsylvania. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

On page 5, in line 19, of section 6, insert " wholesale " before the word "dealer," 

making it read : "And any manufactur r or wholesale dealer in compound la.rd, etc." 

The SPEAKER. ~'he Chair would suggest that perhaps the question could be put on the amendment now. Mr. BROSIDS. Mr. Speaker--

The SPEAKER. The Chair has suggested that perhaps the question could be put and the amendment disposed of. 

1\Ir. BROSIUS. Mr. Speaker, then I ask unanimous consent that a 

vote may be taken upon this amendment at this time. It is a mere verbal correction, and I do not think there will be any objection. 

The amendment was agreed to. 

The SPEAKER. The Clerk will report the next amendment. 

. ' - .-

. , 

.... 

._ 

.-

, • I 

; . 

.. . -

' ' 

"" . 

~.. : 

.- . · .. 

-, ~ .. 
>; I 

-. 

: •I 

-·, 

. -

• I 

·. 

• r ... ~ "' ................ t· .. ... ' ..... . ; 

: 

889S CONGRESSIONAL 'RECORD-HOUSE . .. AUGUST 20, 

The Clerk read as follows: 

On page 13, section 15, strike out all between the word "rooms," in line 19, -and the word "and," in line 22, and insert in lieu thereof the words: "Not to exceed any appropriation made for those purposes." 

Mr. SPRINGER. Let the words proposed to be stricken out be read. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

Strike out the following words: "To be paid monthly by warrant of the Secretary of tho Treasury on the Trea.s- μrer of the United States out of any money a1·Lsing from internal duties not btberwise appropriated." 

The CLERK. That is to be stricken out and the following inserted: 

Not to exceed any appropriation ma.de for those purposes. 

Mr. BROSIUS. Mr. Speaker, I will say just a word in explanation 

of that amendment. 

·several ME~rnERs That is all right. [Cries of "Vote!" "Vote!"] 

Mr. BROSIUS. Then I ask unanimous consent that a vote may be 

taken upon the proposed amendment at once. The SP EA.KEH.. The gentleman from Pennsylvania asks unanimous 

consent that a vote be taken at this time upon this amendment. Is 

there objection? [After a pause.] The Chair hears none. 

The amendment was agreed to. 

Mr. McRAE. Now, Mr. Speaker, I ask that my amendment may 

be considered as pendiug. I do not desire a vote upon it at this time, 

becau e I wish to discuss it, and I do not wish to interrupt gentlemen 

by asking to discuss it now. The SPEAKER. That can be done by unanimous consent. Is there 

objection to the pendency of the amendment offered by the gentleman 

from Arkansas? Is it au amendment to the original bill? 

Mr. McRAE. Yes, to the original hill. 

The SPEAKER (after a pause). The Chair bears no objection. 

Mr. BROSIUS. Let the amendment be reported. 

Tbe SPEAKER. The Clerk will report the arueudment. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

Add to section l lhe following: "And rendered in open kettles, the proces;i used by farmers a.nd butchers." 

Mr. BROSIUS. There is no o~jection to the amendment being con· 

sidered aa pending. That is all that is asked, I suppose. 

Mr. McRA.E. That is an that I ask at this tim~. 

The SPE.A..KER. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized. 

l\lr. BROSIUS. Mr. Rpeaker, in opening the debate upon this legislation, I do not design consuming the time of the House in making 

any observatiom~ upon the form of the legislation, further than to observe tbat the bill is drawn to conform to the existing revenue legislation of the country. That has been in the experience of the country 

fairly effective and satisfactory and bas met the convenience of the 

revenue officers. I therefore desire in my feeble way to direct the attention of the House to the broader question of the necessity and expediency of the proposed legislation. .And in doing so, Ur. Speaker, I 

proceed upon the assumption that what needs to be made clear to the 

Houge is the reasons which justify the measure, arising either out of 

the needs of the Government, the duty of suppressing commtlrcial 

frauds, of protecting the people from the use of deleterious food, or relieving useful and necessary ind us tries from depression caused by Jore· 

stalling the markets with counterfeit commodities. 

EQUALITY OF RURDE..."I'•. 

It is easily seen that consumers of lard, manufacturel'S and dealers 

in the genuine article, and farmers who derive a profit from producing 

the swine, together aggregating a large per cent. of our population, have 

a deep stake in ::i.ny legislation which prote\!t.s them from the competi· 

tion of imitators, impostors, fnmds, and all classes of pirates on our 

food markets. 

It goes without saying that all classes engaged in legitimate business have equal claims upon the consideration and protection of the 

Government under which they live and to whose support they contribute. Legislation which imposes unequal burdens can only be tolerated upon grounds of the clearest nece~sity supported by a. wise public 

policy, the demands of justice and right, and the advancement of the 

common weal. That it may appear that the necessity which we affirm 

calls with extreme urgency for this legislation, answers all the conditions named, and presents a perfect title to the protection and benefits 

claimed, let me direct your attention for a 1~1oment to the origin and 

history of the compound-lard industry. 

HISTORY OF COllPOUND LARD. 

Forty years ago the manufacture of "refined lard" was commenced 

in this country. It contained nothing but the fat of the swine, was 

a superior article, and commanded a higher price than ordinary lard. 

It was made by expressing from pure lard a portion of the oil and mixing the residue with unpressed lard, making an nrticle of better consistency, firmer and stiffer, capable of resisting a. higher temperature. 

It assumed its rank at once in the commercial world as ''refined lard.'' 

Mr. Fairbank says: ltwas known all over Europe and this country by that name and sold in all the markets of the world at one-half cent above the ordinary lard. 

A few yea.I'S ago the manufacturers of this superior commodity, by 

the aid of their chemist, discovered that a.n imitation article could be 

com pounded of foreign ingredients so closely resembling ''refined lard'' 

in tiaste and appearance that unskilled consumers could not distinguish 

the spurious from the genuine article. The ingredients used were 

lard, cotton-seed oil, beef, stearine, and water in varying proportions 

to suit the mercenary tast.e of the manufacturer. SteaTine is what is 

left in the filter-bags after the oil is pressed out of beef fats for making 

oleomargarine. What is not used in makin~ compound lard goes into 

soap and candles. (Internal Revenue Report, 1888, page 141.) The 

following testimony by the chemist connected with the Agricultural 

Department throws much light on the mystery of the compound: 

TESTI::!IONY OF PROFESSOR H. W. WILEY. 

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 'vith questions. I shall be glad to have you do all that in order to ex:peditemat- ters. And in your answers please give the ingredients, so far as you know 

them, of these samples made by Fairbank & Co. A. 'Ve have twelve of Fairbank's samples tabulated. n.nd tliere are three or four more that have not yet been tabulated. Of the twelve th11.t have been tabu· lated all contain cotton·seed oil. 

Q. Give the different brands of those samples. A. Eight are branded "Prime refined family lnrd," one is branded "Choice refined family lard," and one is branded "Pure refined family lard, Prime re- fined family lard," and one is branded "Compound lard." 

Q. Have you any of Fairbank's that do not contain cotton·seed oil? A. No. sir. · Q. Where were tbel'e 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 how they are branded. A. Seven are branded "Pure refined family lard." One is branded" Kettle refined lard." Three are branded "Choice refined family lard," and one is br1rnded "Superior compound lard." 

Q. State what those lards !!.re composed of, so far as yon know. A. Ten of them contain cotton-seed oil and two of them are pure lard. 

Q.. Take the next sample. A. An-0tber la.rd manufactured by Ada.m H. Wortheman & Co., of Phila.del· 

phia, contains 17.4 per cent. of water, and another sample manufactured by C. F. 'fiejeu, of New York, contains 35.5 per cenl of water. 'l'hose are the only sam- ples that contain any notable proportion of water. Some have as hlgh as 1 per ec11t .• but very few, and I would not. call that added water. Q. State what those two specimens, 741)2 and 74.05, are. State whether you have subjected them to tests. A. I subjected them to tests and found that they both consisted largely of beef fl\t 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 iliem. • BRAND COU1'"TERFEITED • 

This compound, as varied in its constituents as Joseph's coat in its 

colors, was substituted in the markets of the world for the genuine refined article in v.•hose manufacture these gentlemen who have made 

these notable conquests fa the laboratory, and these celebrated discoveries in the field of food, "for revenue only " bad achieved a reputation so well deserved that their brands gave credit to any commodity 

in any market.. To send the compound, swift-footed, into the markets 

of the world, to give it currency and value, they put upon it the stamp 

ancl brand of the established superior commodity. Christened ''Refined lard " "Pure refined lard," ".Choice refined family lard," it was 

sent forth to seek the honest tables of honest consumers on two continent.q. What a good illustration of the devil's trick of hiding behind 

the a1tar. 

Tbe::'e manufacturers with unabashed foreheads and shameless cheek 

continued to sell this counterfeit a.s the ound coin of the realm until 

188~, when a. diminished market for pure lard and for the farmers' 

swine revealed the mYages this spurious commodity was committing 

upon the honest domain of agriculture. The farmer and manufacturer 

of lan.1, and consnmers at the mercy of conn terfeiters, were seized with 

alarm. Dismay spread like a. cry of fire. The people assembled, consulted, and debated until a tide of indignation rose that carried the 

representatives of the people apon it.-3 swelUng flood, until a bill was on the Calendar of Congres".3 to suppress the fraud, arrest the ravages 

to farm and fact.ory, and strike the mask of truth from the face of falsehood. Then, like wise sailors, finding they had too much sail on for 

the coming storm, they began to haul in their white wings. They 

changed their brand; they gave their bantling a new name, and called 

it "Pure refined lard compound." "Ah, that deceit should steal such 

gentle shapes to practice in." 

