St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1888-03-28
IT WAS A SAVORY MESS.
Some Damaging Testimony in the Pure
Lard Case.
A FEW LEADING QUESTIONS
Which the Witness Refuses to Answer
---How Lard Is Made--Adiourns
for the Day.


morning, Hon. Sherer Caruth, OF Ken
lucky, presented the protest of the pork
packers of Louisville against the testl-
mony of W. G. Bartle. 1t was placed
on file. In reply to question OF the
chairman, he said he had general
knowledge of the reputation OF the
farmers throughout Kentucky.
The Chairman-Do you believe in the
sweeping charges made before TINS
committee that farmers are in the haolt
of sending diseased hogs to the market!
Mr.. Caruth-If believed that of Ken
lucky farmers | would cease to be res
ident of that state.
MI. Funston, of Kansas, "a member OF
the committee), in the name of the
farmers of Kansas, protested against the
charges of Mr.. Eartle. He then asked
Mr.. Bartle what he characterized as
hypothetical question, as follows: III
a witness before this committee ShOuld
state that for eighteen years he nad 1ol-
lowed the business OF purchasing OF
Strengthening piggy SoWs, stays, DoarS
and cholera hogs, running them liito
bacon and selling them to the people,
that at the age OF slXty-one MS COLI
science hurt him and he quit business,
that afterwards he endeavOred to pur-
chase property to put his son into the
same business, if you were member OF
this committee, would you consider MIN
too big villain and scOundrel TO be De-
lieved, even under oath?
Mr.. Caruth-That is rather sweep
ing question. | would hate to believe
that such things as that exist.
Carl Dreler, of Chicago. resumed his
testimony and stated that the food adul-
teration laws of England had in no way
interfered with the sale OF american
refined lard in the country. There mas
been no fault found with refined lard III
England.
Mr.. Funston inquired whether the
witness charged that packers mixed UNI
washed CUTS with lard:
manufacture of lard was done in slip
shod fashion those Objectionable parts
Mr.. Funston inquired how the witness
knew this fact.
The witness replied that he had seen
insut1iciently washed CUTS mixed with
lard.
MIR. Funston called upon the witness
to give the names of the packers whom
he had seen doing this.
The witness declined to answer, and
Mr.. Funston repeated the question.
Mr.. Laird objected to the question,
which he stated violated the rules of
evidence, as it was not based upon any
thing ELECTED in the direct examination;
The committee was raising the deVll
with the industries OF the country pc
cause it was following false scents, col
lateral to the main issues. If the com
mittee went into secret session, eX-
cluded the press and opened up the blast
and let out the filth, he would submit
to it. but it was not in the decent order
of procedure that it should be done
now. The consequences of the viola
lions of the rules by the committee fell
upon the men who could i'll endure
them. 1t was by departure from the
rules of evidence that the committee
found the whole world of industry pro-
testing against its proceedings.
Mr.. Funston contepded that his queS-
ton was based upon the direct eXamina-
ton. The witness had stated that UNI
washed CUTS went into lard and that he
had seen it. He Funston) had then
asked witness where he had seen it, and
he left it to any lawyer whether that
was not a proper question. How much
more slush did that man open up the
other day when he made charges which
he (Funston) would not believe under
oath, than the present witness was
opening up, 10y his remarks about I'M
washed quits.
The chairman said that he would not
sustain the objection made by Mr.. Laird
Oh the grounds stated by that gentle
man. The question was in order. But
Dreier came before the committee
through its courtesy. and was not placed
under oath. lie was asked to give the
committee any information within his
knowledge as to the subject matter of
the investigation. But the gentleman
had right to decline to answer the
question if he saw proper.
Mr.. Morgan hoped that the witness
would not answer the question, and he
hoped that hereafter no witness would
be permitted to answer these personal
questions.
MI. Funston again put his question,
and the witness again declined to an
Swer. He had made no charge, he said,
against the packers. and he did not
think that any packer would so con-
slider it.
Mr.. Funston pressed his question and
was again met with an objection from
Mr.. Laird, who wished the chairman to
rule upon the matter. He did not want
to surrender his right to make objections
to the discretion of any witness. He
had seen the evil consequences OF allow
ing witnesses to take the bit in their
teeth. He desired the chairman to de-
eide the question.
Pending the decision the committee
adjourned.