Pacific Railroad Bill. 
 
 REMARKS 
 
 OF 
 
 WILLIAM W. GROUT, 
 
 OF VERMONT, 
 
 In the House of Representatives, 
 
 Saturday, January 9, 1897. 
 
 The House being in Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, and 
 having under consideration the bill (H. R. 8189) to amend an act entitled 
 “An act to aid in the construction of a railroad and telegraph lino from the 
 Missouri River to the Pacific Ocean, and to secure to the Government tho uso 
 of tho same for postal, military, and other purposes,” approved July 1,1862; 
 also to amend an act approved July 2, 1864. and also an act approved May 7, 
 1878, both in amendment of said first-mentioned act, and other acts amenda¬ 
 tory thereof and supplemental thereto, and to provide for tho settlement of 
 claims growing out of the issue of bonds to aid in the construction of certain 
 railroads, and to seeuvo tho payment of all indebtedness to the United States 
 of certain companies therein mentioned— 
 
 Mr. GROUT said: 
 
 Mr. Chairman: I agree with those gentlemen who advocate 
 the passage of this hill that the real question before us is how 
 we can save to the public Treasury this one hundred and eleven 
 or twelve millions of dollars due to the Government from these 
 roads; but I do not agree with them when they say that it is a 
 matter of no consequence that the men who received the money 
 from the sale of the bonds which we loaned these companies and 
 expended it, made themselves rich through the dishonest and 
 fraudulent practices with which they are charged. 
 
 I can not. for instance, agree with my friend the gentleman 
 from Iowa [Mr. Hepuurn] in his statement that if these men be- 
 camerichit was from the rise of the securities which they received— 
 honestly received, as he would have us understand—in the con¬ 
 struction of the road. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, I can not agree to this when I find on page 143 
 of the report of the Pacific Railroad Commission, which I hold in 
 my hand, that there were large sums paid for improper purposes, 
 to wit, $203,812.08 on account of the Sioux City and Pacific Rail¬ 
 way, which went improperly for the benefit of the directors of that 
 road. On account also of constructing 1,171 miles of feeders to 
 the Central Pacific, Stanford, Huntington, Hopkins, and Crocker 
 issued to themselves $33,722,000 of bonds and $49,005,800 of stock, 
 when the costof these adjunct lines was but $27,216,931.01, thereby 
 leaving a clean steal on this alone of $55,509,554. Then as direct¬ 
 ors of the Central Pacific tlioy took a lease of these lines which 
 they owned, at a rental of nearly 13 per cent. 
 
How can I agree with my friend when I read further in said 
 report as follows: 
 
 Fifteen months ago three of these directors contracted with themselves to 
 build an extension of .the California and Oregon division of the Central Pacific 
 from Delta to the boundary line of Oregon, a distance of 103 miles. In pay¬ 
 ment they issued stock to the amount ol' $*.000,000 and bonds to the amount 
 of $4.. r i<>0.<)00, the market valuo of the stocks and bonds at that time being 
 $8,310,000. The actual cost of construction was $3,506,009. so that they person¬ 
 ally profited by their own votes by that single transaction to the extent of 
 $4,831,391. Mark Hopkins is dead, but his interest is still maintained for his 
 estate and heir3. 
 
 The summary of the stealings from the Central Pacific is pre¬ 
 sented by the commission in the following language: 
 
 In following up the dealings of the Central Pacific Railway directors with 
 the adjunct companies it is found that Messrs. Stanford, Huntington, Hop¬ 
 kins, and Crocker received over $143,000,000 in cash and securities. And in 
 addition to this sum of $143,000,(XX) they also mado largo profits in the opera¬ 
 tion of fifteen or moro companies which wero directly or remotely sapping 
 the revenues of the Central Pacific Company. 
 
