The Washington times., 1911-03-17
CONTINUED from First Page.)

judgment, not comparable with the evils
resultant from the proposed legislation,
which I would oppose as utterly un-
necessary if no other objection ex-
isted.'
Two years later, when the pure food
bill became a law. the minority report
against 1t was signed by Representa-
tves W. c. AdamsOn and c. l.. Bartlett
Of Georgia and Gordon Russell of Texas.
That report was written, presumably,
by Mr.. Bartlett, but Mr.. Adamson as
rankin gmember of the committee signed
it first. That report, in part. says:
The power of the Government to
regulate the sale of food products and
drugs, prohibit adulteration of the same,
prescribe the manner in which they
shall be branded, and fix the size and
weight of the packages in which such
food products and drugs shall be con-
tained. Is admittedly an exercise of po-
lice power. We do not understand or
believe from our conception of the
powers of Congress contained and speci-
fed in the Constitution of the United
States that Congress has the power or
authority to enact police laws for the
regulation of the manufacture, sale, or
for the prevention Of the adulteration of
food, except so far as such laws may
be made to apply to the District of Co
lumbia, the Territories, and those To-
calities over which Congress has, under
This report then closed with a quota
tion from a States rights speech made
on February 16, 1906, before the Union
League Club, Of Philadelphia, by that
sterling States Fighter, the Hon. Jo-
seph G. Cannon, of Illinois. The report
says of this speech and Of Mr.. Cam
non on this subject, whose views and
sentiments We so heartily approve
Pure Food Bill Passed.
Having in this report and in his
speech on the floor, when the bill was
being debated. denied the necessity of
Federal law to regulate the food trade,
Mr.. Adamson was asked by Mr.. Gaines
of Tennessee IL Federal aid was not
necessary in controlling the interstate
commerce. Mr.. Gaines asked: Does
not my friend believe that the Federal
Government should aid the States in
policing this trouble in the States by
excluding deleterious foods from going
INTO the States?" -
Il do not" replied Mr.. Adamson, and
the Supreme Court says that they abso-
lutely have no authority to do it,
AS Mr.. Adamson could muster but
seventeen votes against 241 the pure
food bill passed and became a law on
June 30, 1905. As Democratic member
of the Ways and Means Committee
said the other day, 1T is the most pop
ular Federal statute Of a quarter of
century" 1t has proved of the greatest
value not only to the people, but to the
pure food authorities of the States in
aiding them to enforce State laws But
Mr.. Adamson is still unconvinced.
Early this year the Interstate Csm-
merce Committee gave public hearings
on the bill to provide for the marking Of
FOOD packages SO as to show the net
weight or measurement Of the contents
thereof. No bill ever before Congress
was advocated by such a formidable
phalanx OF persons and associations in
terested either materially or Sentiment
ally.
During the hearings, as was reported
to the House. frequent opportunity was
given to hear the opponents of the bill.
but none appeared.
Mr.. Adamson, however. appeared to
be still the consistent opponent of this
class of legislation. In reply to a Wit
ness who said that a moral question
was involved. Mr.. Adamson said:
we ought to be in Sunday school