Butte semi-weekly miner. [volume] (Butte, Mont.) 1886-1890, 1886-07-21
WORKING HARD TO GET HOME
Congress Pnts In q Big Day, Yet Does
But Little. .OleOmargarine in
the Senate.
The House Passes the Sea Coast De.
fence Bill-.PrOpositiOn to Re-
fund the Cotton Tax.
A Four Million Dollar Bond Call.
New Rules by the Civil Service
Commission.

WASHINGTON, July 19.-The Senate took
up the Olemargarine bill and Mr.. Vance
made speech, denouncing the measure as
the most vicious of all the Legislation ever
attempted in the Senate, as most outrage
ously violative Of the Constitution and OF
individual and personal rights. Mr.. Harris
opposed the bill on constitutional grounds
and offered an amendment that the sale of
Olsomargarine unless marked as such be
prohibited in the District of Columbia and
the Territories, which was rejected by d
vote OF 32 to Is. Mr.. Eustis spoke in
favor OF the bill and Mr.. Beck and Mr..
Butler against it. Mr.. Buffers amendment
to apply the principle of the bill to wines
and liquors was laid on the table by vote
OF 2 to 16.
Mr.. Whithorne introduced bill to re-
turn the tax on cotton collected in 1865
66-67 and '68, from the people of the cer-
tain States of the Union to be held or used
by such States for educational purposes.
The Senate then took up the oleomargar-
inc bill and Mr.. Vance proceeded to argue
against it. Mr.. Butler offered an amend
nent extending the principles OF the bill to
wines and liquors. Mr.. Gray addressed
the Senate in opposition to the bill. Mr..
Harris also opposed the bill on the ground
CudS Cuc Oilly pOWtI OOuSTc6S udu W pdSb
the bill was it's power to levy taxes for
revenue, but it was not pretended
that there was at this time the slightest
necessity for an increase Of revenue.
Bill was therefore on it's face at best false
pretense. Its passage would be much more
far reaching danger and serious fraud on
the constitution than all the frauds that
could be practiced on the people by falsely
representing oleomargarine. Mr.. Buffers
amendment was laid on the table, yeas 32
nays IA. Mr.. Van Wyck advocated the
passage OF the bill. Question here, he said,
was whether one honest industry should be
protected against the fraud OF ofanother. No
one would accuse Armour & Co. offraud and
yet their brands were intended to deceive,
one of them was exhibiting it) Armour
& Company's Pure Dairy Butterine" why
dairy why, put in that word and in case
the public got on to the racket on that
brand here was another one exhibiting it)
Armour & Company's Finest Creamery
Butter" This was done, OF course, SO that
the price of this article might reach the
price of genuine butter. The bill, he adj
mitted was not for revenue purposes, nor
was it to build up one industry at the ex-
pense OF another.
He had offered an amendment making it
unlawful to make oleomargarine within
the District of Columbia or the Terrific
ries, unless it was distinctly marked as
such. He was distinctly in favor OF the
bill to that extent, but no further; and he
would be very glad if every State would 80
legislate. The question was then taken on
Mr.. Harris amendment, and it was re-
jected--yeas 1s, nays 80. Mr.-B Beck said
the bill was protection run mad. Congress
might as well undertake to protect the
breeding OF horses against the raising OF
mules. 1t was said that people used the
article because it was cheaper, but the
people did not get the benefit OF the cheap
ness because of this fraudulent branding.
Congress undertook in this bill to deal
with that question, and he saw no consti-
tutional objections to it,
After long debate the Senate adjourned.