New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1890-08-24
DEBATING THE LARD BILL
THE VOTE ON ITS PASSAGE IN THE HOUSE
ONLY Ill TO 4e, NO QUORUM.
A GALLANT FIGHT MADE BY THE OPPONENTS
OF THE COMPOUND LARD MEASURE-1TS
FRIENDS PUTTING FORTH THEIR
BEST EFFoRTs-THE QUESTION
pLpTy ONE.
IBY TELEGRAPH TO THE -RIBUSE.]
SOT A PARTY ONE.

Wash neton Aug o3-The opponents Of the Com
pound Lard bill made gallant fight in the House to-
lay under the leadership of Mr. Mason, of Illinois,
whose arguments against the measure were strong
enough TO arouse the friends Of the bill to their best
efforts The question was not party one by any
means: and while Mr.. Mason, Republican. assisted
by Democrats, made the best fight which was possible
under adverse conditions. the Republicans who were
in favor Of the bill also assisted by the efforts and
votes OF Democrats. Mr.. Cheatham, OF North Carolina
the only colored member of the House, in the five min
utes allowed him. made intelligent and persuasive
speech against the bill: While Mr.. Butterworth. OF
Ohio who distinguished himself by making q speech
in opposition the Revenue bill, delivered an equally
eloquent and cogent speech in favor OF the Laru OH
The parliamentary management of the bill could
hardly have been more amusing IL lndlca'ed 10 some
observers the proprety of establishing sort OF kder
garden for the benefit Of aspiring statesmen III was
as much as the speaker could do TO steer the House
through the shoals and Quicksands, but he succeeded
admirably.
1t was late in the afternoon before a final vote
could be reached and the opponents OF tle Dill 'oo'
advantage of it by calling for quorum winch uu nv
appear. There is a large majority III l"'o' VI Wv
BILL which may up as diminished ousiAo''' ""'
be disposed of either Monday or InesdaN'
Mr. Gear of Iowa said that the pending lesisiauo"
was of great importance to the people OF MS Sta'o
which contained 100000 hogs. the packers VI Ms
state complained of the aduteration Oh hos pouu,
stating that it greatly deprecated the Vaiue Vi e's
pure hog products He did not dispute that co''o"S
oil was healtlfuL If people wanted to use cot'oseeo
oil let them do it. let them buy it for what IL 81
Let it be marked and sold for what it was.
Mr. Hit of Illinois, said that for the last zen
Years the whole diplomatic service of this country mao
been trying 10 vndicate the American hog anu dC
temptng to prove that American pork was pure ai'
wholesome While the diplomats had been oOlnS
mi, the citizens of the United states had been ScnuinH
through the world an adulterated pork produc'' ~
,ras time for Congress to enforce honest deanhg
Mr. Conger of Iowa said that the resolution 10 wch
, ..,or,op from Illinois Nlr. Masonl referred last
i,c in his question of privilege, did not allude 10
,he Concer Lard bill. 1t had been charged geheraV
,round the Capitol that the attorneys Tor Ihe manu-
,actnre of compound lard had visited the losVonoe
recruitment and tried 10 suppress inc agricultural
roner edited by Mr.. wedderburn. He had not De-
Ieyed the charge; but the gentleman from lllnos IN
IT., .uarss had absolutely conceded its truth. "hat
,s ,he paper they had attempted TO Suppress IL
was q legitimate agricultural paper which hdu Ueou
rrbrsbed in Alexandria, Va, Tor seventeen Sed'9 an
!, would compare favoraby with any OF the asricui'
,ural papers in the country. The gentleman Hoi'
Illinois had defended Mr.. Fairbank, man VINO roii-
iessed that for eight years he had been chea0ne 'no
nsople Of the country by passing upon them counter
,s article lie was surprised that the gentleman
sbmld defend that and then charge til'' .e
Postmaster & eneral Influenced "sociails anu
politicays The honest people OF the country NC
manded the passage of this bill. lhey oein"n. 80,
honesty in trade Not only INC idi0''' W
hbOTers demanded it.