FACRTIA..~'S CIRCULAR. 

In their circular announcing the change (I hope with the change of 

name there came also a change of heart) Mr. Fairbank says: 

Thl'l question has been now raised as to the 1td visabllity of retaining the n&me of refined lard for a. product that is in reality a preparation blended by the ad- mixture of se,·eral dift'erent materials so as to obtam the ''ery highest standard of quality. And we hM·e decided lo change our brand and substitute the name "Refined lard compound" in place of the word'' lRrd." On and after this date all of our entire product heretofore sold under the name of refined lard will be branded" N. K. Fairbank & Co.'s refined lard compound." 

THE REFL'<ING PARADOX. 

To refine is to make pure. So you refine butter by putting lard in it; 

cheese by mixing oleomargarine with it; coffee by putting in it chicory, 

pease beans, rye, etc., and canned vegetables by sulphate of copper to 

make' them look green. Olive.oil is refined by mixing with it other 

vegetable oils, and lard is refined by mixing it with cotton-seed oil and 

beefstearine. Sugar is sometimes refined by putt.ing sand in it, just 

before the grocer goes to prayers; that is to say, commodities are refined 

by mixing with them extraneous and inferior ingredients. From this 
,. ·., ...... .. - ... 

1890. CONGRESSIONAL .RECORD-HOUSE. 8899 

mode of refining, common to all adulterators, it is a short step soon taken 

to that moral adulteration by which truth is sought to be refined by 

the introduction of falsehood and honesty by mixing it with fraud. 

Such adulterators are not as wicked as adulterers, but they are wicked 

enough ·to be placed under the ban of the law and to have their trade 

regulated by legal enactment. It is little wonder that this refining 

paradox: suggested to a wit in an English police court the conundrum, 

"When is lard not lard? When it is refined." 

~ A. W AKE!{ED CONSCIENCE. 

This ''question" re:erred to in the circular was evolved out of the 

inmost depths of their moral consciousness after the bill to regulate 

their fraud was on the Calender. What a splendid thing is an awakened 

conscience ! 

But even now, that conscience, the great detector that fl.ashes upon 

a rogue and lights up a rascal like a policeman's lantern, has turned 

its blaze upon them, they insist upon mixing only enough truth with 

their falsehood to make it go. A liar is never so successful as when he 

baits bis book with truth. The word "compound" they think redeems 

their goods and entitles them to absolution for the past and plenary indulgence for the future, to place annually upon the market 320, 000, 000 

pounds of this spurious grease to take the place of that amount of the 

fat of the farmer's swine. 

The pretense that this commodity is already sufficiently branded to 

identify it as something different from genuine lard is the baldest subterfage. There is no evidence anywhere that any of the numerous manufacturers of this counterfeit, excepting Fairbank & Co. and Armour & 

Co., have ever adulterated their lard with even the in.finitesimal ingredient of honesty conveyed by the use of the word "compound." But 

of what use to the consumer is the word ''compound' stamped upon 

the vessels containing this commodity by the manufacturers? It con- veys no intelligence to him, for he never sees it. The goods are sold 

out of the large vessels by retailers as lard, and there is nothing even 

to put the consumer on his guard or to excite his suspicion. I am 

told, in the South, that storekeepers sell out of the large tierces at 15 

cents per pound what costs them 5 cents wholesale, and the poor illiterate negro is eating cotton-seed oil when he thinks he is consuming the 

fat of the bog. TJIE BOAR'S HEAD. 

But it is further noteworthy that they still work the boar's head on 

all their packages and pails. Out of the depths of their awakened 

consciences bas not yet been evolved the cotton-plant or the bull's 

head as a trade·mark, indicative of the ingredients compounded. The 

boar's head alone still proclaims the cheat, and his sharp, projecting 

tusks fitly symbolize the fraud and cover, which flesh their venomed 

teeth in the sides of the farmer's honest industry. This is the kind ot 

a commercial conscience possessed by these manufacturers. This is paralleled by a case Professor Perry tells about in his Political Economy. 

The professor met the manufacturer and asked him, "What are you running on now?" "On these knit goods," he said. ''I thought you 

worked cotton,'' said the professor. '

1 Ido," he said. "Are not knit 

goods woolen?'' said the professor. ''Oh,'' said the honest manu facturer, "we put the :figure of a sheep on every piece we make, but 

every :fiber of it is cotton." 

Enough of the history of this interesting commodity. Let us now 

inquire what effect it has bad upon honest trade. As o. preliminary 

ro this inquiry, let me subjoin a tabulated statement illustrating the 

character of the industry to be affected and the fluctuations in the 

market. 

Ifumber and value of hogs in the sei:eral Stales and Territories in 1888. 

States nnd Teriitories. 

!In.ine ..... ....... ........................ ................. ........ . New Hampshire .............. ......................... ........ . Vermont .......................................................... . Massachusetts ................................................ . Rhode Island .................................................. . Connecticut ................. ................................... . New York ....................................................... . New Jersey ..................................................... . Pennsylvania. .................................................. . Delaware ...................................................... .. 

~~~~~~::::::·::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: North Carolina ............................................... . South Carolina. ............................................... . G-eorgia. ........................................................... . Florida. .......................................................... . Alabama. .......................................................... . 

~~~~E:.1::::~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Texas ............................................................. .. Arkansas ........................................................ . Tennes ee ..................................................... . 

~:t::r~~.::::::~:~:::::::::::~:::::::::::::::::::::::::: Ohio-.............................................................. . Michigan ....................................................... .. 

w~~£~~:::::::::::::.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 

.... 

Number. 

73, 188 51, 399 

76,3.53 

65, 314 

13,261 

61, 776 686,390 

191,818 

1, 027,477 

~,654 

2 1,397 

811,362 

1,266,438 

550, 166 I,~4, 189 307,051 

1,376,148 

1, 226,689 

573,821 

2, 279, 082 

1,5.38,360 

L853,070 

432, Tl8 

1,7l8,173 

2,668,384 

906 255 2,371:085 ' 

3, 102,945 

1,1:.:3.866 

--· 

• .\verage 

price. 

$9.13 

10.93 

9.02 

10.30 

9.50 

9.09 

8.4ti 

9.19 

8.03 

6.80 

6.24 

4.34 

3.53 

3.92 

3.17 

2.05 

3.39 

3.10 

3.0S 

2.80 

2.56 

3.66 

4.W 

4.27 

5. 72 6.39 

5.94 

6.47 

6.02 

Value. 

$667, 917 594, 311 

688 385 

6i2:862 

125, 9i8 561, M3 5,803,084 

1,762,326 

8, 254, 748 290,048 

1, 756,621 

3,521,313 

4,464,194 

2,159,072 

4,859,083 

628,840 

4,6Gl,Ol4 

3,801, 7M 1, 769, 663 

6,436,128 

3, 938, 202 6, 774,82.5 

1,819, 744 

7,329, 727 15, 261,021 

5, 789, 700 14,082,349 

20,088,468 

6, 766, 798 

Number and value of hogs in the several States, etc.-Continued. 

States and Territories. N Average umber. price. Value. 

~linnesota . ... ... . .. ........... ... .... . .. ... . .. ...... ......... ... M9, 793 $5. 92 S3, 254, 775 Iowa ................................................................ 4,148,811 6.74. 27,969,624 

l\lissouri............................................... ............ 3, 798, 799 8. 96 15, 043, 246 Kansas............................................................. 2,377,Ml 5.66 13,457,469 Nebraska.......................................................... 2, 834, 525 5. 72 13, Ml, 813 California. .......................... ~............................. 1, 047, 842 4. 62 4, 836, 000 

Oregon ......... -····.............. ................................ 220, 723 3. 01 6~ 819 Nevada. ........... -............................................... 21,087 5.30 111,84.6 Colorado....................... ............................. ...... 23, 419 6. 54 153, 103 

Arizona............................................................. 16, 441 5. 75 94, 536 Dakota............................................................. 533, 970 5. 94 3, 173, 918 

Idaho ..................................................... ... ·-... 42, 150 6. 00 252, 900 l\lontano........ .... ....................................... ...... 22,289 6.77 150,898 -

New l\Iexico...... .......................... ............ ... ...... 19, 941 5. 64 112, 466 Utah................................................................. 40,118 7.15 286,846 

~;~1:!~;~~-~.:·:.:·::::.::·::::.::::·.:::::::::::.:::::::::::::::::::: 9~: m ~: ~ ~: = Indian Territory.............................................. 841, 500 2. 50 2, 103, 750 

Total.. ...................................................... 44,346,525 220:su:oBz 

Average price of hogs from 1883 to 1890. 

Year. 

1883 ........................................... . 1884 .•.•••.••..•.•..•.•...•.•....•.•...•........ 1885 ........................................... . 

1886 ........................... ········•·•···•·· 

Price. 

S6. 75 5.!>7 

5.0'.l 

4. 2-5 

Year. 

1857 .......................................... . 

1888 ...... ....................... ..... ···-··· 1889 .......................................... . 1890 ......................................... . 

Price. 

$1.48 

4.98 

5.78 

4. 71 

Total lard producti-On in the Unil~d States from 1877 to 1888. 

Years. 

1887-'88 ............................ . 1886-'87 ............................ . 

1885-'86 ............................ . 18S4-'85 ...... ...................... . 1883-'84 ............................ . 

1882-'83 ........................... . 

Total. 

Poun<U. 

489, 902, 000 527. 032, 000 514, 230, 000 480, 405, 000 444, 450, 000 

419, 513, 000 

Years. 

