The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1886-07-20
THE FORTY-NINTH CONGRESS-
The Senate Considers the 0leomarga-
rine Bill and a Warm Debate Results.
Exchange of Bitter Personalities Between
Senators Ingalls, and Miler-The House
Talks About Fraudulent Land Entries.
Discussion of the Oleomarearine Bill Brings
Out Bitter Personalities.

lecteH by the United States in l863-6-I0, from
the people of certain States of the Union, to be
held or used by such States for educational pur-
poses. Placed on the calendar
Mr.. Conger called up the House bill giving the
consent of Congress to the construction of a
bridge by the municipalities of Menominee,
Mich, and Marinett, Wis, over Menominee
river Passed without amendment
Mr.. Beck called up the Senate bill to authorize
the construction of bridges across the Tennessee
and Cumberland rivers, by the Ohio Valley Rail
road Company. Passed.
The Senate then took up the oleomargarine
bill. and Mr.. Vance proceeded to argue against
it. He opposed the measure as one belong to the
States and not the general government, and
as perncious and nischievous in its
effects. He thought that if Senator Miller had
been entirely candid he would have named, as
among the exigencies calling for this bill, the
necessity of the Republicans carrying New York
at the next election. He had infinitely more re-
spect for the club of the striker than for the
Legislative sneak" The former boldly admitted
his violation of law and was ready to take the
consequences. He said tho Republican Senators
knew the bill was outrage, but butter, like
conscience, makes cowherds tcowardsl of us all. ;"
Laughter. 1t was the necessity of grease to
carry New York two years from now that made
cowherds of them ALL
Mr.. Butler offered an amendment extending
the principle of the bill to wines and liquors.
Mr.. Gray addressed the Senate ia opposition
to the bill.
Mr. Harris also opposed the bill, on the ground
that the only power Congress had to pass the
bill was its power to levy taxes for revenue; but
it was not pretended that there was at this
81, khn clS %NwS oOF
revenue The bill was, therefore. on its face, a
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 represent
ing oleomargarine to be butter. The purpose of
the bill was to prostitute the revenue power to
the accomplishment of an object which Congress
has no power to accomplish. He had offered an
amendment making it unlawful to sell oleomar
garine within the District of Columbia or the
Territories 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
glad that every State would so legislate.
The question was then taken on Mr.. Harris's
amendment, and it was rejected-yeas IL,
nays 49,
Mr. Beck said this bill was protection run
mad. Congress might as well protect the breed
of horses against the raising of mules, or to pro
tect coal mines against the competition of
natural gas.
ment was laid on the table-yeas 80, nays l6
Mr.. Edmunds said that he wished to correct
the impression which some Senators seemed to
have, that this bill proposed to tax one interest
for the benefit of another interest. He did not
so understand the bill. If he did he should be
against it. He supposed that out of every one
hundred people that ate these oleomargarine
compounds ninety-nine believed that they were
eating butter, in the sense in which their grand
fathers and grandmothers and themselves, when
A. T.
of taxes, Congress was required by the Consti
tuition, in terms, to look to the general welfare.
He supposed it was to the general welfare" to
suppress frauds and cheats. and to guard the in
terests of the best portion of the community.
Congress has a right, therefore, to discriminate
against frauds and to taxfhem heavily. while it
did not undertake to tax honest vocations.
Mr.. Vest opposed the bill. He said that every
shadow of pretense that it was revenue bill
had been effectually removed. not only by the
history of the bill since it came into Congress,
but by the open ard undsguised declaration of
the Senator who had charge of the bill Mr..
Miller. The doctrine just laid down by the
Senator from Vermont, defending the bill under
the general welfare" clause of the Constitution,
he proclaimed to be monstrous doctrine 1t
taught the people of the United States that there
was no necessity at all for their State govern
ments He asserted that Congress had no right
to levy tax of one dollar unless the money was
needed to pay the debts or meet the necessities
OF the government, and that it had no right to
do 80 under the general welfare clause. The
doctrine taught here today ignored self gov
ernment wiped out the rights of the States, and
gave to Congress all the functions and powers
which he had been taught to believe belonged
to the several States. This bill was,
of iLself monstrous fraud. It pretended
to ia a revenue bill, but its advocates knew that
it was not a revenue bill-that it was a police
bill, and that Congress had no such police power
If the general government can, under the guise
of exercising its revenue power, interfere to pre-
vent a fraud in food product, no matter how
glazing that fraud, then Congress can come into
any State and usurp the functions of the State
authorities. The Constitution never inten 1ed
that Congress should act police instrument
tality. l represent one OF the greatest agrcult.
ural States of the Union, but neither the agri-
cultural interest nor any other interest will in
duce me to violate the Constitution. Mr. Ar
mour says that his best customers for butterine
are dairymen-that his largest trade comes from
the men who are engaged In the sale of ''pure
Attorney dairy butter" If / vote for this bill
vote to subvert the principle of free government;
vote to use the machinery of the government
out Of the sphere where the Constitution has
placed it, In order to forward and advance the
interests Of one set Of citizens at the expense of
another set If frauds committed by this
o.eomargarne industry the States are the only
instrumentalities that can take charge of these
frauds and punish or prevent them.
Mr.. Van Wyck advocated the passage of the
OH. LIS question mere, lie Shlu, was Wn6Lner
one honest industry should be protected against
the fraud OF another. No one would accuse
Armour & Co. of fraud; and set their brands
were intended to deceive One of them was
[exhibting i'll, Armour e Co., pure dairy but
terlne' 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 I'll,
Armour 81 Co., finest creamery brtterinen
This was done, of course that the price of
this article might reach the price of genuine
butter. This bill, he admitted was not for reve-
nue. purposes, was it to build up one indus
try at the expense of another. Congress simply
said that the best way to provide against fraud
was TO regulate the manufacture of the article.
It was said that people used this article because
it was cheaper, but the people did not get the
benefit of its cheapness. because of this fraudu-
lent branding. Congress undertook, in this BILL
to deal with that question, and he saw no consti-
tutional objections to it.
Mr.. Butler said this bill was the most fragrant
and unblushing in its violations of the Constitu-
ton of any ever introduced in Congress He
exodi arfi ial ~ofb