The Palatka daily news. (Palatka, Fla.) 1884-1888, 1888-02-10

ing before the senate Commit on Ag- |
riculture on the bill to impose tax ON
lard containing anything exit nure
hogs fat was issued this morni
Judge Wilson, attorney for lhn P.
Squire q Co., of Boston, read titions
signed by large number of niufact-
urers and dealers in pure LARD ung the |
passage of the bill, also seyeraltters
together with statements by thehair-
man of the Liverpool Produce Extnoe
representing that there was a VT of |
confidence in the purity of Anican |
lard, and that consequently theytten
refrain from buying it; also letters on,
two cracker manufacturers, statinaat |
crackers in which was used lard s,- |
posed In part of cotton seed oil Wild |
become rancid in a few days, alsa |
| clipping from the New York ,Jouy1a.f |
Commerce, in which it is stated that |
exports of lard from the port of n, |
York had fallen off $4,000, 900 pounds
the year 1887, as compared with til
| year 1886.
Cromwell, attorney for the refined,
lard manufacturers, said he had a
petition from over 5000 people stating
that refined lard was not an injurious
article. He said it was not claimed that
cotton seed oil could be used for every
| purpose, and he would admit it was not
| tit for crackers. In behalf of therefined
lard industry and cotton seed oil people
representing in all $50 ZOO, 600 of invested
capital, he desired to protest against the
passage of bill which was designed to
| place refined lard in a degrading
position commercially. Kimball, who
was the chief witness for the proponents
| of the bill, had, he said, made the follow
Ing vital admissions: First, that refined
lard as made by well known manufac-
turers, is not deleterous to health. Sec
ond, that they could not Justify
license tax and would be salts
fled with the placing of the word
compound" or refined lard in pack
ages; and third, that they would not
contend that cotton seed oil is injurious
to health. Cromwell then devoted him.
self to defense of the word refined. >
as used by his clients, contending that it
was used by no other branch of the lard
industry, and that the name had been
built up for refined lard among deal
ers and consumers by twenty five years
of hard work. 1t was a slander to call
such lard adulterated lard. To adul-
terate means to debase, and lard in
which cotton seed oil was mixed was a
superior article. The whole complaint
was instigated by man who was not as
enterprising as his rivals, and wanted
Congress to aid him in keeping his trade
from them. As to the falling off in ex-
port trade via New York, he said the
explanation was that Baltimore and
Montreal captured the trade New York
lost.
Cromwell said that the cotton seed oil
industry was the greatest possible ad-
vantage to the Southern country. If
there was anything deleterious in the
production of Fairbanks firm. foreign
nations, who exercise such rigorous
scrutiny in all questions of food. would
have made an adverse criticism. Moth
ing has been heard of this character from
them. He was against all such proposed
legislation. The legislative stamp would
be blemish. In answer to questions
from the members of the Committee.
Cromwell said that they would be forced
to bow to any general legislation, but it
would be pernicious and unwarrant-
able course on the part of Congress.
Judge Clapp, of Memphis, spoke in be-
half of the cotton seed interests. This
industry was yet in its infancy, and no
action should be taken that would lead
to suppress it.
DIR. Ames addressed the committee
against the proposed bill. He repre-
sented the cattle interests, and said that
if the bill became law it would mean
loss of fifty cents on each head of
cattle.
Richard Arnold, vice president of the
Southern Cotton Oil Company, also
spoke against the bill. This company
has invested $1,125.000 in cotton seed
mills in the south. The bill would prac-
ticaliy cuts off his company's market.
a statement was read signed by Ar
mour & Co., of Chicago, protesting
against the bill and commencing the
character of the compound lard prodr ct.
A pratest from thirty prominent New
York merchants was presented against
the bill.
Mr.. Caruth, of Arkansas, representing
the producers of cotton seed, made an
impassioned argument against the pas
sage of the bill, and especially against
the imposition of tax. The people of
this country were getting very tired of
internal taxation. If this thing went
on the sugar men would want protec-
lection against gluclose ard SO with
every other industry. The bill was pater-
nalism run mad. 1t would work great
injury TO the cotton seed industry of the
South. He concluded: sThe cotton
seed oil business is our chief industry.
We have not got much and for Gods
sake don't take away that little"
Joel A. Sperry, of the firm of Sperry
& Barnes, of New Haven, who had been
in the business of manufacturing lard
for forty-five years, said that he had no
objections to the lard of which cotton