1881-'82 ......................... . 1880-'81. ......................... . 1879-'80 •...••.••...••••••••••••... '1878-'79 .......................... . 

1877-'78 ... ....................... . 

LA.RD CO::IIPA.RISONS. 

Total. 

Poun<U. 

468, 929, 000 517, 660, 000 479, 020, 000 514, 295, 000 

t04, 572, 000 

The statistiC3 of lard production in the United States for the past yea.rare not yet completed, but a close approximation can be reached, so far as relates to prod- uct from reported packing operations in the West and East and from s\aughter- in!fS otherwise at New York, Philadelphia., and Baltimore. The Cincinnati Pr1ce.Currentsubmltsthefollowing as indicntlng the production oflard for yea.rs endinir October 31, based on 'Vesternand Ea!Cltern packing returns and esti- mates for other production,( with also the number of hogs thus represented and the quantity of lard exported from the United States for the same periods: 

y a.rs Western Ea.stern Aggre- 1 Western I Eastern Aggre- Lard ex· e · hogs. hogs. gate hogs lard. lard. gate lard. ported. 

--- Number. Nmnber. Numbe1·. Pounds. I Pounds. Pounds. Pounds. 

1~:89 12, 2so, ooo 5, 150, 11, 4~. ooo ~o. ooo, 0001128, ooo, ooo1l?38, ooo, 0001 368, ooo, ooo 188 ,- 88 J 1,.235, 000 4, 890, \NIJj 16, 125, 000 353, 000, 000 122, 000, 000~75, 000, 0001276, 000, 000 

1886-'Si 12, 050, 000/. 4. 870, ~16, 920, 000 3. 90, 000, ()()( 121, 000, 0001'511, 000, 000 324, 000, 000 1885-:s~ 11, 91~. 0001

4, 655, 000116, 600, ooo.too, ooo, ooc 119, ooo, ooo 519, ooo, ooo 298, ooo, ooo 1884- 85

1

11, ~i>, OO<H, 420, 000115, 84-5, 000 402, 000, (;()() 110, 000, 0001512, 000, 000 301, 000, 000 

1883-'&t 9, 4.60, 00014, 355, ooo, 13, 815, 000 3ll, 000, 000 109, 000, 000[420, 000, 228, 000, 000 1889....-'83 9, 915, 000 3, 835, ()()() 13, 745. 000 3:>6, 000, 000 96, 000, 0001452, 000, 000 273, 000, 000 1881-'82 8, 960, 0001

3, 670, 000112, 630, uooi-;os, ooo, ooo 92, ooo, ooo 4.oo, ooo, ooo 24.0, ooo, ooo l ·8(}.-:81\11, 725, 00013, 615, 000 15, ~Q. 000 401, 000, 000 90, 000, 000l491, 000, 0001335, 000, 000 1879- 80112, 275, 000,3, 580, OV01

15, 855, 000 r416, 000, 000 89, 000, 0001505, 000, 000 405, 000, 000 

1878-:79 11, 53Q, 000i3, 400, 000114., 9~, 000 4~, 000, 000 85, 000, 0001509, 000, 000 343, 000, 000 1877- 78 9, SSS, 000,3, 200, 0001

13, 085, 000 3&'>, 000, 000 80, 000, 000 «5, 000, 0001

345, 000, 000 

1876-'77 7, 615, ouo 2, 600, 000110, 245, 000 259, 000, 000 65, 000, 0001324, 000, 0001238, 000, 000 1871>-'76 7.190, 000 2. 500, 000 9, 690, 000 243, 000, 000 62, 000, 000 305, 000, 000 198, 000, 000 

1874-'75 6, 830, 00012, coo, 000 9, 430, 000,221, 000, 000 65, 000, 000 292, 000, 0001168, 000, 000 

For the late year the prorluction of la.rd is shown to have exceeded any pre- >ious year in quantity. For a period of ten yea.rs the 11.verage yearlyl.roduction bas been a.bout 4'!0,000,000 pounds, from the slaughterings indicate . It is im- practicable to undet·take an estimate of all other production, on farms and by the butchers in small towns throughout the country. Nor can a. reliable estimate be giYen as to the proportion of the indicated production which enters commer- cial channels. As compared with. the production shown, the exports for a. pe- riod of ten yea.rd have been equivalent; to 63 per cent. 

Exports from 1873 to 1889. 

Years. !La.rd exported. , Years. Lard exported. 

18i3 ............................... . 1874 ............................... . 

187lS ............................... . 

18i6 .............................. . 

1877 ................. .............. . 1878 .............................. . 1879 ............................... . 1880 ............................... . 1881. .............................. . 

Pounds. 

!?M,90li-5ll 

1 4, 100,226 

167, 679, 377 

198, 008, 212 

237, 744,307 

345, 693, 527 343, 119, 208 406, 437, 658 335, 001, 686 

18' 2 ......•.•..••.••.•..•••.••...• 

1883 ............................. . 

1884 ...... ...................... . 

1885 ............................ .. 

1886 ............................ .. 1887 .•••••••••••.......•••••••.•• 18&8 •••.•••••••••••.•••••••.••.•.. 1889 ............................ . 

Pounds. 

2.39, 904, 6.57 273, 236, 610 

228, 16.5, 733 

301, 305, 105 

298, 083, 09i 324,5US,m 

297, 740,007 

318, 242, 990 

_.. 

.· 

- .• - .. f 

.... 

- # .. ~ 

J: -

r 4 '. 

: 

' .. 
.'• 

. •. 

,· 

.... 

, 

·-

' 8900 CONGRESSIONAL REdORD-HOUSE. AUGUST 20, 

Pl· ice of prime .!leam lard since 1883, from Mr. Olliver. 

Years. 

1883 ......................................... . 1884. ......................................... .. 18135 ............................ ~ .......... .. 1886 ........................................... . 

Price. 

Cents. 

10.12 

8.6 

6.6 

6.0 

Years. 

1887 ....................... ~ ............... .. 1888 ........................................ .. 1889 ......................................... . 

Price. 

Cents. 6.3 

7.2 

6.7 

The exports oflard, and valuation, for ten calendar years, and the average ex- port price per pound and approximate average price at Chical!o, are shown in the following compilation by the Cincinnati Price Current: 

I j 

Export Chicago ' Years. Exported. , Value. price. price. 

1889 .......... ................. ................ .. 1888 .................................. .. 1887 ........................................... .. 1886 ............................................ . 

18&5 ..................................... ....... . 1884 ..................... " .................... .. 1883 ... ....................................... .. 1882 ........................................... . 

188l ........................................... . 188') ..... ................................. . .... .. 

Pounds. 

398, 000, 000 

270, 000, 000 

300, 000, 000 331, 000, ()()() 

297, 000, 900 

228, 000, 000 280, 000, 000 

234, 000, 000 312, 000, ()()() 

415, 000, 000 

$30, 400, 000 23,500,000 

21, 900,000 

22, 500, 000 22,200,000 

20, 100,000 

zq, 000,000 

27, 800, 000 33, 700,000 33,600,000 

DECLINE IN PRICE. 

Cents. 7.60 

8.70 

7.30 

6.80 

7.50 

8.80 

10.20 

ll.80 

10.80 

8.10 

Cents. 6.50 

8.40 

6. 75 6.25 

6.50 

7.95 

9. &5 

ll.45 

10. !JO 7. 3S 

It will be seen from the foregoing that the decline in the price of 

swine began about the time the compound-lard indu8try was fully 

launched, and continued, with one exception, explicable on other 

grounds, until the present time. There was a reaction early in 1889, 

produced doubtless by the expectation that the bill then on the Calendar would become a law; but with the disappointment came a grievous fall of over $1 for every hog in the land, a loss to farmers in one year of nearly $50, 000, 000. That thi!i steady decline in the swine 

market was due in part at least to the invasion of the imitation com- pound can not be doubted by any intelligent observer and practical 

student of onr markets. 

Mr. HERBERT. Will the gentleman permit a question? 

Mr. BROSIUS. I am trying to get through the opening of the debate, and, if my friend will indulge me, I prefer not bemg interrupted. 

I mean no dlllconrtesy at all, and at some other time I s;ti.all be pleased 

to answer t.he gentleman's question, but just now I shall be glad to be 

excused. EXTENT OF TUE INJUTIY. 

The e"lrtent of the injury must be left to conjecture. Accessible data 

are not accurate enough t.o dete1·mine it with scientific el:actness. That 

it is considerable is demonstrably clear. Wells, in his Recent Economic Changes, says: 

Cotton-seed oil is now equivalent t-0 70,000,000 pounds of la rd, and it has con- tl'ibuted to notably reduce lhe price and place of that important product in the world's markets. I 

The statements subjoined of intelligent men long engaged in the 

manufacture of pure lard remove all doubt upon the subject. Their 

te3timony shows that thlll notorious compound lll ruining the pure-lard 

business and injuring the farmers t-0 the extent of millions.of dollars. 

Pure lard can not now, say the witnesses, be produced and sold at a profit. Before the compounding began, refined lard was half a cent 

higher in the market than the steam-rendered lard of commerce, but 

what is now sold as refined lard.is a half cent lower than'' prime steam 

lard." The spurious article, credited by an honest name, like a'' damned error blessed with a text," goes upon the markets with an advantage 

of half a cent a pound over the honest product. It is easily seen how 

this, if continued, would compel honest dealers either to abandon busi- ness or use similar materials and enter into a shameless rivalry in the 

production of this necessary commodity out of the cheapest ingredients 

the chemist's laboratory can furnish. '.rhe subjoined extracts from 

the t.estimony of witnesses examined bear with great directness upon 

this subject: 

E XTRACT RO~! JOIIS C. HATELY'.S "l' ~T. 

