National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1886-06-02
railroad lands, which was called up by Mr..
THE HOUSE.


Mr.. Weaver, Of Iowa, rising TO question
Of privilege, denied allegations contained
in an editorial published In an Iowa news
paper to the effect that he had betrayed the
interests OF his constituents by opposing
the oleomargarine bill, intlmatlng that the
millions OF Armour had had their influence
in securing this opposition, and declaring
that he had obtained his seat In Congress
by fraud.
All these charges he denounced as I'M
true. lie had been and still was In favor
OF the oleomargarine bill, and It was false
that he had been influenced improperly In
his course in regard to that measure.
The House then went into committee Of
the whole (Mr. Springer; Of Illinois, in the
chair) on the oleomargarine bill. a
The first amendment in order was that
offered by Mr.. Daniel, OF Virginia, abolish
ing the tobacco tax, and IL was rejected
Sc to Ill.
The amendment offered by Mr.. Daniel
abolishiDg the tax on fruit brandy was also
rejected--9S to 1876.
Mr.. Durham, OF Illinois, offered an
amendment reducing from ten cents
pound TO three cents pound, the tax on
oleomargarine.
Then amendments were offered fixing the
rate at four and five cents pound, but they
were rejected, only, however, after a couple
Of hours had been consumed In securing u
quorum.
On motion Of Mr.. Hatch, Of Missouri, the
amendment offered by Mr.. Durham was
amended so as TO fix the rate at eight cents,
and as so amended II was agreed TO.
Mr.. Durham moved 10 strike out the tax
ing section. Lost-90 10 1874. ..t.-
Mr.. Negley and Mr.. Curtin, OF Pennsyl-
vanla, presented the protest Of the trades
assembly OF western Pennsylvania, repre-
senting 10, 600 workmen, against the passage
Of the oleomargarino bill,
Mr.. Tillman, OF South Carolina, presented
the protests of oleomargarine manufacture
era OF New York and Brooklyn and OF the
Charleston Is. C.) merchants' exchange
against the bill. He vigorously defended
the manufacture OF oleomargarine, which
was the poor mans butter, and denounced
the proposition 10 tax II out Of existence.
Mr.. Parker, OF New York, protested
against the petitions presented by Messrs.
Negley and Curtin being regarded ms an
expression OF the sentiment OF 10000
workingmen. They were signed by the
officers OF the order, and not by the men
themselves. A few persons could be easily
reached, easily worked upon, aud easily In
duced TO act In the matter.
Mr.. Butterworth, OF Ohio, defined his
position on the bill. He would vote for any
measure which would separate the dairy
industry from the oleomargarine industry,
but he would support no measure which
would compel his constituents, II they
wanted TO buy substitute for butter, To
pay ten cents pound for II more than they
would otherwise have to pay, simply be
cause 1t entered upon the field us com
| petitor or butter.
Mr. Farquhar, OF New York, regretted
that his colleague (Mr. Parkerl should
have sought to break the force OF the re.
monstrances presented by Mr.. Curtin by
intimating that they did not represent the
sentiment OF the workingmen. No officer
Of trades assembly would dare send tc
Congress an expression Of opinion that was
falsehood, and he had never heard OF @
case IN the history Of any assembly where
the officers had taken II upon themselves u
formulate opinions that were not held IN
common by the whole brotherhood.
Pending further action the committed
| rose. ma
The speaker reappointed Messrs. Blount,
Riggs, and Bingham as conferees ON the
| postofllce appropriation bill.
The House then lat o'clock) adjourned