Butte semi-weekly miner. [volume] (Butte, Mont.) 1886-1890, 1886-05-29
HOus :.

Mr.. Springer, of Illinois, from the Com
mittee on Territories. reported a bill to en-
able the peorle OF Dakota to form q consti-
tuition and State Government. Referred to
the Committee OF the Whole. He also re-
ported adversely the Senate bill for the adj
mission of the State OF Dakota and for the
organization Of the Territory OF Lincoln.
Referred to the Committee OF the Whole.
Mr.. Baker, of New York, filed minority
report on both the measures.
Mr.. Dunn, Of Arkans is. from the Com
mittee on Pacific Railroads, reported a bill
to incorporate the Arkansas, New Mexico
& Pacific Railroad Company. Private
Calendar. Mr.. Maybury, of Michigan, from
the Committee on Ways and Means, re-
ported adversely bill to carry into effect
the convention made between the United
States and Mexico, signed January 20,
1883. Committee ofthe Whole. Mr.. Hewitt,
OF New York, presented minority report.
Mr.. Randall, of Penn. ylvania, submitted g.
conference report on the Urgent Deficiency
bill and it was agreed to. After q vain
attempt to arrive at some determination
as to the order of business during the re-
mainder OF the week, tie House went into
Committee Of the Whole on the Oleomar-
garine bill. Mr.. Miller, OF Ne" York, gave
his hearty support to the bill, and quoted
statistics to show the injury the manu-.
facturers OF bogus butter had worked upon
the expectation OF American dairy pro-
ducts. Forbearance had ceased to be
virtue. The farmer could not successfully
compete with the manufacturer OF oleo-
margarine which can be made for seven
cents per pound. Either oleomargarine
must go or the great dairy industry 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 one interest 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
the people OF this country were engoged in
agricul' ural interests. while the protests
against the bill emanated from two or
three gre.t centers where oleomargarine
was manufactured. Mr.. Hammond, of
Georgia, did not contend that the bill was
in itself constitutional. The man who
voted for il 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 industry in favor OF
another one, prostituted the taxing power
OF the constitution to base purpose. He
quoted from Mr.. Hiscock's speech in sup
port of the bill, and from the utterances of
Daniel Webster, to the effect that bill to
raise taxes was all right, but bill to strike
down one industry for the benefit of anoth-
er was all wrong, and exclaimed: Choose
ye this day whom ye will follow; God or
Eaal, Webster or Hiscock."
Mr.. Curtin, OF Pennsylvania, was in favor
OF q bill which would provide for the exam
ination .of the wholesomeness of oleomar-
garine, but was opposed to excluding it
taxation.r Mr. Kelly, Of Pennsyivania.
said he would not vote for an additional
interest tax. Mr.. Mills, OF Texas, said
Congress had no right to destroy one In
dustry to build up another. Mr.. Frederick,