FEBRUARY 25, 1688. 

' [Extract from statemen t of l\lr. Jolin C. Hately, of the Chic:igo Board of Trade, before the Senate Committee ou Agriculture.] 

Before the ad ulleration of lard was practiced-say previous to 1883-lard sold from I cent to 3 cents a pound ove:- the side meat. For instance, in 1375, short ribs-that is, the middle of the hog-sold a.t 14} cents a pound. Tha,,t is the high- est price. The highest price of la rd that year was 15f cents; in 1878, 6l cents a pound for ribs, and lard 7.8 cents per pound, Those are the higllest prices of the year. 

In 1884, since this adulte ration of Jard began to be generally known and prac- ticed, the condition of things was this: In 1884, ribs sold at 10.20 and lard at 10 cents; in 188.5, ribs at 6.65 and lard at 7.10; in 1886, ribs at 7.65 and lard at 7.50; in 1887, ribs at 8.95 and lard at 7.925. That shows the difference between the meat and the lard entirely disappeared. The real interest of live·stock exchange comes right in here. The price of hogs is not entirely regulated by any one article made from a hog. · The packer fiKures thus: Suppose he wishes to make short ribs, hams, shoul- d ere, and lard. He knows by experiment that heavy hogs ,vm yield, say, 73 per cent.; they vary, in fact, from 70 to 76, awording to the season of the year. He figures on U thus: Hams wm yield 12 per cent.-the present price of green ham! is 9 cents-that is $1.08; shoulders, at 9 per cent.-pr,sent price of shoul-

, 

·, 

ders, 6 cents-making 45 cents; short ribs will yield 38 per cent. -present price of &Teen short ribs, 7 cents-that is 82.66; lard will yield 1-i per cent. -present price loose lard, 7 cents-making: 98 cents; 73 per cent. of the live hogs ;;ilJ, 

therefore, yield ~.17. 

Figuring the offal11, b-immings, etc., for labor and profit, he knows he can pay $5.17 per 100 pounds live ho~. But instead of lard being the 151\me price as I 

l1ave figured it here, suppose it was as it was pre\•ious t-0 1880, when it was sell- ing more than 1 cent a. pound above the price of the ribs; that.would enable him to pay ~.31 per 100 pounds for live hogs. Take this on about the average weiiiht of hogs receh-ed m Chicago durinit the whole of the season of 1886 of, say, 230 pounds, and it would make a difference of over 32 cents per hog, or a liltle over 82.000,000 more for the hogs that were received in Chicalit"o in 1886 and 1887. '£he commission men would thus have been able to pay, but for this adultera- tion, S2 000,000 per annum more than during the last few years to the people who 

shipped the hogs for sale. If you take this on the entire hog crop of the coun- try, it would amount to from 813,000,000 to $15,000,000, or o. sum nearly three times as large as the entire cotton-oil production. Thus the farmers could afford to buy the oil crop of the nation and pour it into the sea and be millions of dollars in \locket. Therefore, they pelition :you, according to the last clause of their petition, that the Congress of the United Stntes should pass such Ja,vs abd reg- ulalioos as will compel all refiners and dealers to brand all adulterated lard ' ' compound lard," or with some brand such as will plainly distinguish the pure from the impure article, in order that the consumers a t home and abroad may know lhe one from the other. 

ByMr.B.uE: 

Q. How do the statistics compare there with the refined lard &nd the lard you sell ? A. We can only eslimate it. In 1879 there was received in Chicago 75,000,000 

pounds of lard, and according to the returns mado the yield of pure Jard that the packers make amounted to 191,000,000 pounds. TJ1at is 266,000,000 pounds of la.rd that was received and made in Chicsgo. We sbippdd from Chicago 251,COO,OOO pounds. That is leaving about 9,000,000 pounds for the city use. That w as in 1871. In 1882 we received forty-odd million pounds of lard and we made in Chicago 183,000,000,making 223,000,000pounds. We shipped 23.5,000,000 pounds; that is a.bout the time when the adulteration commenced. Now, in 1886-I have not the 1837 statistics yet., as they are not out-but in 1886 we received 881

000,000 

pounds of lard and we made 149,000,000, ma.king 237,000,000 pounds. We snipped 310,000,000, making a difference of 70,000,000. 

Representali ve DcrNH AlI: 

Q. !fit is true, as these figures seem to show, the reduction of all kinds of con- tract Jard in Chicago, and what is known as other lard under our Board of Trade rules, was about 52,000 tierces. That would account for about how much lard? 

A. About 15,000,000 pounds? 

Q. Then it would show that fully 55,000,000poundsof lard were shipped, really more than we have? A. Yes. sir. 

The contemplation of these facts in connection with the superadded 

suggestion of the well known agency ''supply ,, bas in fixing the 

market price produces an invincible conviction that if several million 

pounds of cott.on-seed ail and beef stearine mixed with lard can be 

sold as pure lard the value of the latter most suffer and the producer 

be injured. Upon this conclusion any unbiased mind can rest with 

satisfaction. 

It may be that all communities are not equally affected by this trick 

of trade. Pennsylvania's 1,000,000 swine, worth $8 per head, may 

not have suffered so much as North Carolina's 1,200,000 head, at $3.53; 

or as Alabama's 1,400,000 hea-0, at $3.30; or as Arkansas's 1,500,000, 

at $2.61. But who can fix limits to the extent or bounds to the duration of the possible.injury if no restraint lll imposed? I shall not permit thlll child of the witches' caldron to compete with honest Penn- sylvania lard without a protest. I will not in silence suffer thi!I fraud 

to prosper until its mildew blights the pure snowy fiak'es of the hog of 

the garden of the Keystone State, whose people, trnined to honest industry, are unacquainted with the wicked arts of knaves "who thrive 

and fatten when honest plainness knows not how to live.'' 

EFF'E CT ON FOREI GX COlIYETIC.E. 

Of the effect of this fraud upon our foreign commerce we have had 

abundant admonitions from abroad. Foreign governments exceed us in the care they take '' in guarding the parity of food products.'' In some European countiies their lep;islation is ample and effective. 

The following letters from Antwerp and Hamburg are samples of a great number from the commercial centers of Europe which ha.ve 

brought kindly admonitions to our shores. 

A1'"TWERP, 1\"ovember 15, 1887. 

To the v resident and me111bcrs of the Board of Trade of Chicago and lite Produce Exchange of l{ew York: 

GxXTLElm s: In consequence of a. communication of our depat'tment of lard and bacon, we beg to draw your serious attention upon the quality of refined lard which bas lately been shipped from yonr side to our port. The quality does not correspond any more to that which your different re- fineries were accustomed to deliver. In fact, the article seems to have become more a mixture of different kinds of greases and oils than to deserve :my more the qualification of lard. 'Ve consider it to be the interest of your refiners to pu~ an end to this fraud b ecause the consumer would take a real dislike to it and the lard trade would suffer a great depreciation if buyers could not obtain any more what they 11re 

entitled to. MoreoYer, we are afraid that tbe neighboring Gove rnments, which have al- ready prohibited the imports of bacon, having their attention drawn on the above bad quality of lard, might eq.ually prohibit this product. . The disastrous consequence of this to the trade in general may easily be appre- ciated, and we trust, i:entlemen, that you will, in any way you think proper, communicate our complaint to the dUferent lard refiners or your country, giving them to understand that in this occasion we speak as well in their interest than in ours. 'Ve are, e-entlemen, yours, obediently, for the society, P. ROELS, Presidmt. 

OT. SANO, Secretary. 

· ..... 

,,. 
·. 

. _ . - .. ·. ·- .. . .. ~. 

·.· ,. . ': ·. . . 

1890. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 8901 . 

EMIL SA~A>ERS, GB. REICHENST~, 81.1., 

Hamburg, January 4, 1888. 

Telegram address: "Sande.res." 

DEAR Srns: I confirm my respects of yesterday, and have none of your favors to reply to. Lm·d.-Our ma.rketis firm; we quote: Choice 'Vestern steam, at M., 39!; Fair- bank refined, at l\L, 37;l-; Armour packing refined, at M., 37t. A brand, Page & Co., of Chicago, was offered a few days ago at 34 cif.; but the quality of this so-called lard is too miserable. I have not been able to sell of yourla.rd,owing to the cheap offerings of the various adulterated lard. WeU,I trust the bill which is to be broui'bt beforeyourCongresstoenactalawagainst abominahle aduheration of lard will be adopted by your legislators. If it were not for the fear which I have that our Government might prohibit importation of American la.rd altogether, I should undertake some steps t-0 have inhibited in our markt't the sale ot these mixtures for pure hog lard. I have seen of late dif- ferent brands of these adulterated lards, which were sold as refined lard, and which were composed to the greatest extent of mutton tallow, etc., and cott-on- seed oil; it was a. miserable stuff, and, in my judgment, not wholesome food. It is not only in our mutlli\l interest, but in favor of the entire pork-packing in- dustry in your country, that your legislators should enact a. bill inhibiting the shipment of such stuff to foreign countries, and especially to Germany, as our Government is closely watching diseases and adulterations. The recent prohiblLion to import Danish hog products into Germany speaks for it. I fully believe that our Government knows already of these lard adul- terations; and if your legislators do not hasten to stop these fraudnlousand dis- honest manipulations, in every instance, no doubt, even injurious to health, I should not be surprised to see ere long the importation of American lard into Germany simply prohibited, the same as it was the case with American meats. Our legislatory body (Reichstag) is in majority favoring the agriculture, and would only be glad to adopt such a lead. Now, I hope that your lej?islators will have the good sense to enact a law which will not only protect producers and consumers in your country, but also avoid measures of our Go,.-ernment-, which might greatly injure the whole American pork-packing industry. 