 How can I agree with my friend from Iowa when I turn to page 
 107 of this report and find the provision contained in the charters 
 of these companies that no stock was to be issued until fully paid 
 up in cash, and then read the following findings of the commission; 
 that moro than §60,000.000 of the stock of the Union Pacific was 
 issued, but only §9,000,000 paid in cash; of the Kansas Pacific 
 stock §9,000,000 was issued, and not a cent paid; of the Western 
 Pacific §7,900,000 in stock was issued and only §200,000 paid; of the 
 Central Pacific §68,000,000 stock was issued and only §7,000,000 paid 
 in upon it; and of the Sioux City Pacific there were §4,260,000 of 
 stock and only §1,894,000 paid—a total of over §139,000,000 of stock 
 issued, and but §18,094,000 paid into the treasuries of these different 
 companies. Then when I turn to page 51 of this report, and find that 
 the total profit of construction of the Union Pacific was §43,000,000, 
 as this commission figured it, giving the items and spreading them 
 before us, which sum included §1,104,000 on account of the Credit 
 Mobilier, how can I agree with my esteemed friend that these 
 gentlemen became rich' from the rise in the securities which they 
 legitimately received? They really stole themselves rich and stole 
 these roads poor. Nor can I agree with my friend and colleague, 
 the gentleman in charge of this bill [Mr. Powers] , when he says 
 it is none of our business how much these men cheated other 
 people if they did not cheat the Government. 
 
 It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that it is not impertinent on the 
 part of the American Congress to have a care that a corporation 
 created by it be kept clean and honest, not only in its transactions 
 with the Government but with all men. Why, these railroads 
 are the children of Congress; they are our children, if you please; 
 and can it be said that because our children have not cheated us 
 it is none of our business that they cheat everybody else? 
 
 But the trouble is, Mr. Chairman, these men have cheated us. 
 You will recall how, after they went away with their charters for 
 these roads granted in 1862, and started the construction of them, 
 they came back in 1864 and said they were not provided with money 
 enough to build the roads, that the stock and bonds were not suffi¬ 
 cient in amount, when in fact they were more than sufficient only 
 for the grand larceny of these men. They said, in short, that they 
 must have another mortgage equal to the amount of the Govern¬ 
 ment loan, and that it must be a first mortgage and the Govern¬ 
 ment mortgage made second. And, Mr. Chairman, you will 
 
3 
 
 remember, astounding as the fact now seems, how, through the 
 legerdemain of the Credit Mobilier, the stock of which was held by 
 many a Member and Senator, whom it followed like a shadow to 
 the grave, these men hoodwinked and wheedled the American 
 Congress into making the Government mortgage a second mort¬ 
 gage and allowing them to sell, as a first mortgage, an amount of 
 bonds equal to those loaned by the Government, and then they 
 went to work and stole every dollar of that first mortgage and 
 two or three times as much more. So I say, Mr. Chairman, they 
 have cheated us. 
 
 They also cheated the Government at the same time by falsely 
 representing that the Sioux City road could not be built on a 
 straight line from Sioux City to the North Platte, according to 
 the original charter, and obtained permission to build on a cir¬ 
 cuitous route at very much greater cost and to the inconvenience 
 and great damage of the whole Northwest, but to the advantage 
 of a connecting railway, which was in the conspiracy. 
 
 By this line, as fraudulently built, after one had gone 79 miles 
 froiii Sioux City on his way to San Francisco he would actually 
 be more than 20 miles farther east than when he started. 
 
 Not only this, but when they defaulted in payment of interest— 
 that is, the Union Pacific—I believe the Central Pacific has not 
 defaulted- 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired. 
 
 Mr. BARHAM. I ask that the gentleman have five minutes in 
 addition. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. Unanimous consent is asked that the gen¬ 
 tleman have five minutes in addition. Is there objection? 
 
 There was no objection. 
 
 Mr. GROUT. Mr. Chairman, when they defaulted in the pay¬ 
 ment of interest any lawyer would suppose that possession of the 
 road could be taken by foreclosure proceedings, and the Attorney- 
 General so supposed, and instituted suit for that purpose. But, 
 when the Government got to the Supreme Court, it was discovered 
 that the gilded hand of the Credit Mobilier had so shaped the act 
 of 1864 that the Government could not foreclose in default of 
 interest alone, but must wait till the debt itself fell due. None of 
 the principal fell due till January 1, 1896. 
 
