The progressive farmer. [volume] (Winston, N.C.) 1886-1904, 1901-03-12


Correspondence Of The Progressive Farmer.
What has become of the Grout
bill?
That is a question that is being
asked from one end of the country
to the other by farmers, butter max
ers, creamery men and butter deal
ers, as we'll as everybody else con-
nected with dairying.
The Grout bill was introduced in
the House Dec. 16, 1899, by Mr..
Grout, and referred to the Commit
zee on Agriculture. The National
Dairy Union had been organizing for
year to push this bill to a success
full passage. But the dairy interests
of the East and West were divided
and it was not until February that
they finally decided upon the Grout
bill and agreed to support it.
The representatives of the dairy
men, did not get to Washington until
March z, after three months of valu-
able time wasted, and the enemies Of
the measure had fixed the bill in COM
mittee so they thought it never
would see the light of day. The
chairman of the committee, Mr..
Wadsworth, thoroughly opposed the
bill, consigned it to the tender mer-
cies of the subcommittee on animal
industry, of which Congressman
Lorimer, of Chicago, was chairman,
and of which committee four out of
five were opposed to the bill. Itwas
thought that this move had prac-
tically killed the bill.
The dairymen, however, went to
work, and while it required three
months of continuous work of the
most strenuous nature to do it, they
finally compelled the subcommittee
to make a report. This report was
adverse to the bill, and what is now
notorious as the Wadsworth substi
tute was recommended in it's place.
Having the matter before the full
committee the dairymeR had fight
ing chance, and after a battle for
more than two weeks between the
two measures, the committee as a
whole finally rejected the Wads-
worth substitute and recommended
the Grout bill.
It was then too late to secure con-
sideration in the House at that ses-
sion. The bill went over with a
special order for consideration Dec.
6, at the new session, and on Dec. 2,
after sharp fight, was passed in the
House by a majority Of 1O4, the vote
being 1876 to 90.
The measure was then sent to the
Senate, where the friends found new
danger to it's safety. The Senate
committee on finance, to which by
it's character as d tax measure it
naturally belonged, had for chair
man Senator Aldrich, of Rhode
Island, who was OutspOken in his
antOgOnism of the measure, and the
friends of the bill knew that it would
be almost impossible to get report
at that session, even if the commit
tee were favorable, if the chairman
we're against it. The friends of the
measure therefore made a fight to
send the bill to the agricultural COM
mittee, which had more time to con-
slider it, ard there they felt the chair
man would give them fair play,
The Senate stood by the dairymen
in this matter, and sent the bill to
the agricultural committee. Then
began one of the most outrageous at
tempts upon the part Of the OleOmar-
garine makers to delay the hearings
and final report that ever was known
before any committee in Congress.
They had people all over the country
telegraph that they desired to be
heard against the bill, but could not
come until after the holidays, etc.
But Chairman Proctor knew full
we'll what their scheme was ana
forced them to go ahead. Dozens
who telegraphed that they desired
to be heard never appeared, nor had
any idea Of appearing, but as it was
there were about so witnesses exam
ined upon both sides, and the com
mittee could not report until Jan. 26,
leaving but month to get the bill
acted upon in the Senate, which was
very short time. The report was
favorable, however, and the chair
man of the committee, as we'll as all
CONTINUED ON PAGE s.