Trusting to hear from you soon, I remain, dear sirs, Yery truly yours, EMJI., SANDERS. l\Iessrs. JOH..~ P. SQUIRE & Co., Boston. 

I find an article in the New York J ourual of Commerce of March 28, 

1888, which expresses such sound views on this subject that I wiU 

read it: 

[From the New York Journal of Commerce of 1\-Iarch 29, 1888.] 

ADULTERATED FOOD. 

\Ve have received a. number of communications, the writers of which com- plain that the public investigations concerning the adulteration of food orod· ucts is doing a. great injury to the export trade. To which we reply that if the articles exported w!ll not bear a public exoosure of their contents it is high time that the trade in them should suffer the odium it deserves. Not long since an official body at Antwerp addressed the New York Produce Exchange com- plaining of these adulterations, and especially of the mixtures sold as lard. To this the Exchange here replied somewhat sharply that it was because the for· eign dealer demanded such adulterat.ions, or at any rate preferred to purchase the mixed stuff at a lower rate to paying tlie higher price for a pure article, that the exporters dealt so largely in the brands of which complaints had been made. Following this correspondence the London Excbnnge sent over to the New York Exchange a. communication upon the same theme, calling attention to the fa-0t that if the British laws aga.itlrlt the importation of adulterated food were strictly enforced, these mixed articles would be confiscated. The members of our Exchange, in considering this appeal, put themselves on record as in favor of a proper brand for all articles of export, but in the discussions of the subject 

they persisied in the assertion that the fault lay far more with the foreign pur- chaser than with the American produce:-, who furnished what was required of him. \Ve do not deem this a. sufficient, nor even a proper, reply to the appeal. Be- cause there are dealers in Europe who prefer to have a spurious or adulterated product stamped as pure and genuine, on account of the lower price at which it can be sold, the American manufacturer can not justify himself in becoming a party to the fraud. Nor will he find it profitable in the long run to lend himself to any such compromise. A sturdy blacksmith in Connecticut made first-class axes. tempering each one with his own hand, and stamped his initials," A. T.," on every ax. A company was formed to make axes by machinery, nnd they were much cheaper than the axes made by A. T.; but he had orders for as many as he could turn out., even at the higher price. Then the company hired him, paid for the use of his name, and stamped his initials on all their axes. The quality was inferior, the difference was found out, and the company went into bank- 1·uptcy. Poor A. T. went back to his country shop, which was only a mile from our own birth-place, and died in poverty. The fact that foreigners do not discriminate as they should in favor of genuine 

goods, and show their willingness to pay the higher price demanded for a pure article, is not as much totheirditicreditasclaimed by our dealers. For instance, an Englishman sent out a. provisional order for pure lard. He was answered by caole that an article wholly pure would cost half a. cent a pound more than the quotation. He replied t.ha.t he could purchase at his own door "pure leaf lard" for the lower price. This is quoted as showing that he preferred to buy mixed lard at tb.at price t-0 paying half a cent moref.->ra.pure article. But there is another possible int.erpretation of his action: He may have believed that the brand stamped "pure," aud offered him there, was as likely to be free from im- purities a.s the article offered here at the higher rate. Our readers know the position we have always taken on this subject. We protest a~inst every form of adulteration, unless the brand shows its true char- acter. If any one likes to eat oleomargarine on his bread, we have no objection; but no dealer shall sell it to him under the name of butter. Ifa gou1·mand 

prefers cotton-seed oil to the golden product of the olive, he may have it to bis heart's content; but we would punish severely every dealer who offers the cot- ton-seed product with a French or Italian label nnd swears that it is the pure olive-oil. According to the testimony taken at Washington, the product of one establishment was labeled "pure leaf lard," or in similar terms, which was made of cotton-seed oil and possibly some other greasy matter, and bad not in it a. particle of the hog product. The man who put up that manufacture and thus branded it ought t.o go to state prison for ten years. We are not waging a crusade against oleomargarine, cotton-seed oil. a cotton- seed substitute for lard, split pease to supersede coffee, or any of the common sub- stitutes for the spices. Our protest is against the sale ofany of these under another name, whereby the consumer is chea.led into the belief that he is eating some- thing very different from the articles of which it is composed. It has been said that so much capital is now invested in these huge swindles that it is impossible to apply any corrective, and the public ipay as well accept the inevitable and eat what is set before them, asking no questions. 'Ve do not believe that state- ment. It is possible to detect and expose these mixtures and adulterat-ions, and 

' it Al~!:;;~~~ ~:p~~~b~~int:s~ fi~~t~~~~~!at:i;dh~rt by the false brands put on 

the prorlucts sent to foreign countries .. 1\Iillions upon millions of dollars have already been lost to the country through these frauds, and the falling off in busi- ness will be more and more apparent with each returning season. We must 

1, 

·. 

be honest to make a permanent success in any enterprise. The laws of trade, 

if they are laws at al1, a.re the laws of God, for He is the only lawgiver in the universe. It is a. libel on His character to claim that business success can be founded, built up, and perpetuated in fraud. The evil may not be speedily ar- rested, but if it is not it will work, sooner or later, the ruin of all concerned. TQ doubt that honesty is the only foundation of altrue prosperity is to deny the sovereignty of the Almi1?hty. Those who have defied His rule have in all time walked -a perilous path, whose end is always destruction, a.nd that without remedy. 

The following from the report of the consul of the United States at 

Nantes for February, 1890, further illustrates the situation: 

NANTES, May 21, 1889. 

Mr. President, members of the Chamber of Comm-erce : GE:NTLEMEN: We have just called your attention to a fraud which is com- mitted on a large sea.le and entails a considerable loss to our agriculture. In fact, almost the entire quantity of American lards which are imported into France and our colonies contains an average of 50 per cent. of cotton-seed oil. To be convinced of this fraud it. is only necessary to refer to the lawsuit which took place recently in England. (See Union bretonne, 9th August, 1888; Espe- rance du peuple, 27th August, 1888.) 

It is evidently impossible for the French manufacturers to meet such dishonest competition, so, while the average price of lard is about 145 francs per 100 kil· ograms, the selling price of this fraudulent lard can be fixed thus: Francs. 50 kilograms pure American Jard, at 120 francs per 100 kilograms.......... ....... 60 50 kilograms cot.ton-seed oil, at 80 francs per 100 kilograms..................... ...... 40 

100 

That is to say, a difference of 45 francs per 100 kilograms. Viewed from the point of commercial morality, one can not but be astonished to see the Government tolerate such a frauti in lard, since, per contra, there ex- ists a law of recent. date which condemns the adulteration of butter and com- pels the dealers to stamp upon every package, the contents of which are a.dul· ternted, the label "Graisse alimentaire." Thanks to these proceedings, the market of our colonies is entirely supplied 

by American lards, and that of France also to a great degree. At different time11 we have furnished you numerous documents incontrovertibly sμbsta.n· 

tiating these facts; we content ourselves now with calling your attention t-o the following figures. There was expor~d from FranceTo-

!tiartinique ............................................................................ . Guadeloupe ......................................................................... . Reunion ................. ............................................................. . 

1883. 1888. 

.Franc.. Francs. 

141,000 

~: ~ ""100:000 

Without speaking of the loss of freight to our merchant marine, see the con• sequences which must likewise result to our agriculture. In view of this condition of affairs the manufa.ct-urers of sa.lt-ed provisions and lards will only buy those hogs which will yield the smallest quantity of lard, that is to say, those weighing from 60 to 80 kilograms, and reject those weighing more, from 85 to 120 kllograms. This will evidently result in a decrease in the meat product, for premiums won at fairs can not destroy the effect of re- strictions imposed by comiμerce. The remedy for this sad condition of affairs would be to tax American lards 30 francs per 100 kilograms; in a word, to protect our native prod notion as other countriesdo theirs. All commercial correspondence shows beyond contradiction that the enor- mous outlay which we make for our colonies only serves to make a market for foreign products. 

By referring elsewhere to the duties which are levied on French products on their entry into America, it would be seen that 30 francs is a moderate figure. 

l\IELLINET, DESBOIS & CO., 

Boguien Ba1·don, etc. 

[Extracts from uewspapers.] 

We find in The Liverpool Evening Express, of 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 partic· 

ularly concerns a branch of t.rade most important in our city, as well as many grocers, and, above all, the consumers themselves, and consequently the public health. Why, then, should we refrain from calling our readers' attention to this grave question? Below is a. resume of the trial: 

FRAUDS IN LARD-IMPORTANT PROSECUTIONS. 

Several wholesale dealers and importers of Liverpool have been summoned before the C'ourt of that city for selling American lards which did not conform to the requirements of the law, either in character, substance, or quality. Mr. Marcks, as a member of the health committee, conducted the prosecu- tion. He said that on May 14 Inspector Baker, whose duty it is to supervise the sale of all food products, 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 he analyzed (bearing the brands of Armour & Co. and Fairbanks Brothers, of Chica.go) 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 that the lard he analyzed con· tained even more than 50 per cent. of the mixture. Ile added that the pi;oduc· tion of cotton-seed oil in the United States amounts annually to between 180,-

000,000aud 200,000,000 pounds, and that one half of it is used to adulterate the product whicil is sold under the name of .. refined lard." Dr. Brown still further added that, while genuine lard is worth 42s. 6d. perlOO 

pounds, cotton-seed oil is only worth 22s. 6d. and beef suet 30shillings. The fraud- ulent manufacturers reap an enormous profit, which is a grievous blow to the honest manufacturers who sell the genuine article, and at the same time the con- sumers are buying a commodity which is fraudulent, defective, and improper. The defendants were convicted. The reading of this trial reminds us that Le Soleil, of July 7, mentions n. case where one hundred soldiers of the One hundredth regiment, at Perpignan, were poisoned, it is said, by the use of American grease in preparing codfish. 