 And here a word in reply to the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. 
 Hkxdkhsox], who said the Government had confessed its inability 
 to deal with this subject by not having already taken action. The 
 fact is the Government could not take action. There was not a 
 dollar of the principal due till January 1, 1896, and under the 
 decision already referred to nothing could be done till the debt 
 itself matured. 
 
 Since then they have been awaiting the action of Congress, and 
 very properly, only a year. 
 
 Now, Mr. Chairman, after having been hold up for thirty-five 
 years, the Government has at last got where it can put its hand on 
 this corporation; where it can foreclose its mortgage. And now 
 these gentlemen and their successors and representatives appear 
 upon the scene again and ask Congress to forget the falsehoods 
 and frauds and robberies that have been committed by them dur¬ 
 ing the thirty-five years they have kept the Government out of 
 this debt. They ask not only this, but also ask the Government 
 to tie its hands as to this debt again, and this time for eighty-six 
 years and at 2 per cent interest. In other words, they ask the Gov- 
 2683 
 
4 
 
 eminent to hire money at 4 per cent and let to them at 2 per cent. 
 Why, the loss to the Government in interest alone on this transac¬ 
 tion would amount to as much or more than the whole debt at the 
 present time. My colleague said in his speech presenting this 
 matter that tlio Government had its choice, to accept this bill or 
 throw the debt away. 
 
 If the bill is accepted, the debt would be absolutely thrown away 
 through the loss on the interest item alone. But, Mr. Chairman, 
 the debt will not be lost should this bill fail. It could only be 
 lost on the ground that the first mortgage could foreclose and 
 6hut out the Government mortgage. But this can not be done till 
 Congress gives permission to bo made a party to the suit. 
 
 Sovereignty does not allow itself to be sued, does not allow itself 
 to be taken into court by a dapper constable or a deputy marshal 
 with a writ of summons except by permission of Congress, and 
 that permission has not yet been granted. If you will look at the 
 Attorney-General’s report for 1896, you will find the Department 
 of Justice stands upon this ground. The Government can not, 
 without further legislation, bo foreclosed out of its rights in this 
 property. Of course the first mortgage must be paid first, and 
 whether in the hands of a receiver as now, or however it may be 
 administered, that must be paid before anything can go to the 
 Government. But the advocates of this bill say it will give us a 
 mortgage on additional lines of railway. Mr. Chairman, in my 
 opinion the Government is better off with the security it now has 
 than it will be with that proposed by this bill; and if power could 
 bo vested in somebody to settle, as proposed by the substitute bill of 
 the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Harrison] , I believe it would 
 result much more profitably for the Government than to pass this 
 bill. The fact is, little if any additional security would bo ob¬ 
 tained by extending the mortgage over the unaided portions, 
 while the first mortgage would be increased, if this bill passes, by 
 the amount of $24,060,000. This is well illustrated by the Kansas 
 Pacific, on which we have a mortgage now to the three hundred 
 and ninety-f ourth milepost. This is really a valuable piece of road, 
 every rod of it runing through a rich and productive country. 
 Between that point and Denver the road goes through an alkali 
 region practically worthless. That portion on which we now have 
 our mortgage will always bo a valuable property, made so by the 
 fertility of the country. But the other part is worth nothing only 
 for its connections And so it is throughout the whole system. 
 It is by no means clear that we shall not lessen, rather than in¬ 
 crease, our security by passing this bill. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. 
 
 2582 
 
EXTRACTS 
 
 FROM THE 
 
 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. 
 
 House of Representatives, January 13, 1S07. 
 
 OLEOMARGARINE. 
 
 Mr. WADSWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I call up the bill (IT. R. 1221) 
 to make oleomargarine and all other imitation dairy products sub¬ 
 ject to the laws of the State or Territory into which they are 
 
 transported. 
 
