Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1907-10-24

Gently published IN criticize by Henry B.
Needham Of the peoples lobby" in
which the course % Representative James
A. Tawney was criticised and his mo-
tives impugned for his action In connec-
tion with the last agricultural appropria-
ton bill. Mr.. Tawney wrote to Govern
ment a reply to the article. but the maya
zine failed to print 1t. Following Is Mr..
tTawney's communications:
! Mr.. Tawney's Letter.
WINONA. MINI. September 10. 1907.
Mr.. John F. Bonyon. Editor Government.
| Boston. Mass:
| Dear Sir-It was with much interest that
I read the editorial in the August issue Of
Government on the peoples lobby. and
the justification for the existence Of this
self-created organization as described by
Mr.. Henry Beech Needham, It's chief bene-
hciary. If you were familiar with the
facts In all the instances cited by Mr..
Needham to prove the necessity of this
Sc f-styied peoples lobby as you are with
its defense Of statutes which have estab
,iished a dangerous press censorship in this
country. your conclusion as to the entire
work OF this Self-created third house
would be the same 1t is In respect to
their defense OF the statutes referred to.
1t Is not my purpose to discuss the
Peoples Lobby. it's methods or the real
| reason for its existence, but since my
name has been used by Mr.. Henry Beech
| i.eedham the Peoples Lobby, in his
| ticle In connection with the amendment
offered to the last agr cultural appropria-
ton bill and In a publication Of the char
acter and standing of government. and
| used in a way too, that would naturally
create the impression that I was either
| unfrfendly to the pure food law or the tool
of those who opposed its enactment. feel
Justified in giving you the facts In respect
| TO this amendment and my purpose in
Offering it.
The Congressional Recore. discloses all
| this. but that Is something the so-cailed
| Peoples Lobby never refers to or uses
| except when 1t thinks 1t can injure some
one by so doing.
Legislation for Purer Food.
| That you may know what my attitude
| toward the pure food law and toward pure
food legislation generally is. and has
| been. and to, correct the error Of Mr.
Henry Beech Needham. the Peoples Lob
by. when he says that ut was seventeen
years before bill OF this character Ia
| pure FOOD SiD was accorded a vote in
the United States Senate I will say that
| 1t was in the Fifty-third Congress that
| l. as member Of the House Of Repre-
sentatiyes; wrote and secured the passage
| the manufacture Of "fHed'' or aduiter-
ated cheese. In the Fifty fourth Congress
prepared and secured the passage Of
the bill that has entirely destroyed
Ing adulterated -four. and in the Fifty
seventh Congress 1 led the fight in the
House which finally resulted in the pas
| sage OF the bill! that has put a stop to
the fraud practiced upon the American
people. and especially the poorer classes,
OF manufacturing and selling oleor,ar-
garine for butter
No one will find fault with Mr. Henry |
Beech Needham. the Peoples Lobby for |
not knowing that these three bills passed |
Doth houses and were accorded q vote
In the Senate" long before the pure food |
Dill became a law, because he was not !
then old enough to know the value to |
hi nand his associate OF Peoples Lobby |
and since arriving at that age he has not |
cared enough about the truth or the facts |
IN respect to proposed legislation to In
qufre. but Just assumes that until the |
Peoples Lobby created itself for the pur-
pose OF advising Congress what to dol
congress was incapable Of enacting wise
legislation upon this or any other sub
Jet.
Agricultural Bill Amendment.
The pure food bill passed by the Fifty
ninth Congress 1 worked and voted for.
The amendment to the agricultural appro-
priation bill referred to by Mr.. Henry
Beech Needham. the Peoples Lobby. in
| his article was offered by me and adopted
Dy the House. It was intended only IA a
limitation upon the appropriation for en-
forcing the federal pure food law and to
| ms, Insure the emciency Of that enforcement.
me amendment was as follows:
Prov ded. that no part OF this sum
| shall be used for the payment Of com
9eas or o,n or expenses to any Of
state. county or municipal government"
! It's purpose was not. as MT Henry
Beach Needham Of tho Peoples Lobby
then said and now reiterates; ito i'm
par the efficiency Of the pure food law"
Its purpose was to insure the efficiency
| OF that law and make certain its en-
forcement by employing for that purpose
| only those whose responsibility would be
70 the FEDERAL government alone. and to
prevent the employment OF those whose
responsibilities would be divided between
the federal and state or other local author
| ity. and whose positions as state or other
| local officers had been secured. no doubt,
as a political favor upon the recommends
ton of men In the community where
they were employed and served This
amen dment did not propose to limit the
department. In the number OF men to be
employed In the enforcement OF the fed
| eral pure food law. nor the amount of
their compensation nor the extent Of their
knowledge or intelligence. Now, then.
could Mr. Henry Beech Needham or any
one else charge that 1t was offered ito
impair the efficiency Of the pure food
iaw?" The only limitation upon the de-
partment in this respect was in the ag-
greSate amount OF the approximation
which my amendment did not change.
The amendment proposed only to limit
| the department to the employment of
| men outside of state. county or municipal
employees. and thus prevent the possible
| duplication Of salaries. the inefficient en-
forcement of the federal law that A:uSt
result from divided responsibility and
local influence exerted upon local EN-
ployes. and also to prevent tho states
from ultimately shifting upon the federal
government the duty. as well as the ex-
pense. OF enforcing state pure food laws
| as well as the national law.
Establishing q Policy.
At the time Of offering this amendment
the Agricultural Department had not es-
tab!ished any fixed policy with respect
to the enforcement of our national pure
| food law. It had had no opportunity to
| do far the reason that it had no aupro-
priation for that purpose except a small
| appropriation to aid 1t In effect.na a
pure food organization in tho depart
ment at Washington. I deemed it essen.
tial, therefore. that at the very threshold
OF the enforcement of this law the fed
eral government should adopt a plan that
| would insure its efficient enforcement.
~