Now, Ur. Speaker, it must be demonstrably clear that we can not 

forever cheat the commercial world, and it is inevitable that hostile 

action will be taken abroad unless honest action is taken at home. 

Mr. MORGAN. Will my friend permit me to ask him a question? 

Mr. BROSIUS. I 'Yould be very glad to indulge my friend under 

other circumstances; but he knows what a thief of time these questions are. [Laughter.] 

.I"',. 

~ .. 

' .· 

·. 

....... 

-i -

~ ·. 

, .... 

:. _,, 

-~ ~· 
;;. 

.,. 

~ . 

\. 

.-. 

,. 

-... ,_ 

. l 

I -

.~ . 

. : -. -

8902 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. AUGUST 20, 

HOW THE EVIL IS TO BE PREVENTED. 

]Ir. Speaker, I want to direct the attention of the House very briefly 

to another inquiry, very important: . Will the propo~ed legislation remedy the evil? The passage of thIS 

bill will at least suppress that portion of the compound-lard trade 

which is fraudulent and piratical. The honest residue is entitled to 

1·emain under such restrictions as will guaranty the public against its 

reversion to the original sin. Before the passage of the oleomargarine 

law, it was estimated that 200,000,000 pounds ofbogns butter was produced in the United States to compete with the pure product of the 

cow. The year 1888, ending June 30, the product was 34,325,527 

pounds. In 1889, to June 30, it was 35,664,026 ponnds. The difference in the figures before and after measures the amount of corum:mption due to the imposition involved in the spurious manufacture. 

It has already been observed that the product of " compound " 

lard last year reached the ~normous. am?unt o~ 320,'000,000 P?UD;ds. 

What portion of this is due to the d1sgmse which cloaks the villamy 

and enables it to masqnerade in the markets of the world as the genuine rendered fat of the hog will appear from the residue which sur-

'Vives after the fraud has been touched by the Ithuriel spear of this 

law and the commoditv stands -unmasked upon its merits. 

Mr. Speaker, I do not desire to detain the House after the ordinary 

hour of adjournment; and as it is now 5 o'clock--

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will be entitled to resume the floor when this order :is again taken up. 

fr. MORGAN. TTnless the gentleman is fatigued, I ho_pe he will 

conclude his remarks this evening, as the time appropriated to this 

question is limited. 

Mr BROSIUS. "Very well, l\fr. Speaker, I shall be glad to continue 

for a ;.ery few minutes, if agreeable to the Honse, as I can within that 

time conclude all I care to say in opening this debate. · 

The total lard prod net last year was estimated at 600, OO(f, 000 pounds. 

Deducting 320,000,000 pounds of this imitation. article and there re-

.main 280 000 000 pounds of genuine lard as agamst upwards of 500,-

000 000 pounds annually produced, without laying under contribution 

either cotton or cattle or the cist.ern prior to the introduction of the 

spurious commodity. This displacement is enormous. That any of the ingredients used in the compound lard are deleterious does not appear. The manufacturers are unwilling to give away 

their formula, and the exact truth bas been designedly concealed. No 

means are known of ascertaining with aecuracy the pToportions of the 

-various ~redients used. "No admittance "is the Cerberus which 

guards with unrivaled fidelity the factory doors which shut in the 

secrets of this manufacture. It is, however, shown bytheGovemment 

chemist tha.t in some of the sa-mples analyzed no lard was discxrvered. 

The facilities for imposition in this occult business are immense. The 

possibilities of the laboratory have never yet been exhausted. Those 

who do not scruple to put an adulterated article of food on the market under the name and brand of a pure, re.fined article are of too easy 

virtue to withstand the temptation to extend their conquests to deleterious ingredient.a if the resources of chemistry could supply them. 

FAIRBANK UNMASKS. 

Mr. Fairbank shows the flexibility of his commercial conscience in 

lrls testimony before the committee, 'as follows: 

If we consider that we can make a.n article that meets the demands of our trade fulfills the wants of the trade, and is pure and wholesome a.nd valuable, .and ~n put. in 50 PtR' cent. or 60 per cent. of cotton-seeu oil, and harden it with 20 per cent. of lard to make it firm, it meets the demands of onr trade, that is all they (consumers) want. We know what they want better than they do themselves. By l\1r. GEORGE: 

Q. Do you think if there was only 20 per cent. of lard that it would be right 

lo brand that as re.B..oed lard? . • . . A. Yes, sir; if we choose to use our brand, which is o~r capital m busu~ess, 

and which is the thing we make our money out of, which is our reputat10n; and we a.re able to sell that well known brand all over the country in larger 

quantities the.n any other concern in the world, of refined lard, very much larger and we have been doing- it for twenty-five years. U we choose to say we n.r~ willing to put in our brand of refined la.rd only about 20 per cent. of lard we consider it perfectly fair to do it. 

I read this, Mr. Speaker, with great reluctance, as these manufacturers are American citizens. 

.Here Mr. Fairbank unmasks himself, yet he seems to still lack the 

courage to take the mask fro~ the comm~dity in which he ~e~ls, and 

give consumers an opportunity of selectmg between the 011 com-

_pound" and the fat of the hog. I do not believe there is any intention 

to assail the health of the people, but their pockets. It is not to poison, 

but to pilfeT, that these arts of concealment are employed. Nor is 

their insensibility to the obli~ations of commercial morality limited to 

domestic trade. Theypress their advantage abroad a.swell as at home, 

.and have seemed willing to smuggle their goods into foreign countries 

in violation of their revenue laws by concealing their constituents. 

George W. Webst.er, representing Armonr & Co., in his testimony, 

said--

Mr. CA.TCHINGS. I would like to ask the gentleman a question if 

he will permit an interruption. 

Mr. BROSIUS. Well, now, if my friend would only ask mea question I would be very glad to accommodate him; but I know if I yield 

·to him what would follow, and hence I must decline to yield. 

.. . I , 

I ask the Clerk to read in this connection an extract from the testimony of Mr. Webster, who represented the Armour Company and which 

speaks for itself. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

There is another point in connection with this subject which applies partfcule.rly to this country and to which we wish to draw your attention. J .ard pe.ys no duty coming into France; cotton-seed oil is taxed 7 francs p&r 100 kilos. The law says that a. compounded article in which it is impossible to establish the exact proportion of each ingredient or component part is to be taxed accord- ing to the highest duty chargeable on any of its component parts. Let it once be established that refined la.rd contains cotton-seed oil and there is no doubt that the full duty on the latter, namely, 7 francs per 100 kilos, will be applied to all refined lard. This is equal to five-eighths of a. cent a pound, and will have to come off the price the Boston packer asks for his lard. 

Mr. BROSIUS. It would seem that nothing ''stands in the light of 

these people so long as the devil holds the candle for them.'' 

This, Mr. Speaker, is appalling, and every American should blush 

who reads it. 

And this compound does not seem to be amenable to the chemist's 

law of definite combining proportions, by which a certain amount of 

each of different ingredients combines to produce a given compound. 

THE WITCHES' CALDRON. 

It is a formula of marvelous flexibility and has all possible pTopor~ 

tions, if not ail possible ingredients, for its own. 

What the people ha>e been consuming in the past no history relates, 

and what they may be fed on in the future, if this imposition is not 

curtailed, bafiles the utmost resources of prophecy. What compound 

essences and superre:fined quintessences may be used in this conscienceless race for the markets no mortal can tell. The witches' caldron 

may be put under contribution, and under the wand of the lard magician made to yield the essences of its manifold and varied contents. 

I beg to reproduce in this connection Shakespeare's description of 

this incomparable stew, that we may keep abreast with the progress 

of food transformations in this enlight~ned age. 

The Clerk read as follows, from Macbeth: 

A darlc cave. In the m iddle, a caldro1i boiling. 

Thunder. Enter three witches. 

1 Wilch. Round about the caldron go; In the poison'd entrails throw. Toad, that under coldest stone, 

Days and nights hast thirty-one Swelter'd venoru sleeping got, Boil thou first i' the charmed pot! 

.All. Double, double toil and trouble; 

Fire, burn; and, caldron, bubble. 

2 Witch. Fillet of a fenny snake, 

In the caldron boil and bake : Eye of newt, and toe of frog, Wool of bat, e.nd tongue of dog, Adder's fork, and blind-worm's .sting, Lizard's leg, and owlet's wing, 

{f:e3 a.~i:h~~tt ~TI'~~J1'b~:lT~. All. Double, double toil and trouble; 

Fire, bum; and, caldron, bubble. 

3 Witch. Scale of dragon, tooth of wolf; Witches' mummy; maw and gulf 

Of the raven'd salt-sea shark; Root of hemlock dlgi:'d i' the dark; Liver of blaspheming Jew; Gall of goat, and slips of yew, Sliver'd in the moon's eclipse; Nose of Turk, and Tartar's lips; 

Finger of birth-strangled babe, Ditch-deliver'd by a. drab, Make the gruel t.hlck and slab: .A.dd thereto a tiger's chaudron, For the ingredients of our caldron. 

