Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1888-02-10
MORE GREASE.
WHAT STALL THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
FRY WITH
Continuation Of the Hearing Of the Lard
Question Before the Senate Agri-
cultural Committee.
10y Telegraph to tho pi.parch.l

agriculture pu tbt bili W tiup pac lnN VI
lard containing anything except pure
hogs fat was resumed tins morning.
Judge Wilson, attorney for John p.
Squire g. Co, Of Boston. read petitions
signed by large number of maDuiac-
turers and dealers in pure lard urging
the passage OF the bill, also several let
ters, together with statement signed
10y the chairman OF the Liverpool
Produce Exchange, representing that
there was want OF conf
dence in the purity of American
lard, and that consequently they often
RETAINED from buying it also. letters
from two cracker manufacturers OF st
Louis and Omaha stating that crackers
in which was used lard composed in part
OF cotton-seed oil would become rancid
in a few days; also, clipping from the
New York Journal oj Commerce IN
which it is stated that the exports OF
lard from the port of New York had
fallen OF SO, coo, 600 pounds y the year
1887 as compared with the year 1886.
Mr.. Cromwell, attorney for the ere
fined lard manufacturers, said be had a
petition from over five thousand persons
stating that refined lard was not an IN
furious article. lie said it was not
claimed that cOttOn-seed oil could be
used for every purpose, and he would
admit IL was not fit for crackers. IN be-
half Of the refnod-lard industry and the
cotton seed oil people, representing IN all
$50, 900, 600 Of invested capital, he de-
sired TO protest against the passage OF the
bill. which was designed to place "re-
fined lard in degrading position com
mercially. Mr.. Kimball, who was the
chief witness for the proponents of the
bill, had, he sad, made the following
vital admissions
/. That renned lard as made by we'll
known manufacturers is not deleterlous
to health.
.. That they could not justifya license
tax. and would be satisfied with the
placingof the word compound or "re-
fined lard on packages.
3. That they would not contend that
cotton-seed oil is injurious TO health.
Mr.. Cromwell then devoted himself TO
the defence OF the word "refned as
used by his clients contending that 1t
was used by no other branch of lard IN
dustry, and that the name bad been built
up to "refned" among dealers and con
sumers by twenty-five years OF hard
work. II was n SANDER to call such
lard adulterated larL To adulte-
rate meant to dcbase, and lard IN
which cotton-seed oil WAS mixed
was a superior article. The whole com
plant was instigated by man who
was not as enterprising as his rivals, and
wanted Congress to aid him i'll keeping
his trade from them. As 10 the falling
off in the export trade Ci0 New York he
said the explanation was that Baltimore
and Montreal captured the trade that
New York lost. Mr.. Cromwell sad that
the cotton-see oil industry was the
greatest possible advantage to the south
crn country. If there was anything
deleterious in the production of
the Fairbanks firm foreign nations,
who exercise such rigorous scrutiny in
all questions Of food, would have made
adverse criticism. Nothing has been
heard Of this character from them. lie
was against all such proposed legislation.
The legislative stamp would bea olemlsh.
In answer to questions from members OF
the committee. MI Cromwell sad that
they would be forced to bow to any
general legislation, but that it would be a
pernicious and unwarrantable course
on the part of Congress.
Judge Clapp, OF Memphis, spoke IN
t.l..1f s. tl,, o,4t,p-eooH fpAarocfs I bIQ
industry was yet il its infancy, and no
action should be taken that would tend
to suppress it.
DR.. Ames addressed the committee
against the proposed bill. tie repre-
sented the cattle interests, and said that
if the bill became law it would mean a
loss of fifty cents on each head OF cat
tie.
Richard Arnold, vice-president Of the
Southern Cotton-Oil Company, also
smoke against the bill. His company
had invested 81, l2J,0 800 in cotton-seed
mills in the South. The bill would
practically cut off his company's market
A statement was read signed 10y Ar
mour & Co., of Chicago, protesting
against the bill and commenting the
character Of the compound-lard product.
A protest from thirty prominent New
York merchants was presented against
the bill
MIR. 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 the tax. The people Of
this country were getting very tired Of
internal taxation. If this thing went on
the sugar-men would want protection
against glucose, and so with every other
industry. The bill was paternallsm run
mad. 1t would work a great injury to
the cotton-seed industry Of the South.
He concluded: "The cotton-seed oiI
business is our chief industry. We
haven't 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 fortv-tiye years, said he had no OBJ
iections to lard of which cOttOn-seed OH
was an ingredient, but that it was fraud
TO sell it as lard made rom hogs. Cot
ton. seed-ol lard, il it was as good as
hog's.fat lard, would be bought by the
consumer as such. AT present tine re-
taller bought the compound lard cheaper
than he could buy the real lard, aud
made an extra profit by selling 1t as
hogs lard. Let hog, steer. and cotton
seed oil stand ON their merits. lie sold
his lard as "pure refined lard, and the
name for refined lard had been brought
up within the last twenty years by making
an extra good article; but now certain
manufacturers put other things than
hogs fat into lard and wanted to retain
the old name. The export trade had
also fallen OF. owing TO the complaints OF
the quality of American lard generally.
The further hearing was postponed for
several weeks.