The Minneapolis journal., 1902-01-22
'DAIRY'S CHAMPIONS.
Tawney Avoids Open Row with
McCleary.
POSITION OF BOTH MADE CLEAR
Interior Departments Reasons for
Asking Additional Forest Re-
serve Appropriation.

From The Journal BsUreau. Room. AS, Post
building, Washsngton.
Washington, Jan. 22.-All danger of an
open row between Congressman Tawney
and McCIeary of the Minnesota delegation
over the oleomargarin legislation, seems
to have been averted by Mr.. Tawney's de-
termination to ignore Mr.. McCleary's at
tacks on the Tawney bill. Mr. Tawney's
friends claimed that the McCleary circular
was, in effect charge that Tawney was
in league with the oleo interests against
butter and that his bill was not what the
butter makers wanted. 1t would have been
easy for Mr. Tawney to have replied in
kind, and so to have brought about state
of affairs within the delegation that would
have crippled it to some extent. That he
did not do so is to his credit.
Both gentlemen are very earnest in their
advocacy of oleo legislation and both will
accept the bill which the committee re-
when the committee has decided which
bill it will favor.
On Monday OF this week the trouble al
most reached critical stage, because of
the McCleary circulars already referred to
! in these dispatches. Mr.. McCleary has
some followers in the house, but Mr. Taw-
! ney has also, and Tawney could have pre-
! cipitated an nugly fuss had he been dis
posed to do so.
MIR. McCleary's Position.
| For the information of Minnesota friends
| of these gentlemen, it may be we'll to
| state the position taken by each.
| Mr. McCleary insists that the Grout bill
| of the last session, levying a small tax
on the uncolored oleo in addition to the
! tax of 10 cents pound on the colored ar
ticle, is the bill the dairymen of the
country want. He claims to be quite as
much of pioneer in this field as Mr.. Taw-
ney, although not so prominently known
there. He says that in the last congress
he had drafted BILL but did not intro
duce it because bill already introduced
covered his views. He voluntarily pledged
his support to the author Of that bill and
| has since worked earnestly to secure Oleo
| legislation. Information which he has
from all parts Of the country conyinces
| him that the Grout bill is the only bill
which will satisfy the dairy interests, and
he resents the interference Of the officers
of the National Dairy Union in behalf of
| the Tawney bill of this session. These Of
fcers, he says, represent only themselves,
and have no authority from the union to
advocate anything but the Grout bill. Mr..
McCleary further says that a tax on the
uncolored product is necessary in order
| that the government may control the busi-
ness of manufacture.
And Mr. Tavney's.
Mr.. Tawney says that Mr.. McCleary's S
sudden zeal in the interest of oleo> legis-
lation is largely an afterthought; that the
fight was won for the bill in the last
session of congress, when Mr.. McCleary,
like Sampson at Santiago, was twenty
miles away, and Tawney resents his COM
ing to the front now, like Sampson, to
claim the lions share of the prize money.
| Tawney points to the support Of the off,
GERS of the National Dairy Union, which
he says represents the attitude of the
| dairymen generally. The only logical and
sound position is to make uncolored oleo
| free and tax the colored product. Uncol-
! ored oleo, sold on its merits as such, is
no more to be taxed, in strict justice, than
any other article Of food. Just as we'll
tax butter, lard or meat. 1t is the fraud
that should be taxed, and in this case
that fraud is the article aolored to repre-
sent butter. When uncolored and sold as
oleo it should be free.
Next Tuesday the committee on agricul-
ture will meet to hear the several gentle
men who have oleo bills before the house
and after that it will hold executive ses-
sions until it has decided what to do. 1t
is said that the committee will report
neither the Tawney nor the McCleary bill
but some substitute.