The Washington critic., 1890-02-19

shall Coiton-seed oil or the American
bog he Suppressed? THAT is the
Question -- Argument Before the
Committee.
M Special Wire from Nc capitol.
The Agricultural Committee Of the
House gave q herring this morning
on the compound lard question
w. w. Kimball of Boston was the
first speaker. He appeared in favor of
the Conger bill to impose tax upon
and regulate the manufacture, sale, etc,
of compound lard. Mr.. Kimball said
that he would Introduce only such facts
as had developed
Soon after the close of the iuvestga-
tions by the Fiftietb Congress il seemed
that some of the honorable gentlemen
and firms who had for years been large
manufacturers of these compounds, and
who strenuously opposed, during the Fif-
tielh Congress, any legislation whatever.
suddenly came to the conclusion that
there was really some cause for com
plant by the legitimate packers of hog
products and those who chose not to
depart from their time -honored Gus
tom of producing only strictly
pure lard. Thereupon these manu-
luCllltIS uttlAttNl W DluhO lutA
product of these compounds as Com
pound lard"
The largest manufacturer of lard
compounds no longer exists as a private
firm. but has been merged into trust,
which Mr.. Kimball called the cotton
oil trust" and, therefore, the opposi
ton 10 the measure came from pow
erful organization.
w. ]. Curtis. of n. X. Fairbank e
Co. of Chicago, asked permission to
ask Mr.. Kimball a few questions, but
the committee decided not to allow him
to do this, because it might open an
argument Mr. Curtis said he was pre-
| pared to show that what Mr.. Kimball
said had no foundation in fact.
Alexander Wedderburn of Alexan-
/ dria, Va, representing the State Grange
of Virginia, stated that he represented
/ no interest other than that of the pro-
ducer He was fully in accord with
the Conger bill. The adulteration of
hog lard was destroying our commerce
in this article with foreign countries
He had received numerous letters from
farmers all over the country, All of
these showed that the farmers were
heartily in favor of the Copger bill.
MT. w SulAl luC lusLuuluC~
turers received $1,000, 900 for their lard
last year, while the farmers received
only 81 600, 600. Mr.. Wedderburn read
letter from Ralph Beaumont. a member
of the executive committee of the
knights Of Labor. stating that the
knights of Labor were heartily in favor
of the Conger bill
Colonel Bingham said the Patrons of
Ii To-.
large manufactory place upon each
package of their product state
ment of exactly what it contains.
The farmers wanted a law that would
compel these Jews to put on their pro
duct exactly what it was"
This closed the statements of thos1
in favor of the BILL and George II
Webster, a member of the firm OF
Armour & Co, Chicago, began state
ment against the proposed legis
lation. lie said that compound
lard was not an adulteration
there was nothing unhealthy or hurt
full in it. The industry deserved en-
couragement from the Government
because many thousand persons were
supported by it, and because thi,
product was healthful and economical
to the consumers. The lard packed by
Armour & Co. was branded and labeled
in manner that left no doubt as tC
its quality. The people did not require
the proposed legislation. They did no
desire and the Treasury did not need it
The people of the country had not asked
for this legislation.
The compound lard industry bene
flied the people by furnishing then
with an economical food product, ant
it would not help the country to enac
the proposed laws. In consequence o
this legislation the sales of all American
lard had fallen off in Europe. Ii
France, particularly, the falling of
had been noticeable.
Some pure American lard had beel
seized in France, and taxed at al
eighth of cent q pound, on the grount
that in contained cotton-seed oil when
! in fact, il contained none. The agitation
of the question before the Agricultural
! Committee had been the cause of Ar
mour & Co. branding their compoun
! lard as compound.
Mr.. Webster said, in answer to MI
, Hatch, that he knew of no firm
in this country which manufacture,
compound lard and failed to brand it a
such. Mr.. Webster stated that If an
Legislation were enacted he hoped
might be that contained in the Faull'
ner bill.
. Henry C. Butcher, representing tn
= Southern Cotton-seed Oil Company
!, made statement, in which he sal
e that the purpose of the Conger bi
II seemed to be to destroy the compouu
e lard industry. 1t was clear that tn
J" purpose of the bill was to benefit til
= hog raising industry ut the expense {
another
k The bill, should it become a Law
n would also tend to injure the cottol
T, seed raising industry. The industT
It represented by himself, said NJ
d Butcher, was comparativel
J. new one, and It surely WI
- not proper for Congress TO ena,
/ legislation that would serve TO put
= check on it. There was no questio
n that refined eotton.seed oil cOntainC
Ia nothing deleterious to health
IS The committee then adjourned uni
d" next Wednesday
~ Tried to Rob street Car.