The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1908-06-11

Il
| by increasing the tax to 10c pound
| on artificially colored oleomargarine.
The minority of the committee pro-
posed bill (pages 1850 prescribing
| that oleomargerine should be put up
by the manufacturer in packages of
one and two pounds respectively, and
| in no larger or smaller packages;
that upon every print or brick. roll
or lump so put up there should be
! IN pressed by the manufacturer the
word "Oleomargarine" in sunken let
/ tiers; that every piece or brick should
be wrapped in paper wrapper upon
which should be printed the word
| "Oleomargarine." Other regulations
were provided, having for their pur-
pose the prevention of the sale of
| oleomargarine in any except those
packages so marked and stamped that
! the person purchasing the product of
the retail dealer would know definite
| ly and surely that the article purchas-
ed was oleomargarine. 1t was not in
favor of the sale of oleomargarine as
| butter. 1 was opposed to all fraud
and deception in relation to the man
ufacture or sale of this product.
voted for the substitute and when
that was defeated 1 voted against the
Grout bill. 1 cast this vote not in the
| interests of the packer or of Wall
street, not against the manufacturers
of butter or the dairymen, but because
| 1 believed that the substitute bill was
|
compel the sale of oleomargarine as
oleomargarne. The bill passed the
house but did not become a law at
| that congress.
The third charge in relation to
| oleomargarine refers to the bill that
| was considered in the Fifty-Seventh
congress. 1t was practically the same
bill as the Grout bill, but did not bear
| Mr.. CIRCUITS name as he had failed to
! be elected to congress. 1t passed the
70 hnn ma ln xxr
and is still in force. The vote referred
to by Mr.. White as appearing on page
i 1858 was on a proposed amendment to
| the bill and related to the regulation
of the manufacture and sale of reno
| waited butter The amendment was
| adopted and it sought to regulate the
| manufacture of renovated butter
along the same lines as the provision
in the bill regulating the manufacture
| of olcomargarine. White says that 1t
was meant to weaken the oieomar-
garine bill. By reading it, it is shown
that it provides for rigid sanitary m
spection of all factories and store
houses where renovated butter was
handled and prescribed regulations
under which people who bought reno
| waited butter would know what they
were buying. Mr.. White says that I
was found voting for Joker that
Wall street wanted. I voted to recon-
nit the bill with instructions to report
the Wadsworth amendment which was
identical in language with the amend
ment for which 1 voted in the Fifty
sixth congress, having for Its OBJECT
the establishment of regulations under
which every person who bought o:eo-
margarine would know what he was
buying. This motion was defeated, 1
voting for it, because it expressed my
views as to the proper legislation TO
be enacted.
| I do not understand what Mr.. White
means when he uses this language in
the last charge in relation TO o1eomar-
garine: Sometimes when votes oc-
cured on questions of final passage,
Long had to save his face and voted
against the interests but only after
he had tried underhandingly to serve
Il them" My record in congress curing
all the years 1 have been there SHOWS
that 1 always voted my convictions
and always voted on every measure
that was up for consideration when I
4 was present, unless I was paired.
/ never avoided a vote and never cas-, a
vote in my life that did not represent
my judgment on the question under
consideration. There is nothing IN the
Record to show that this statement
had any reference to the oIeomar-
garine legislation. After the amend
ment was defeated for when voted,
there was no roll call on the passage
of the bill. I voted against the bill,
however, as had in the previous con-
gress. believing that it would be inef-
|
what was expected of it.
Mr.. Charles F. Scott, congressman
from this state, held similar views as
my own on this legislation. The law
has been in force several years and
what have been the results under 1t :?
mittee on agriculture of the house
and during the last session of congress
there was bill introduced to amend
the law which 1 voted against in the
1 nj ,oc
presented at the request of the dairy
and farm interests of the state of
Pennsylvania. Mr.. Woodward, repre-
senting the state pure food depart
ment of Pennsylvania and the State
Grange association, spoke for the bill.
In that hearing Mr.. Woodward admit
ted that the Grout bill had largely
failed to accomplish what was expect
al amendment He admitted that the
color test of the Grout bill had been
? ineffective and that oleomargarine was
, still being sold as butter. In this
hearing. Mr.. Scott. the chairman OF
the committee, said (Hearings before
, house committee on agriculture, Nav
6, 1908 page S2):
, THE principal provision of the Wade
. worth bill was found in section 2 whioI
! provided for just what I have stated
namely, that the manufacturers of cl
. comargarine should brand their pack
, ages by pressing into the oleomargar
. | Inc itself the word "Oleomargarine," 81
: that it could not be erased, and that tnt
retail dealer must sell in the origiua
package with the revenue stamp intact
, There were a great many of us wht
thought that such a provision wouls
more certainly compel the sale of cleo
> margarine for oleomargarine than tb
provision of the law that was passed
r Is it your opinion now that If that bill
| had been passed it would have beel
effective?
o Mr.. Woodward think it wou1;
: have helped. 1 think your law now !
! defective in this, that there ought t
be system by which you can trac
, the oleo from the original manufacture
. down through to the consumer.