 The bill was road, as follows: 
 
 Be it enacted , etc., That all articles known as oleomargarine, bntterine, 
 imitation butter, or imitation cheese, or any substance in the semblance or 
 butter or cheese not the usual product of the dairy and not made exclusively 
 of pure and unadulterated milk or cream, transported into any State or Ter¬ 
 ritory, or remaining therein for use, consumption, sale, or storage therein, 
 shall, upon arrival in such State or Territory, be subject to the operation 
 and effect of the laws of such Stato or Territory enacted in the exercise of 
 its police powers to the same extent and in the same maimer as though such 
 articles or substances had been produced in such Stato or Territory, and shall 
 not be exempt therefrom by reason of being introduced therein in original 
 packages or otherwise. 
 
 Mr. WADSWORTH. Mr. Speaker, the member of the com¬ 
 mittee having this matter in charge being unavoidably absent at 
 this time, I yield to the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Grout] 
 who introduced the bill. 
 
 * * * * * * 
 
 Mr. GROUT. Mr. Speaker, it would seem to me that there 
 ought not to be any necessity for discussing this bill, but I have 
 just been informed by the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Wil- 
 liams] that he would like to be heard upon it. Of course there is 
 no objection to that, and I now yield to the gentleman such time 
 as he may desire to present his views. 
 
 Mr. GROUT. Mr. Speaker, I am very sorry to find my friend 
 from Mississippi so exercised about the effect of this bill. He 
 says that on its face it is harmless, hut that concealed within it 
 is all manner of mischief and wickedness. 
 
 He says he is in favor of having oleomargarine go upon the 
 market for just what it is, aud then declares that this bill will 
 accomplish some other terrible purpose, but does not make it clear 
 what calamity will follow. 
 
 Mr. Speaker, all that this bill provides is that when oleomarga¬ 
 rine, imitation cheese, or “ any substance in the semblance of but¬ 
 ter or cheese’’ is transported into one State from another it shall 
 be subject to the laws of the State into which it is taken. Now, 
 is there anything so very terrible about that? The bill contains 
 2582 5 
 
6 
 
 no other provision, only that all these false and imitation dairy 
 products shall he subject to the laws of the State into which they 
 are transported. The language is unequivocal. 
 
 Mr. WILLIAMS. If the gentleman will permit an interruption. 
 
 Mr. GROUT. Certainly. I yield to the gentleman. 
 
 Mr. WILLIAMS. I think you will find that you are mistaken. 
 I think the gentleman has not gotten the real gravity of the lan¬ 
 guage: 
 
 That all articles known as oleomargarine. 
 
 Now, if this bill stopped right there, without any disjunctive 
 or conjuntive word following, until you came to the verb, there 
 could be no question as to its meaning. But you have added other 
 articles—butterine, imitation butter, “ or any substance in the 
 semblance of butter or cheese”—which changes the entire con¬ 
 struction and meaning of the sentence. 
 
 Mr. GROUT. But the gentleman is entirely in error as to his 
 contention. Let us read the language of the bill to which ho 
 refers. Here it is again: 
 
 That all articles known as oleomargarine, butterine, imitation butter, or 
 imitation cheese, or any substance in the semblanco of butter or cheese not 
 the usual product of the dairy, and not made exclusively of pure and unadul¬ 
 terated milk or cream, transported into any State or Territory, shall be sub¬ 
 ject to the operation and effect, etc. 
 
 Now, there can he no possible question about that language. 
 It is as clear as language can be. It simply places these imitation 
 products under control of the law of the States into which they 
 are taken for consumption or sale, and that is all there is to it. 
 
 Nevertheless. Mr. Speaker, if the bill is not sufficiently explicit 
 on this point, I am entirely willing that any amendment shall 
 he adopted to make it so. 
 
 The only object of the bill is to prevent these false and fraudu¬ 
 lent imitations of butter and cheese from being transported 
 from the State in which they are manufactured into a State where 
 they are not manufactured, and there put on sale in such a way 
 as to deceive the purchaser as to the real character of the article, 
 as could have been done under the decision known as the original- 
 package decision, which allowed one sale while in the original 
 package in spite of the laws of the State where the sale was made, 
 no matter how great the fraud that may have been practiced upon 
 those who consumed it. This, I repeat, is the only object of the 
 bill, to make certain that when this imitation, this fraudulent 
 substance, is taken from the State where it is manufactured into 
 another State the police law of the State may become operative 
 to the same extent and in the same manner as though the article 
 had been produced in said State or Territory. That is all that the 
 bill seeks to do. 
 
