The daily state chronicle. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 188?-1891, 1890-03-06
THE NATIONAL CONGRESS-.
HOGS LARD VS.. COTTON SEED
LARD.


Senate.
WASHINGTON, March 5-Representa
tives Stewart, of Georgia, and Wheeler,
OF Alabama, made brief arguments
against the Conger- -Butterworth com
pound lard bills before the Agricultural
Committee of the House to day Mr..
Stewart read the following letter ad-
dressed to himself: ''Your valued favor
of February Sd is before me- In reply
will say that Mr. Harris has no authority
to say that the Alliance in Georgia wants
such a bill passed as you speak OF. OF
course it would ruin the oil mill indus
try in The South and damage us about
fOrty-eight millions annually 1t would
reduce the price of cotton seed and raise
the price of lard, so as to work great
hardships to our people. You can rest
assured that Georgia wants no such
measure, passed. Very truly, " illiam
l.. Peek, President Farmers Alliance
of Georgia"
Representative Morgan said that it
was the belief of people in the Southern
States that the passage of the lard bills
would take the bread and meat from the
mouths of 3 large number of Southern
people.
Mr.. Stewart said if the Conger blll
were passed it would reduce the price of
cotton seed to thirteen cents per bushel
The people Of his section were worked
up over the matter. By disposing of the
cotton seed the expenses of picking the
cotton were cleared In answer to Mr..
Hatch, Mr.. Stewart said that if lard
compounds against which the legislation
was aimed were composed of injurious
agencies, he was in favor Of the bill; but
1t had not been proved that that the
compounds were detrimental to health
He understood that this was fight
between hogs lard and cotton seed lard.
1t could not be accomplished, he be
lieved, by Congress.
MIR. Morgan pressed Mr.. Stewart 10
know if he could state, as an authority.
what would be the effect on the manu-
facturers Of cotton seed oil by striking
down the compound lard industry.
Mr.. Stewart did not care to answer
further than that he thought the manu-
tacturers would be injured.
Mr.. Morgan stated that he believed it
would reduce the cotton seed oil indus
try one half.
Representative Wheeler, Of Alabama,
addressed the committee in opposition
TO the Conger bill He said that the
second paragraph of the bill was enough
to damn it SO far as bis section was con
cerEed. The section he read as follows:
That for the purpose of this act any
article manufactured or compounded in
imitation or semblance of, or as a sub
stitute for lard, as lard is defined, in
section one of this act, which shall be
made of any ingredients other than lard
or which shall be compounded Of any
other ingredients in oil combination
| with lard, shall be known as compound
| lard, and it shall be unlawful to manu-
facture Or TO export or import the same
except in accordance with the provisions
| of this act. This section, Mr.. Wheeler
| explained, would utterly ruin the small
farmers. He did not believe that the
people of the country would be in favor
of the complete destruction of the cot
ton seed oil industry in the South.
| This would he the effect of the bill.
Mr.. Fairbank had stated that at one
| time when he could not secure cotton
seed oil to mix with his compound, his
customers had complained that the lard
vas inferior to what he had been manu-
featuring. Gen. Wheeler thought the
States should have the power to make
any legislation on the subject. The
hearings on the lard question will be
concluded at the next meeting of the
committee.
| Contested Election Case.
WASHINGTON, March 5.-House. The
/ hor Gota ArDo CnntnSfo4
election case took up most of the time in
the House to day. Mr.. Cate spoke il
his own behalf
Mr. McRae, of Arkansas, defended
the people of his State from charges Of
lawessness, intimidation and violence
and Mr. Houck, of Tennessee, made {
strong presentation of the claims Of tb(
contestant Finally Mr. Featherstone
Republican, was seated by a vote of IA
to 1885, One Republican, Mr.. Hill, O.
Illinois, voted for Cate.
The House then at O'clock adjourned
The Blair Educational Bill.
WASHINGTON, March 5.--Senate.- III
the Seuate to-day, at O'Clock, consid
Grafton of the Educational bill was re
su.ned.
Mr.. Barbour advocated the bill H'
spoke OF the great interest which th
people of Virginia took in the measure
and said that it had been favored in tn
platforms of political parties in tina
State. 1t was of the deepest and pro
foundest interest to the people of Vir
gina who had done as much for tn
sake of education in the last fit,
years as the people of any other State
They had expended abont nineteel
million dollars for that purpose and hat
given five millions dollars to educate tn
colored iliterates which the genera
government bad put upon them, not OF J.
as citizens but as sovereigIs. lie ex
pressed his surprise at the lack of inter
est in the subject taken by the Senate
and was astonlshed at the opposition Q
the Southern Senators TO the bill. II
had 10 Constitutional doubts on the sub
, iect OF the bill as he did not belong t
the splitting class of Constitutional law
yers.
Mr.. Plumb spoke in opposition to tn
bill. saying that it was clear to him tina
the people of the South did not wan
: this money, and it was certain that
: money was bestowed where it was nt
3 wanted, that it would not be wisely e1
pended. Within two years, if the bi
4 went over, every Southern State woul
say they did not want it. The bill,
: | nossod uould hp the haoinninp of th