Mr. Coprer then proceeded to present samples OF
@pure lard manufactured by Farbank stating th'a'
he had had them analyzed at the Agricultural Dop'V
ment and found that they were composed oi e''A'''
lard and cottonseed oil. 49, $500
Mr.. Butterworth of Ohio, said that there were
three subjects 10 be considered-FrSt what was lie
evil complained Off Secondly. what was the remedy
nroposedg Thirdly what were the objections 10 vhe
remedy If the evil existed Up 10 Ten Ut ni0o''
years ago the hog products OF america ndu ,,.
ready sale in every market in the ciViiZeo lanu' W
at that time avaricc had entered INTO the ss' no. a.
an honest competitor, but as counterfeit """.
lad been the result? From the great markets Vi
the world the honest product OF the farIh had oeeh
hunted and driven by the counterfeit 'eruih eeH'o
mon learned that they could take certain vi ""u
certain searlne and combine them. and put III ehous"
,d IN p,ve II The smell Of lard and produce a
nroduct which would deceive lhe people
rodav there was not farmer or consumer IN the
country who had not been robbed by this system OF
counterfeitjng What ii that honest men aSheu
MOI 10 drive from the field an honest comPeeHor' ho'
TO stop the manufacture Of the compound product p
10 compel IL to sail under its own flag lie cohtehuo
that the lax imposed not large. II was sara th'
the massage Of the bill would hurt the negro liS
lie denied but if it did, the state OF morally
smith Of the Potomac River such asked prosperity
for the people Of the south butt on ule run Vi "i0
agrculturis Of the North? Taking up the Iaduocn
hill Mr. ButterwOrth criticised Us PROVISIONS anu
said that were he here representing the manufacturers
of compound lard hc would be happy to see Una
measure become law.
Mr. Morse Of Massachusetts,, favored the Dil' anu
stated that Inc would vote for H. ..o. ,ho rord
Mr. McAdOo, II Ncw-Jersey, denounced me Peiu
ing hin n. a perver,on Of the taxing power OF the
Government, swndle on the farmer, Vi uio 'ou''
try ard a violation Of the Constitution. f., ,.o,oo IN
Mr. Cheaiham of North Carolina, raised ms voice IA
opposition to the bill being injurious 10 me peopie
Mr. Frank. Of Missouri remarked that II the plausi-
bic gentleman from ohio (Mr' buterwoTt 1ba nro
visions Of either the COngcr bill or the PADDOCK Dli'
he had not heard it, There was more IN the question 9
Ohio pretended to think there was The police pow
power expressly reserved no IH u hin not
bill and as wE Police Gis 9 3his measure sure
mean IL meant the levyng Of an internal revenue
tax for the purpose of building up gigantic monopoy
Mr. Moor Of Texas, said thatihe effect Of the Diii
would be 10 DESTROY the capital invested in the cotton
seed oil industry in the sOuth' ....,., nc,
Mr. Herbert. OF Alabama made consutuuohai arsu'
ar Kelley Of Kansas said that the bill wa, in the
interest Of the hog raiser and against te calle rdsc'
He wa in favor OF the Paddock bill -
Mr. stone, Of Kentucky. said that the 1ill was the
Mr. Kerr, OF Iowa, opposed 10 ans extension
Of the internal revenue system. lie preferred the
Paddock Pure Food bill 10 he pending measure
Mr. Rogers. OF Arkansas. said that The bln was a
perversion Of tic taxing power conferred by tle
Constitution, IN order 10 supply revenue. was thcls
any fraud in compound lard than in the 4" pure
lard, made of every part # the hog, cntralls ana
rcfusel The matter really fight between IN
duStries: and the bill struck not only at compound
lard makers but at stock raser and the growers oi
cOtonseed Oil and the hard-woTAed !ob0rcrs In the
cotton field.
Mr. stochbridge, Of Maryanl wanted every food
product branded Tor what it was. That wa not the
proposition Of this bill.
Mr. Dorsey, of Nebraska, gave his support 10 the
Paddock biz.
Mr.. Elliott. Of South Carolina protested against
The legislation, which would prove injurious the
cotton planter. .
Mr. Mason took the floor 20 clfse the debate in
opposite 20 hrnrbt into The House ' ,
Of lard which ne nad mad analy2M IN asS
chamber" method. The Manufactures had not been
Informed that such analysis - be made and
The gentleman from Iowa tried dShonorably to niurc
honorable gentlemen by this star chamber pro
reedinr The gentleman from Iowa had praised an
srrcnItural paper edited by Mr. Wcdderburn lie could