The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1886-05-30
THE BOGUS BUTTER DEBATE.
The House Continues the Long Talk
About Taxing Imitation Buffers,
And the Discussion Reveals aSurprising Num-
Der of Defenders of the Constitution
and the Rights of the Dear People.


fore the House a communication from the Secre-
tary of State, submitting an estimate of $780,
100 for inaugurating the statue of Liberty En-
tightening the World. Referred.
Mr.. Merriman, of New York from the com
mittee on postofices and post-roads, reported a
bill amending the statutes relative to the trans
mission of obscene matter through the mails.
Placed on the House calendar.
The House then went into committee of the
whoe-Mr. Springer of Illinois, in the chair
-on the oleomargarine bill the pending amend
Illinois, reducing the tax on olemargarine from
Toto cents per pound.
Mr.. Hatch, of Missouri stated that In view of
the fact that various protests of Knights of La
Dor against the bill had been presented he
wished TO have the following telegram to Speaker
Carlisle read:
CLEVELAND, O., May %.
Acting under instructions from the General As
sembly of the Knights of Labor desire to state that
no person whatever is authorized to speak for this
ganization either in the affirmative negative, on
the question of the regulation of the sale of oeomar
garine, now pending before Congress Please bring
this to the attention of the proper committee.
T. V. PowDERLY
General Master Workman Knights of Labor
Mr.. Hatch then proceeded to say that there
seemed to DE a misapprehension in regard to the
bill. Under its provisions compound OF lard
and tallow, lard and cotton seed OIL or lard, tai
low and cotton-seed oil, not colored in imitation
of butter, was not liable to tax
Mr. Townshend of Illinois, thought that the
gentleman from Missouri did not construe the
bill correctly, but that under its provisions no
oleomargarine could be sold without tax, even
though it were sold under its true character.
Mr.. McCreary, of Kentucky, offered an amend
ment providing that tax of 10 cents a pound
shall be imposed only on oleomargarine which is
manufactured and sold for consumption rs but
ter He had understood the chairman of the
committee on agriculture to say that he cid not
desire to impose the tax unless the oleomargar
inc was manufactured and sold as butter and
this amendment would make the meaning of the
bill clear.
Mr. Lehlback, of New Jersey, while in favor of
the general feature of the bill. thought the taxes
imposed were too high, and unless the amend
ment of the gentleman from Illinois Mr.. Towns
hend] were adopted he would be compelled to
vote aga nst the measure.
Mr.. Mills, of Texas, denounced the doctrine
contained in the bill. If Congress passed this
law, it would announce to the people that it was
ready, at the demand Of any strong interest, to
strike down one that was not so strong. 1t was
departure from the doctrine Of equal rights to
all and exclusive privileges to none.
Mr.. Allen, of Mississippi said that, after wait
ing patiently for action on this bill, he had at
last come to the conclusion that the House
wanted to hear from him. He was modest, but
he was always willing and resolute to contribute
his mite to the legislation of the country. and he
had determined to come to the front. AS his
name came high upon the roll-call, and as he
had heard the gentleman from New York Mr..
Hiscock] once say that leaders would spring mp
here would it not be we'll for his Democratic
friends to select him leaders He said it
with modesty, but condolences Behold your
leader follow" daughter and applause He
represented an agricultural district, and was
himself engaged in the laudable enterprise of
dairying. If there was one industry that he
would willingly protect above another, 1t was
the cows; if there was a fraud that he would be
willing to punish more than another;jt was
fraud upon the cow. He would support the bill
if the amendment of the gentleman from Illinois
were adopted.
Mr. Long, of Massachusetts,, offered an amend
ment providing that no tax should be imposed
on oleomargarine, except when made in imita-
ton and semblance of butter, and when calcu
lated or intended to be sold as butter or for but
ter.
Mr. Daniel, of Virginia, spoke in advocacy of
an amendment which he proposed to offer here
after, abolishing the internal revenue tax on to-
bacco and on fruit brandy In the platform of the
Democratic party which nominated the Presi-
dent now occupying the executive office, there
was distinct declaration and pledge to abolish
war taxes The internal revenue system was
dis.inctively war tax and to that tax the
language OF the platform was. no doubt, can
didy and honestly directed This seemed to be
the agricultural day in the House, but while it
was attending to one class OF farmers, was he
not justified in asking it to hear the long, pa
tient cry which has assembled to the government
for twenty five years from that class of farmers
who had, during that period, borne the burden of
the war upon their shoulders? He denounced in
strong language the Governments method which
brought in its train domicliary visits and horde
of spies and informers. AS to this bill, if the
Republican party voted for it, it would be an
abandonment of that theory of American pro-
lection which had captured thousands of votes
in the country.
Mr. Long gave notice that he would press his
amendment, as the chairman OF the agricultural
committee Mr. Hatch] had agreed to insert its
substance in the bill when it was before the
House.
amendment repeating the statute taxing the
manufacture of fruit brandy. and addressed the
House in support of his proposition appealing
to the Democrats to come forward vote to re-
move that tax, and go home with good con-
science
Mr. Hudd, of Wisconsin, would vote for the
bill even if the rate of tax were reduced but he
trusted that that would not be done. He flew
the flag of an intent to destroy the manufacture
Of a noxious compound by taxing 1t out of ex
stence
Mr. Bland of Missouri, though that the bill
should be amended so that it would be an honest
law against frauds.
Mr.. Stone of Massachusetts, regarded the bill
as deceptive in its present shape, and Mr. Mill
ken, of Maine, favored the bill for purposes of
revenue.
Mr. Barksdale, of Mississippi, thought that
the constitutionality of the measure could not
be doubted. The primary object of the clause
declaring that Congress shall have power to
levy taxes was to raise revenue for the support
of the government, and the present bill would
effect that purpose without taxing any industry
out of existence. 1t would afford Incidental
protection, however, to large and growing
class Of farmers, and what revenue il produced
he would be in favor of taking off articles of
absolute necessity.