 Mr. COX. But, let me ask the gentleman, if you go that far 
 why do you not put it within the power of the State to prohibit 
 its coming into the State altogether? 
 
 Mr. GROUT. The hill leaves to each State the right to regu¬ 
 late the sale in its own way. There is nothing in it to justify the 
 conclusion that its sale may b* prohibited. 
 
 Mr. LIVINGSTON. May I ask the gentleman a question? 
 
 Mr. GROUT. Certainly. 
 
 Mr. LIVINGSTON. If I understand the purpose of the bill, it 
 places that article—oleomargarine—when carried into a State, 
 within the local jurisdiction of that State? 
 
 25S3 
 
7 
 
 Mr. MORSE. That is exactly where it ought to be. 
 
 Mi*. GROUT. And that is precisely what the bill does, and all 
 it does. 
 
 Mr. LIVINGSTON. Then the bill is a good one, and it ought 
 to pass. 
 
 Mr. COX. It ought not to be passed. 
 
 Mr. GROUT. Well, 1 am very sorry that gentlemen so dis¬ 
 tinguished on this floor differ so radically. 
 
 Now, Mr. Speaker, just a word as to the history of the imitation- 
 butter business in connection with the legislation and the deci¬ 
 sions of the courts respecting it. It will be remembered that in 
 1886 the oleomargarine act was passed, and under that law the 
 production and sale of it were checked to some extent, as you will 
 see by the following statistics: In 1887, the year after the passage 
 of the law, the number of manufacturers was 87, wholesale dealers 
 288. and retail dealers 6.977, or a total of 7,802 persons engaged 
 in the business as manufacturers and dealers, wholesale and retail, 
 in oleomargarine. Under tiiat law the manufacturers and dealers 
 went down from this total of 7,302 in 1887 to 6,035 in 1889, a reduc¬ 
 tion of over 1,000 in two years. In 1889 came the original-pack¬ 
 age decision, under which, as 1 have said, oleomargarine could 
 be taken from one State into another, and one sale made in spite 
 of local laws, which put it into the hands of the retail dealer and 
 started it on its way of cheating the purchaser, who invariably 
 buys it for butter. 'Nobodv buys oleomargarine for consumption 
 except the boarding-house keeper and the restaurant and hotel 
 keeper. The purchaser always buys butter, but often gets oleo¬ 
 margarine, because this stuff so closely counterfeits butter that 
 few except experts can tell the difference between the two. 
 
 And now again, in 1887, the first year after the oleomargarine 
 law was passed which put restrictions upon it, the total revenue 
 from oleomargarine was but $723,904.01. But when the original- 
 package decision came, protecting it in its transfer to the retailer, 
 who could work it off to the unsuspecting purchaser as butter, the 
 total receipts jumped in the following year from that figure to over 
 a million and a half of dollars. The receipts from the tax upon it 
 a good deal more than doubled in a single year. Now, as badly 
 as the Government wants revenue just now, it does not want it 
 from such fraudulent sources as this. And this was the boom 
 which the original-package decision gave to oleomargarine through¬ 
 out the country, by putting it everywhere into the hands of the 
 retail dealer, who really practices the fraud upon the people. 
 
 But in 1893 there came another decision of the Supreme Court, 
 which lays down the doctrine contained in this bill. That was 
 rendered, however, by a divided court, the opinion being given 
 by Mr. Justice Harlan. The Chief Justice and Justices Field and 
 Brewer dissented. Now, I want to read from that opinion, in 
 answer to my friend the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Wir, 
 liams] and in answer to my other friend the gentleman from Ten¬ 
 nessee [Mr. Cox]. I will say, however, before doing so, that the 
 reason for this legislation is that this decision was by a divided 
 court, and the dairy interests of the country fear that possibly— 
 
 The court, some fine day, 
 
 Alay hold the other way. 
 
