The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1900-05-09

The Tawney resolution. directing the
Secretary of the Treasury to lay before the
House Information concerning the ingredi-
ents of oleomargarine, was adopted by
the House yesterday afternoon. 1t was the
first time that the oleomargarine interests
supported by the cattle and cotton seed
oil men on the one side and the dairy in
terests on the other, have measured
strength in the present Congress, and the
dairymen won. 1t was only skirmish
preliminary to the fight which will be
made when the Grout bill comes before
the House but it was significant in that
the motion to table the resolution OF en-
CURRY was lost by a vote of 1876 to 50.
The text of the resolution adopted fol-
lows:
Resolved That the Secretary Of the Treasury
be. and he is hereby, requested to furnish the
House Of Representatives information concerning
the amount and character of the material used
in the manufacture of oleomarrarine by the sew
eral manufacturers. shown by the monthly
duplicates OF pages one and two of form ZIG ior
the fiscal year ending June 80, 1889. also for the
month of December of the same year. rs returned
by the various manufacturers of oleomargaflne
throughout the United States for the above Pc
RODS.
Called Tn by Mr.. DnlEcli.
When the morning routine had been dis
posed of in the House Mr.. Dalzeli, from
the Committee on Ways and Means, called
ND House resolutions 226 and 229 and re-
newed the motion that they lie upon the
table. this being in conformity with the
report of the majority of the committee.
MIR. Dalzell, IN support of his motion, said
that these resolutions, though differing in
language. called for substantially the same
thing They both called for information
contained in pages ] and of form PIG
of the Internal Revenue Bureau for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1899, and also
for the month OF December, 1899, as re-
turned by the various manufacturers of
oleomargarine throughout the United
States for those periods.
Mr. Dalzell said that form ZIG contains
not only the names of the manufacturers
of oleomargarine. seventeen in number,
throughout the United States, but it con-
tains also the account of the quantities
and kinds of materials used for producing
oleomargarine at the places where the
factories were located and the quantity OF
oleomargarine produced during the month.
This form, Mr.. Dalzell said, is provided
for by section 5 of the oleomargarine law
approved August 2, 1896, and also by the
Treasury regulations made pursuant
thereto. II contained information COM
PEELED under duress of law. 1t discloses
the operations in the manufacture of oleo-
margarine. Mr. Daizell cited section 1857
of the Revised Statutes of the United
States, which provides:
II any collector, deputy collector, or any
inspector other officer acting under the
authority OF any revenue law of the United
States diruges to any party or makes
known in any other manner than may
or apparatus of any manufacturer producer
visited by him in the discharge of his official
duties he shall BE- subject TO a fine of not ex-
ceeding 1000, to be imprisoned for not ex-
7ceedi1g one year, both, at the discretion Of
the court, and shall be dismissed from Office
and shall be thereafter incapable OF holding
any Office under the Government
Mr.. Dalzell set forth that the Secretary
of the Treasury. from whom information
is sought by the two resolutions in Ques-
ton, is an officer of the Government act
A. Ing under the authority of the revenue
laws, and the operations of the manufac-
Sturers of oleomargarine. as disclosed on
form PIG, are made known to him by rea-
son Of his discharge of his official duties
through the visits of his subordinates lie
was,1 therefore. OF the opinion that the
Secretary of the Treasury is prohibited
by law from furnishing the information
cannot be relieved from the prohibition o!
the statute by the action of only one of the
Houses of Congress. This opinion was con-
frmed by recent case, Baske VS.. COMM
gore. decided by the Supreme Court of the
United States upon appeal from the District
Court OF the United States for the District
of Kentucky
Mir. Tawney, in opposing the motion 10
table the resolutions and particularly S
har Hon, Tod gon
that casual reading of the section of the
Revised Statutes cited by Mr. Da'zell
would show that it had no relation to in
formation filed with the Commissioner cf
internal Revenue or the Secretary of the
Treasury in accordance with the express
requirement of law. That section related
solely 10 Information concerning the oper-
atoms. style of work, or apparatus of any
manufacturer or producer obtained by
collector or deputy collector OF internal
revenue Or any inspector or other officer
upon visiting such manufacturer or pro-
queer IN the discharge Of his Official du-
Ties Ii had no reference whatever to
any other officer or TO any other informa-
ZION man that which is obtained in the
manner specified in the statute that was
by the personal visitation of the officer.
Mr.. Tawney said that the Secretary of
the treasury was not, therefore prohibite l
Wnlch the law, known as the Oleomarear-
Inc act, expressly provides thall be filed
with him or the Commissioner of Internal
Revenue In respect to the character and
amount OF materials used in the manu-
facture of the product.
Inc processes of oleomargarine, Mr.
Iawney went on to say, were protected by
patents, I5 of which he held in his hand.
That being the fact IL might be asked why
the Information asked In the resolutions
was desired. 1t was because the patents
contained Only the formulas which the
manufacturers said they expected to use
Not one of them mentioned the use of
stearine. lump OF which he exhibited an
article that would not melt under 1874 de
grees F., and yet the returns showed the
use Of large quantities OF II. When the
manufacturers were before the Committee
on Agriculture they were asked to give the
formula, but they positively declined And
this House, by adopting the report Of the
Committee on Ways and Means, is asked
to endorse that refusal.
The report of the committee was advo-
Gated by Messrs. Ball and Richardson. the
former of whom said the labori1g men OF
the country were opposed TO the proposed
legislation against oleomargarine which
Mr.. Ball denounced as pernicious, infa-
nous, and ubiquitous, and sumptuary rs
we'll
Passage Of the resolutions was advo-
Gated by Messrs. Lamb and Babcock The
latter said the reason for the opposition
10 the resolutions was that the gentlemen
opposing them did not want the facts
Concluding the argument Mr. DalzeIl
said the question at issue was not one of
the merits of oleomargarine; ii was to com
pei officials TO make public the trade Sc
crets and methods Of the seventeen man
ufacturers engaged in this business. The
Supreme Court, he said had decided tina.