All. Double. double toil and trouble; 

Fire, burn; and, caldron_, bubble. 

2 Witch. CooUt with a baboon's blood, Then the charm is firm and good. 

ILanghter.] 

Mr. SPRINGER. I ask that the gentleman's words be taken down. 

[Laughter.] 

M:r. BUCHANAN, of New Jersey. In otnerwords, "This is grease, 

but living grease no more." 

Mr. HATCH. If it would snit the gentleman from Pennsylvania, 

I would ask him to yield· and permie the motion suggested by the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. CONGER] that the Honse adjourn. It is now 

5 o'clock. 

Mr. BROSIUS. I am perfectly willing to do so if it be the wish of 

the House. But I wil 1 state that I shall conclude what I desire to say in 

the opening of this discussion in a few moments. [Cries of ''Goon!''] 

Mr. HATCH. Very well; I withdraw the suggestion. 

REVE!.""UE • 

l\fr. BROSIDS. In estimating the revenue derived from this bill it 

is fair to assume that there will be about as many mannlacturers, 

wholesale dealers, and retailers as there are under the oleomargarine 

law, which, according to the report of the Commissioner of Intemal 

Revenue for 1889, was as follows: . 

Manufacturers---------------- --"- ----- ------ _ ------------- 23 

Wholesale dealers __________ ------ ----------------------- 160 

Retailers-----------------··------------------------------ 3, 906 

- I' 

... 
... ,.. ,• J • ... ~ .- ' ; J .. 

. ~-

' •I 

1890. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 8903 

At these :figures the aggregate annual fees would be $14,102. The 

tax at 2 mills per pound would d~pend on the production. 

The revenne collected under the oleomargarine law for 1889and1890 

is shown in the following statement furnished by the Commissioner 

of Iuternal Revenue: 

Special 

Collection taxes, manYear. at 2 cents ufacturers, Total. per pound. wholesale 

and retail dealers. 

Year ended .Tune 30, 1889 ......................... $677 ,302. 40 $216, 94.5. 51 $894, 247. 91 Year ended June 30, 1890 ......................... 619, 200. 72 167,086.00 786,291. 72 

Decrease last year .......................... 58,096.68 49,859.51 107, 956.19 

- -

In view of the extremely low tax imposed in the bill and the merely 

nominal license foes required, the business would probably yield about 

one-tenth the revenue collected under the oleomargarine law, or about 

the sum of $75,000. 

It is said we do not need this revenue. It is too obvious to need to 

be stated that we can profitably use it. Ifwe should at any time have an excess, we can relieve some honest trade and lay under contribution 

those who need restraint and regulation. No man has ever questioned 

the right of the Government to select the subjects of taxation, and in 

doing so Congress will, if practicable, secure incidental ~nefits in con- nection with revenue. We are not required by any constitutional man- date to lay our revenue duties so that no benefit to the public will ac- company the collector on his rounds. That it brings a double blessing 

is greatly in its favor. Tariff, with incidental protection, is a doctrine 

which encounters no dissent from the most conservative statesman. 

We select the subjects of impost with reference to the incidental benefits secured. Similarly, in imposing revenue taxes we should secure the maximum benefit with the minimum cost. The ruost of the best 

and the least of the worst results should be the aim of Government in 

its administration under all circumstances. "Is it t.o be said," once 

retorted the greatest constitutional expounder this country ever knew, 

"that we have the clear and nndoubted power to take so much money 

out of your pockets and apply it t.o public purposes, but God forbid 

that in doing so we would do yon any good at the same time?'' 

PRESIDE1'"T CLEYE.Lil'D'S VIEWS, 

Some suggestions of President Cleveland, in his message accompanying his approval of the oleomargarine a.ct, are so apropos that I take 

the liberty of reproducing them in this connection: 

If this article has the merit which its friends claim for it and if the people of the ln.nd, with fhll knowledge of its real character, desire the purchase and use of it, the taxes reached by this bill will permit a fair profit to both manufacturer and dealer. If the existence ot the commodity taxed and the profits of its manufacture and sale depend upon disposing of it to the people for something else which it deceitfully imitates, the entire enterprise is a fraud, and not an industry; and if it can not endure the exhibition of its real cha.raeter, which will be affected by the inspection, supervision, and stamping which this bill directs, the sooner it is destroyed the better, in the interest of fair dealing. 

* * • * * * * Nor should there be opposition to the incidental effect of this legislation on the part of those who profess to be engaged honesUy and fairly in the manu- facture and sale of a wholesome anhaJuable article of food which by its pro- viRions ma.y be subject to taxation. .As long as their business is carried on under cover and by false pretenses such men have bad companions in those whose manufactures, however vile and harmful, take their place without challenge with the better sort in a common crusade of deceit against the public. But if this occupation and its methods are forced into the light, and all these m.anu- factnres must thus either stand upon their merits or fall, the good and bad must soon part company and the fittest only will survive. . Not the lea.st important incident related to this legislation in the defense afforded to the consumer against the fraudulent substitution and sale of an imitation fora genuine article of food or very general household use. Notwith- standing the immense quantity of the article described in this bill which is sold to the people tor their consumption as food, and notwithstanding the claim made that its manufacture supplies a cheap substitute for butter [we venture to sub- stitute the word lard for butter in this connection], I venture to say that hardly a pound ever entered a poor man's house under its real name and in its true character. 

LAnd we assert that this is true in regard to the articles with which we are now dealing.] 

While in its relation to an article of this description there should be no gov- ernmental regulation of what the citizen shall eat, it is certainly not a. ca.use of regret if by legislation of this character be is afforded a means by which he may better protect himself against imposition in meeting the needs and wants of his daily life. Having entered upon this legislation, it is manifestly a duty to render it as effective as possible in the aooomplishment of all the good which should legiti- mately follow in its train. 

THE DUTY OF CONGRESS. 

Now, Mr. Speaker, it is high time this nation was doing something 

to put commercial piracy under tbe ban of the law. When dishonest 

traffic shall cease; when we can curtail the power of the monopolist, 

who usurps and controls the markets, as the Big Four have controlled 

the beef market of the country, and as the compound-lard fraud is attempting!'° control the lard markets of the world; when we can protect honest trade from commercial brigandsandmonopoly knaves, who corner and pool until the phantom wheat and the spectral hog fix the 

,. 

, . 

.. . ,-

price of the real wheat of the field and the swine of the pen, and every 

poor man's breakfast table pays tribute to some clique or pool or monopoly or syndicate, then will a ray oflightflash across the darkened pathway of our depressed industries. To this end it is not too much to ask 

Congress to give the stricken and the struggling such assurance as the 

passage of this bill will convey, "That what the canker-worm hath 

left, the caterpillar shall not take.'' 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has 

not consumed the whole of his time. 

Mr. BROSIDS. I reserve the remainder of my time, and I move that 

the Housedo now adjourn. • Pending the announcement of the vote, the following occurred: 

MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT. 

A message from the President of the United States, by Mr. PRUDEN, 

one of his secretaries, announced that he had approved and signed acts 

of the following titles: 

An act (H. R. 3018) granting a pension to J. Phil. Hurlbut; 

An act (H. R. 4427) to restore to the pension-roll the name of Mrs. 

Mary E. Boeke; 

An act (H. R. 9008) to increase the pension of Zo S. Cook, of Wilcox. 

County, Alabama; 

An act (H. R. 8391) making appropriations for fortifications and other 

works of defense, for the armament thereof, for the procurement of heavy 

ordnance for trial and service, and for other purposes; 

An act (H. R. 7058) to ratify and confirm an agreement entered into 

by commissioners on the part of the States of New York and Pennsylvania in relation to the boundary line between said States; 

An act (H. R. 4167) granting a. pension to Lorenzo D. Whitford; 

An act (H. R. 7885) granting a pension to R. Allen McCormick; 

An act (H. R. 5107) for the relief of David L. Truex; 

An act {H. R. 6454) t-0 establish a national military park at the battle-field of Chickamauga; and 

An act (H. R. 10726) making appropriations for the current and con- tingent expenses of the Indian Department, and for fulfilling treaty 

stipulations with various Indian tribes, for the year ending June 30, 

1891, and for other purposes. 

LEAVE OF ABSENCE. 

By unanimous consent, leave of absence was granted as follows: 

To Mr. CRAIG, indefinitely, on account of important business. 

To Mr. GEISSENILHNER, indefinitely, on account of sickness. 

To Mr. GIFFORD, indefinitely, on account of sickness in his family. 

To Mr. HOOKER, indefinitelyi on account of sickness in his family. 

To Mr. PICKLER, for ten days, on account of sickness. 

To Mr. YODER, for two weeks, on account of sickness and important 

business. NATHANIEL M'KA.Y ET AL. 

The SPEAKER p1·0 tempore laid before the Honse the. following: 

l'rlr. THOMAS asks leave t-0 withdraw from the files of the House without leav- ing copies papers in the case of Nathaniel McKay et al. 

Mr. SPRINGER. What is that request about the McKay case? 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. It is for the withdrawal of the papers 

in that case without leaving copies. 

Mr. SPRINGER. There is a. rule of the Honse on that subject 

The papers can be withdrawn by leaving copies with the Clerk. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The request is that they may be witl!-

drawn by unanimous consent without leaving copies. 

.Mr. SPRINGER. I object to that. The rule is that copies shall be 

left with the Clerk. 

The motion of Mr. BROSIUS was agreed to; and accordingly (at 5 

o'clock and 18 minutes p. m.) the House adjourned. 

SENATE BILL REFERRED. 

