The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1886-05-26
THE HOUSE.
Continuation of the Debate on the Bill Tax
ing 0leomargarine.

Continuation of the Debate on the Bill Tax
/ ing oleomargarine.
WASHINGTON, May 25.-The Speaker an
| nounced the appointment of Mr. Dngey, of
! Maine; Mr.. Dunn, of Arkansas, and Mr.. McMil-
| lin, of Tennessee, as conferees on the shipping
bill
Mr.. Crisp. of Georgia, frem the committee on
commerce. reported back Senate bill authoriz-
| ing the construction Of bridge across the Ar
| thur Kill. Placed on the House calendar.
| Mr. Springer, of Illinois, from the committee
on Territories, reported bill to enable the peo-
| pie of Dakota to form constitution and State
| government Referred to the committee OF the
whole. Also, adversely Senate bill for the ad-
mission of the State of Dakota and for the or
| ganization Of the Territory of Lincoln. Re-
| ferred to the committee Of the whole.
| Mr.. Baker, of New York, filed minority re-
ports on both these measures.
Mr.. Dunn, of Arkansas. from the committee
on Pacific railroads, reported bill to incorpor-
| ate the Arkansas, New Mexico 81 Pacific Rail
road Company. Placed on the private calendar.
| Mr. Peel of Arkansas. from the committee on
Indian affairs, reported bill to equalize the per
capita payment to Cherokee Indians out of the
| $500, 900 appropriation made to them by the act
| of March, 1883. Placed on the House calendar.
| Mr. Maybury, of Michigan, from the commit
| tee on ways and means, reported adversely bill
| to carry into effect the convention made between
| the United States and Mexico, signed Jan. 30,
| 1883. Referred to the committee of the whole.
| Mr. Hewitt, of New York, presented minor
ity report
| Mr. Randall, of Pennsylvania, submitted the
| conference report on the urgent deficiency bill,
| and it was agreed to.
| After vain attempt to arrive at some deter
mination as to the order of business to be pur-
sued during the remainder of the week, the
,-fo Of he uhn1o
/ (Mr Springer, OF Illinois, in the chair) on the
oleomargarine bill.
| Mr. Miller, of New York, gave his hearty sup
port to the bill, and quoted statistics to show the
| injury which the manufacture of bogus butter
| had worked upon the expectation Of American
! dairy products
| Forbearance had ceased to be virtue The
/ farmer could not successfully compete with the
manufacturer of oleomargarine, which can be
made for seven cents pound. Either oeomar-
| garine must go or the great dairy industry would
| be wiped out and utterly destroyed.
Mr. Cannon. of Illinois, had no scruple about
/ supporting the bill, even though it were said
| that it did discriminate in favor of industry
| and against another. No tax could be levied
that did not discriminate in favor of or against
some interest, and it was because this bill did
discriminate in favor of the farmer that he gave
| the bill his approval. The census report showed
| that practically half Of the people of this country
were engaged in the agricultural interests. while
| the protests against the bill emanated from two
| or three great centers where oleomargarine was
| manufactured
| Mr. Hammond, Of Georgia. did not contend
| that the bill was in itself, constitutional. The
| man who voted for it because he wanted to raise
| taxes could cast an honest vote without violating
| the Constitution; but the man who did not vote
for it to raise taxes, but only to suppress one In
| dustry in favor of another, prostituted the tax
| ing power of the Constitution to a base purpose.
| He quoted from Mr.. Hiscock's speech in support
Of the bill. and from utterances OF Daniel Web
| ster to the effect that bill to raise taxes was
/ all right but bill to strike down one industry
| for the benefit of another was all wrong, and
| claimed, Choose We this nay whom We will fol-
| low-God or Baal, Webster or Hiscock."
| Mr. Curtin, of Pennsylvania, was in favor of
| a bill which would provide for examination
| of the wholesomeness OF oleomargarne, bur he
was opposed to excluding that article of food
| from the people of the country by means of tax
alton.
| Mr. Kelley, of Pennsylvania, said he would
| not vote for an additional internal tax. Gould
| Congress prohibit science from making new dis
| coveries2 Could it prevent ingenuity from max
/ ing new inventionsY His life was drawing to Its
| natural close; its best and rpest years had been
devoted to system the tendency and effect Of
/ which had been to develop all the material re-
sources of the country, and in developing and
| bringing them into utility had given employment
to the idle, and industry and character to our
men and women. Having devoted his mature
life and the energy of his closing years TO that
labor he would not vote to add to the corrupt
ing overflow Of the Treasury in order to say
that our material resources shall not be devel-
oped that ou- people shall not have cheap food,
and that there shall not be employ for gen.
! tie eirlhood, vigorous manhood and old age.
| Mr.. Mills, of Texas, said Congress had no
right to destroy industry to build up an
| other
Mr.. Negley, of Pennsylvania, sent to the
| Clerks desk, and had read, telegram from the
Pittsburg Grain and Flour Exchange, transmit
ting a set of resolutions adopted by that body,
declaring that the manufacture and sale of oleo-
| margarine specially branded is legitimate and
| lawful business and industry which, by pro-
| viding cheap and wholesome food Is in the line
| of American enterprise, and earnestly protesting
against any action tending to depress or discour-
age that important industry
Mr.. Tucker, of Virginia, maintained that it
| was not proper to attempt, through a tariff law,
to destroy an industry-to attempt to do indi.
rectly what could not be done directly
| Mr.. Frederick, of Iowa, earnestly advocated
the bill, declaring that the oleomargarine bust
ness only carried on by means of deception
and fraud.
Mr. Hepburn, of Iowa, supported the BILL He
denounced the methods hy which oleomargarine
found market, declaring that none of it was
sold under its proper name
| This declaration was earnestly denied by Mr.
| Lawler of Illinois, and noisy collo9uy at this
| point took place between the two gentlemen, in
| which Mr. Frederick took hand. with the as
sertion that Chicago was so used to fraud that it
wanted TO palm it off on the whole country.
/ Mr. LAWYER did not relish this attack upon his
city, and retorted with the declaration that Chi
| cago to-day was one of the most healthy cities IN
the United States; that its death rate was less
than that of any other city in the United States.
1T went up little the other day" suggested
Mr.. Reed.
Not bit of it." replied Mr. Lawler.
| Mr. Frederick remarked that the people of Chi
cage could not afford to die; they were too devil
ish mean to die.
| Mr.. Struble supcested that the reason was that
they knew they were going to hell and did rot
| want TO die on that account. lLaughter
Mr.. Henderson of Iowa said that the farmers
had to get fair play in this chamber. and if it
| were not given, it would be taken. He believed
that there were enough votes on both sides of
the House to protect the interest now clamoring
for protection without the help of men who
| never raised their voices except To extend the