 Mr. Speaker, the dairy interests of the country are of immense 
 proportions in the aggregate, though made up from a vast num- 
 2582 
 
8 
 
 ber of small interests, many of them weak and comparatively in¬ 
 significant when standing by themselves, but in their united 
 strength they are a power in the land, and they demand this legis¬ 
 lation. They ask that this decision of the Supreme Court be writ¬ 
 ten in the statutes of the country, and not left to the possibly 
 fluctuating opinion of that tribunal. And now let me read from 
 that decision. By it, all the constitutional arguments and fictions 
 of the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Williams] and others 
 opposing this bill are at once wiped away. It is in the case of 
 Plumley vs. Massachusetts (155 United States Reports), in which 
 the plaintiff in error had been prosecuted and fined under a Massa¬ 
 chusetts statute prohibiting the sale of oleomargarine in the guise 
 of butter. He pleaded his constitutional right to handle this 
 product from another State, in the absence of Federal prohibition, 
 the Massachusetts statute to the contrary notwithstanding. But, 
 as I say, he was convicted and fined under that statute, and, being 
 held in jail for nonpayment of the fine, brought a writ of habeas 
 corpus before the supreme court of Massachusetts, which decided 
 against him and in favor of the constitutionality of the State 
 statute. The case came to tho United States Supreme Court on 
 appeal, and the following is the closing part of the opinion by Mr. 
 Justice Harlan: 
 
 We are of opinion that it is within the power of a State to exclude from its 
 markets any compound manufactured in another State which has been arti¬ 
 ficially colored or adulterated so as to cause it to look liko an article of food 
 in general use, and tho sale of which may, by reason of such coloration or 
 adulteration, cheat tho general public into purchasing that which they may 
 not intend to buy. The Constitution of tho United States docs not secure to 
 anyone tho privilege of defrauding the public. The deception against which 
 the statute of Massachusetts is aimed is an offense against society; and the 
 States are ns competent to protect their people against such offenses or 
 wrongs as they are to protect them against crimes or wrongs of more serious 
 character. And this protection may be given without violating any right 
 secured by tho National Constitution, and without infringing the authority 
 of tho General Government. A Stato enactment forbidding tho sale of deceit¬ 
 ful imitations of articles of food in general use among tho people does not 
 abridge any privilege secured to citizens of tho United States, nor, in any 
 
 i ' ust sense, interfere with the freedom of commerce among tho several States, 
 t is legislation which “can bo most advantageously exorcised by the States 
 themselves.” 
 
 Wo are not unmindful of tho fact—indeed, this court has often had occasion 
 to observe—that the acknowledged power of the States to protect the morals, 
 the health, and safety of their pooplo by appropriate legislation sometimes 
 touches in its exercise tho lines separating the respective domains of national 
 and State authority. But in view of the complex system of government 
 which exists in this country, “presenting,” as this court, speaking by Chief 
 Justice Marshall, has said, “ the rare and difficult scheme of ono General Gov¬ 
 ernment whose action extends over the whole, but which possesses only cer¬ 
 tain enumerated powers, and of numerous State governments, which retain 
 and exercise all powers not delegated to the Union,” tho judiciary of the 
 United States should not strike down a legislative enactment of a State— 
 especially if it has direct connection with the social order, the health, and 
 the morals of its pooplo—unless such legislation plainly and palpably violates 
 some right granted or secured by tho national Constitution or cucroaches 
 upon the authority delegated to tho United States for the attainment of 
 objects of national concern. 
 
 We can not so adjudgo in reference to the statute of Massachusetts, and as 
 the court below correctly held that the plaintiff in error was not restrained 
 of his liberty in violation of the Constitution of tho United States, the judg¬ 
 ment must be affirmed. 
 
 Now, from this opinion you will see that this bill only proposes 
 to put this decision into statute law, and for the sole purpose of 
 giving it greater permanency. It does not enlarge or take from 
 the law of this decision a single iota in any particular. 
 
 2583 
 
Mr. COOKE of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I desire to bo heard in 
 
 mv own time. 
 
