The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1886-05-28
THE HOUSE.
Debate on the Fishery Observation-Disclosures
the Oleomargarine Bill.

Debate on the Fishery Question-Ridiculing
the Oleomargarine Bill.
WASHINGTON, May 27.-Mr. Dingley, of Maine,
| from the committee conference, submitted the
| report of that committee on the shipping BILL
| Mr.. Breckenridge, of Kentucky, thought that
the consideration of the report should be post
| poned until the members of the House had an
opportunity to examine the provisions of the bill
| carefully. The question involved in the Frye
amendment was broader than, at first blush. it
| might appear to be. 1t not only conferred priv
| ileRes, but imposed duty upon the President to
withdraw from foreign vessels certain CONNER
| cial privileges when those privileges had been
denied to American vessels in the country to
which such foreign vessel belonged. The sup
posed need for the provision rose out of the re-
cent troubles with Canada, but there was not a
word in this bill about fishing vessels There
was no hurry for the passage of this bill, and it
could be considered more fully at some future
day than it could now. There was danger of
| war, and the executive had under considera
ton the settlement of the Canadian fishery
trouble.
| Mr.. Dunn, of Arkansas, said the provision did
not apply to the fishery question.
Mr.. Breckenridge thought that If this
true there was less necessity for haste in passing
| question relative to commercial privileges be-
| tween the United States and other countries.
| The objection to the provision was that it ena-
| bled the President to place an embargo upon
Canadian vessels. He would 60 far as the
| gentleman from Maine to protect the fishing in
| terests of Massachusetts and Maine, but he
| wanted to be clear as to what he was doing. He
did not believe in retaliatory or revengeful legis-
| lation He believed more in diplomatic inter-
| course, in patient and honest, candid cor
respondence, with view Of reaching q settle
| ment than he did in executive interference and
| retalitory measures. He had no doubt that the
Canadian difficulty would be satisfactorily set
| tied Two great nations like the United States
and England, were not going to fall out about
matter of fishing which could be settled by ne
gotiatiou.
| Mr. Dingley said that the necessity for the
| proposed legislation had been suggested by the
recent denial Of certain privileges to United
| States vessels in Canadian ports but the law
| ought to be on the statute books without regard
| to the fishery troubles In view Of the fact that
a country was attempting to discriminate against
| certain class of American vessels, 1t was pro-
posed by this bill simply to extend the authority
| given by the act of 1923, so that the President
might issue his proclamation withholding from
| the vessels of any country which Disseminated
| against our vessels precisely the privileges
| which were denied US.
| Mr. Breckenridge inquired whether any coun-
| try, except Canada, now denied any privileges
| to American vessels.
Mr. Dngey replied In the negative.
| Mr.. Breckenridge said he had understood the
| gentleman from Arkansas Mr.. DUNN to state
| that this bill had nothing to do with the Cana
! dian trouble
Mr. DIngley replied that it might be applicable
| to that trouble, but the provision was general
one and applicable to all countries. aud ought to
| be put on the statute book without reference to
| the present difficulty.
| Mr. Dunn said that the Frye amendment did
not pretend or undertake to settle the pending
/ - -~r.kA hat haG oh
ton had to do with the provision was that it had
| furnished the incidents showing that any coun-
| try could withdraw privileges from American
| vessels and that there was no law comforting on
| the President the authority to retaliate. He was
| not accustomed to make tho American eagle
| scream, but he was for his country and for his
country's interests He was in favor Of the
| freest commercial intercourse, but he was not
unmlndful of the law of self-pressrvation
| Mr.. Belmont, of New York, in order to correct
any impression that might prevail to the con-
| trary inquired whether the provision was not a
general one instead of being applicable alone to
| the Canadian difficulty. and whether it did not
| confer merely discretionary power upon the
President question which Mr. Dunn answered
| in the affirmative.
Mr. Reagan of Texas, hoped that the confer
ence report would be agreed to. and that the En-
! gish government might be notified that the
| United States meant to insist on equal privileges
| for it's vessels to those which 1t accorded Cana
| dian vessels.
| Mr. Reed, Of Maine said the present difficulty
arose out of the attempt of Canada to ignore all
| the advances of civilization in regard to the
| commercial relations of the world The pend
| ing proposition simply TO arm the President
| with the right to deprive the Canadians OF the
privileges of which they were depriving citizens
| of the United States
The report then agreed to without division
| The House then went into committee of the
| whole for the further consideration of the oleo-
| margarine bill The pending amendment reduc-
| ing the special tax imposed upon manufacturers
! of oleomargarine from $500 to 800, was lost by
| Al to l44
| Mr. Blanchard, of Louisiana, offered an
| amendment including within the definition of a
| manufacturer of oleomargarine, any person who
uses olsomargarine, or any part OF the ingre-
dents which enter into It's composition, in the
manufacture of butter. Rejected.
| Mr. Reagan of Texas, offered an amendment
extending the provisions of the special license
| tax section to watered milk. adulterated butter
ancient eggs, sanded sugar, glucose syrup, arti6-
| cial honey, candles and soap of less weight than
| they are sold for. bottles of wine and Liquor
holding less quantity than represented, adul
terated wines and brandies, WHISTLES, shoddy
clothes shoes with brown paper soles, or any
article of food, drink or wear which is adulterat
| ed, impure, or of short measure.
Mr. Hatcher raised point of order that the
| amendment was not germane and the chairman
| Mr.. Springer) sustained the point
! Mr. Reagan, however, insisted upon his right
4 TO De nearu III opposlllon 10 the point or order
"a right which the committee did not appear to
be willing to accord him, as his every utterance
was interrupted with cries of "vote' and s.regu-
| lar ORDER" and much noise and confusion existed
| in the hall.
| When some degree Of order had been restored,
| Mr. Reagan argued that the bill either a
! fraud or a revenue BILL and that, if it were the
latter his amendment was perfectly germane,
| but the chairman reaffirmed his decision and Mr.
Reagan took an appeal. The decision of the
! Chair was sustained-l31 to 80.
! Mr. Daniel, of Virginia. moved TO reduce the
| special tax retail dealers in oleomargarine
/ from $48 to $50.
| Mr. Hit of Illinois, opposed the amendment,
believing the judgment of the committee on ag
riculture in fixing the rate of the tax might be
relied upon. The bill was revenue BILL and
there was why 500, 600 900 in taxes
might not be raised from fraudulent butter and
the article of sugar relieved to that amount. If