Under clause 2 of Rule XXIV, a Senate bill of the following title 

was taken from the Speaker's table and referred as follows: 

A bill (S. 4229) granting a right of way through certain lands ot the 

United States in the Territory of Utah-to the Committee on Military 

Affairs. 

HOUSE BILL WITH SENATE AMENDJltIENTS REFERRED. 

Under clause 2 of Rule XXIV, a. Honse bill of the following title, 

with Senate amendments, was taken from the Speaker's table and re- ferred as follows: 

A bill (H. R. 526) to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to pro- cure and submit to Congress a proposal for the sale to the United States 

of the western part of the Crow Indian reservation, in Montana-to 

the Committee on Indian Affairs. 

RESOLUTIONS. 

Under clause 3 of Rnle :XXII, the following resolution was introduced and referred as follows: 

By M:c. ANDERSON, of Kansas: 

Euolved, That Rule XV, section 2, be so amended as to provide that when the 

' . 

I I 

I• 

.. . 

,. '

~. 

, . 

:-

.' 

I • • 

- .... . 

....... 

. ,. ... "' 

.. . ~ 
. '. 

. . \ 

r • 

'· 

•' I 

. I 

8904 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE . . AUGUST 21, 

roll is called under a call of the House, and when a member voluntarily ap- pears and reports himself before the call of the roll shall be concluded, his name shall appear on the roll as if he had answered to bis name; 

to the Committee on Rules. 

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES. 

Under clause 2 of Rule XIII, a report of a committee was delivered 

to the Clerk and disposed of as follows: 

l\Ir. BINGHAM. from the Committee on Merchant Manne and Fisheries. reported favorably the bill of the Honse (H. R. 11654) to provide 

an American register for the steamer Neptuno, accompanied by a report (No. 2992)-to the Hoa e Calendar. 

BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS. 

Under clause 3 of Rule XXII, a bill and a joint resolution of the following titles were introduced, severally read twice, and referred as fol ~ 

lows: 

By Mr. RICHARDSON (by request): A bill (H. R. 11802) to repeal 

the law entitled "An act to incorporate the Maritime Canal Company, 

of Nicaragua,'' approved February 20, 1889-to the Committee on Commerce. By Mr. O'NEILL, of Pennsylvania: A joint resolution (H. Res. 215) 

to print the eulogies upon Samuel J. Randall-to the Committee on 

Printing. 

PRIVATE RILLS, ETC. 

Under clause 1 of Rule XXII, private bills of the following titles 

were presented and referred as indicated below: 

By Mr. PEEL: A bill (H. R. 11803) to grant a pension to Samuel 

P. Smith, late of Company A, Kentucky Battalion, Volunteer Infantry-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

By l\Ir. TURNER, of New York: A bill (H. R.11804) granting a pension to Harriet Fawpell-to the Committee on Pensions. 

SENATE. 

THURSD~ Y, Au.gust 21, 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. 

PRIVILEGE OF CO~GRESSION.AL LIBRARY. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore laid before the Senate the amendments 

of the House of Representatives to the joint resolution (S. R. 116) extending the privilege of the Library of Congress to the members and 

secretary of the Interstate Commerce CommL"Sion; which were, in line 

4, after the word •' Commission," to insert "and the Chief of Engineers of the Corps of Engineers, United States Army." 

Amend the title so as to read: "Extending the privilege of the Library of Congress to the members and secretary of the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Chief of Engineers of the Corps of Engineers, United Stat<IS Anny." 

Ur. EV ARTS. I move that the Senate concur in the amendments 

made by the Honse of Representatives. 

The motion was agreed to. 

PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore presented a memorial of the WageWorkers' Political Alliance, of Washington, D. C., remonstrating 

against the l?assage of the House antilottery bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Post-Offices and Post-Roads. 

Mr. STOCKBRIDGE presented a memorml of the Board of Trade of 

Detroit, Mich., remonstrating against renting the north pier at Buffa.lot 

N. Y., to private individuals or corporations; which was ordered to 

lie on the table. 

Mr. QUAY (by request) presented resolutions adopted bytbe Philadelphia (Pa.) Tariff Reform Club, remonstrating against the passage of 

the Federal election "bill; which were ordered to lie on the table. . 

Mr. BLAIR. I present a pF1iition of the Wage-Workers' Political 

Alliance, which is a derisive piece of ridicule of the pension system of 

the United States, praying that pensions be granted to all over sixty 

PETITIONS, ETC. land less than twenty years of age, among other things. I move that 

Under clause 1 of Rule :X:XII, the following petitions and papers the petition be referred to the Committee on Pensions. 

were laid ou the Clerk's d esk and referred as follows: The motion was agreed to . 

By Mr. BERGEN: Protest against the McKinley bill and suggestion l\Ir. VANCE presented a memorial of a committee of the Chamber 

from Camden County (New Jersey) Single-Tax Club-to the Commit- of Commerce and Industry of Raleigh, N. C., remonstrating against 

tee on Ways and Means. the passage of the Federal election bill; which was ordered to lie on the 

By Mr. DARGAN (by request): Petition of Martin Quick, of Marl- table. 

borough County, South Carolina, praying that his war claim be re- Mr. REAGAN. I present a petition from the Commercial Club of 

ferred to the Court of Claims under t,he provisions of the Bowman act- Albuquerque, in New Mexfoo, praying for the confirmation by Congress 

to the Committee on War Claims. of the Albuquerque town grant; and I desire to read a passage from 

By Mr. ELLIS: Proofs to be filed with Hoase bill for the relief of the petition and to make a remark in reference to the necessity of aeJeptha Williams-to the Committee on Pensions. tion: 

By Mr. FUNSTON: Petition asking for pension for William Dar- Your petitioners respectfully represent that said gmnt contains only 4 square 

nell-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. leagues and nearly all of whfoh has long; been held in severalty and in actual 

By Mr. GRIMES: Petition of A. H. Hensley and 10 others, of Car- occupancy; f.hat this bill, if passed, will materially aid in perfectfog the title 

roll County, Geor~da, in favor of House bill 8648_to the Commi"ttee to such property; and that such portion Qf said grant as remains common ~ lands of the whole community is consta.n ly being occupied by trespassers. on Agriculture. seeking to acquire tit!e thereto for speculatiye purposes, 1LDd at present, said 

By Mr. KINSEY: Protest of 105 employes of Page & Krausse, of grant being unconfirmed, no public official or body is charged with the protec1 f. II C tion of the same against such trespassers; and · delay in confirmation of the 

81 emp oyt:s of the J. · Pocock an Company, of 31 employes of the said grant will increase the causes for vexatious liti1.1:ation and loss to said comChester-Keller Manufacturing Company, of18 employes of Wolff-Kra- munity. 

mer For Company, and of 131 citizens of South St. Louis, Mo., against 

the passage of the Conger compound-lard bill-to the Committee on 

Agriculture. 

By Mr . .McKENNA: Protest of Single-Tax Club, against the McKinley bill-to the Committee on Ways and Means. 

By Mr. NIED RING HA US: Protest of 25 employes of the Moser Box 

Company, 30 employes of the Kupperle Bros. brass foundry, 40 employes of the Felber machine works, and 11 employes of Glover & 

Finkenour, all citizens of St. Louis, Mo., against the passage of the 

Conger compound-lard bill-t-0 the Committee on Agriculture. 

Also, protest of 13£J employes of the J. H. Courades Chair Company 

and 18 employcs of the Hamilton Brown Shoe Company, all citizens of 

St. Louis, Mo., against the same measure-to the Committee on .Agriculture. · 

By Mr. POST: Resol utious of the Board of Trade of Peoria, Ill., relative to the improvement of the Mississippi River-to the Committee on 

Rivers and Harbors. 

By Mr. WAD DILL: Protest of 476 citizens of Richmond, Va., against 

the passage of the Conger compound-lard bill declaring that the legislation sought wi11 throttle the cotton-oil industry, impoverish the 

planter for the purpose of creating a monopoly of the hog-lard business 

in the bands of a few large packers, who with immense capital and 

packing houses already established can crush out all small competitors-to the Committee on Agriculture. 

I beg leave to mention that under the policy of the Mexican Government in establishing new towns provision was made to endow them 

with 4 leagnes of land, requiring the center of the town to bethe center of 

the 4 leagues of land. The papers which are before the committee now 

upon this subject show that this town was founded, I think, about one 

hundred and sixty or one hundred andseventyyears ago. It is a.considerable city now. In a revolution before the beginning of this century the paper evidences of their title from the Government of Mexico were lost, but we are advised by the papers which they pre ent 

that there are numerous other papers going to ~how that such title did 

exist, besides which we know that that was the policy of the Republic of Mexico. I mention this with a view to suggest that it would be 

a matter of very great interest to the people of Albuquerque if the 

Committee on Private Land Claims l\fould act upon this matter as early as t hey can. I move that the petition be referred to that committee. 

The motion WM agreed to. 

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES. 

Mr. SA WYER. from the Committee on Pensions, to whom was re- ferred the bill (H. R. 6084) for the reliefot Thomas Nelson, reportedit 

without amendment, and submitted a report thereon. 

By Mr. WHITTHORNE: Petition of J. W. Bumpass, of Lawrence 

County, Tennessee, for compensation for property taken by the United 

· .. -~ - . States Army-to the Committee on War Claims. 

Mr. BLAIR, from the Committee on Pensions, to whom was referred 

the bill (H. R. 156t:I) ~ranting a pensiqn to Mrs. Delpbina. P. Walker, 

reported it without amendment, and submitted a report thereon. 

:Mr. TURPIE, from the Committee on Pensio!!.S, to whom were r&-

.· ', 

-. ,,.,