 Mr. GROUT. What time does the gentleman desire? 
 
 Mr. COOKE of Illinois. Ten minutes. 
 
 Mr. GROUT. I will yield ten minutes to the gentleman as soon 
 as I have concluded my remarks. I had merely concluded the 
 reading of this opinion. 
 
 Mr. FITZGERALD. Under the operation of this law, if it 
 should be enacted, is it not possible for the States to enact a law 
 forbidding the sale of oleomargarine in those States? 
 
 Mr. GROUT. Not by authority of this law. The bill is drawn 
 within the provisions of the law laid down by the court; it is 
 drawn strictly in accordance with it; and if it admits of that view, 
 the gentleman must argue with the court and not with me. 
 
 Mr. Speaker, now a word as to another view of the matter. 
 Gentlemen talk about interfering with the sale of a product de¬ 
 signed for the subsistence of the poor. Ah. Mr. Speaker, this is 
 a mere pretense, as false as the product itself. Oleomargarine 
 now goes in the garb of butter—“ semblanco of butter" in the 
 words of the bill—to the poor and is sold as blitter, not at the price 
 for oleomargarine, but at the price butter bears; and so neither 
 the poor nor the rich get oleomargai’ine except at an enormous 
 profit. Most of the States now have laws, if they are allowed to 
 take charge of this stuff as this bill proposes, which will secure 
 its sale for just what it is. Then the poor will get oleomargarine 
 at somewhere near its cost, instead of paying the price of butter 
 for it as now. And then, too, butter will bo sought by those who 
 are able and want to pay a good price for a good article. The 
 producer of butter will thus be benefited at the same time that 
 the poor man is furnished with oleomargarine at one-half or one- 
 third what he pays now. No one will bo hurt but the manufac¬ 
 turer and dealer in this false and fraudulent article, who, between 
 them, now realize enormous profits in palming it off for butter. 
 And even they will not be hurt, but will only bo confined to reason¬ 
 able profits; and, as we have seen, all for the benefit of those who 
 feel themselves unable to buy butter. 
 
 Besides the fraud on the public in imposing upon them a coun¬ 
 terfeit product of doubtful wholesomeness, the damage to the 
 honest dairy interests of the country is immense in dragging down 
 the price of butter by the sale of vast quantities of the cheap 
 greases that go into oleomargarine, but which are colored for but¬ 
 ter and so flavored by the use of buttermilk as to give the product 
 every appearance of butter and even the taste of butter. It is one 
 of the boasted merits of this product, but really its chief infamy, 
 that an ordinar}' person can not detect the difference between the 
 genuine and the false; and I agree that it is so disguised that it is 
 difficult to tell. 
 
 Now, nobody objects to its going on the market in its own color. 
 The court says so expressly in the opinion which I read. It is only 
 when it assumes the semblance of butter, and so is calculated to 
 practice deceit and fraud, that it is proposed to make it subject 
 to the police laws of the State where it is sold. The bill says 
 the same thing. It is only whero it goes on the market in the 
 “semblance of butter or cheese ” that this bill authorizes the police 
 laws of the State into which it goes to take hold of it. If it goes 
 on the market as oleomargarine, with the color of oleomargarine, 
 and undertakes no cheat or falsehood as it goes, there is no objec- 
 
10 
 
 tion to it. There is nothing in this bill that will allow any State 
 to touch it by way of prohibition if it goes on the market for what 
 it is. 
 
 Mr. LIVINGSTON. Will the gentleman accept an amendment? 
 
 Mr. GROUT. In a minute. We only insist that this uncer¬ 
 tain stuff shall not sail under false colors, so that the poor man 
 shall have the product at a cheap price with a reasonable profit 
 only upon it. We shall thus be helping the poor man and pro¬ 
 tecting an honest industry at the same time. Besides, it allows this 
 product to be brought out of its disguise in every State that sees 
 fit to do it. If a State chooses to let it be sold for butter, it can do 
 so; but there is no State in the Union that is walling to do that; and 
 there is no honest man in this country who is willing it should 
 be done. 
 
 Mr. TERRY. Will the gentleman allow me to ask him a ques¬ 
 tion on that point? 
 
 Mr. GROUT. Certainly. 
 
 Mr. TERRY. Does not the United States legislation already 
 provide that the product ‘ ‘ oleomargarine ” shall be sold as oleomar¬ 
 garine? 
 
 Mr. GROUT. Yes; it provides that it shall be stamped and put? 
 on the market in the original package. 
 
 Mr. TERRY. How is it possible, then, to deceive anybody? 
 
 Mr. GROUT. I did not yield to the gentleman for" remarks. 
 You asked me a question. Now let me answer. It is an easy mat¬ 
 ter for the retailer to slip the tub off the stuff and set it on the 
 counter alongside of butter and sell it as butter in small lots as 
 called for. Remember, it is so like butter that only an expert can 
 tell the difference in appearance or taste. Frequently nothing 
 short of the microscope can make the difference certain. 
 
 Now I yield to the gentleman from Georgia. 
 
 Mr. LIVINGSTON. Will the gentleman accept this amend¬ 
 ment?— 
 
 Shall not be interfered with by the State or by State regulations in a State 
 when sold as oleomargarine. 
 
 If yon will put that amendment in, I think it will be agreed to. 
 
 Mr. GROUT. But that would defeat the express purpose of 
 the bill, w T hich is to give to the States the right to regulate the 
 sale of oleomargarine. We do not ask for the power in the States 
 to prohibit the sale of it. The Supreme Court says the States 
 have the right to regulate its sale, and I am surprised that my 
 friend the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Williams], from a 
 State-rights State, and my friend from Tennessee [Mr. Cox], 
 from a State-rights State, and now also my friend from Louisiana 
 [Mr. Boatner], who, I see, is ready with a question, also from a 
 State-rights State, are willing to stand in the way of the rights 
 of the States under the Constitution, as determined by the Supreme 
 Court in the opinion which I have just read. 
 
 Mr. BOATNER. Will the gentleman yield for a question? 
 
 Mr. GROUT. Certainly. 
 
 Mr. BOATNER. Does not the gentleman from Vermont think 
 that this bill and all bills of a similar character rest on the author¬ 
 ity of the Federal Government to regulate commerce between the 
 States? 
 
 Mr. GROUT. The Supreme Court says not in case of articles 
 like false butter and cheese, calculated to deceive, or at least the 
 2582 
 
11 
 
 Supreme Court says that the States may regulate and suppress 
 falsehoods and frauds of this character. Mr. Speaker, I do not 
 believe the dairymen, who are intelligent men, throughout this 
 country, having knowledge of this decision of the court, would 
 have asked more, but they felt that it being by a divided court, 
 it rested upon too uncertain a basis. They realize that the specious 
 arguments which the gentlemen are suggesting in opposition to 
 this bill now may be at some evil but more favorable time thrust 
 upon the court, and the decision perhaps overturned. They want 
 to see this law on the statute book also- 
 
 Mr. BOATNER. But does not the gentleman from Vermont 
 concede that this bill if enacted into law is a concession of a 
 part of the authority and power of the Federal Government to 
 regulate commerce between the States? 
 
 Mr. GROUT. No, it is rather an indorsementof or acquiescence 
 on the part of Congress in tho decision of the court, which is to 
 the effect that the States may exercise this power without leave of 
 Congress. 
 
 Mr. BOATNER. Otherwise, what necessity is there for tho 
 bill, if it takes nothing away from the power of the Federal Gov¬ 
 ernment and adds nothing to the different States? 
 
 Mr. GROUT. It docs not contravene the powers of the Gen¬ 
 eral Government to control interstate commerce, as stated by 
 the court in their opinion. This question lies close to the line 
 between tho authority of the General Government and of the 
 States, but to prevent a fraud tho court holds that tho States may 
 act through their polico power, and I believe it is sound doctrine, 
 and this bill simply puts into statute law the decision of the court; 
 that is all. 
 
 Mr. COOKE of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I desire to be recognized 
 in my ow r n time for ten minutes. 
 
 Mr. GROUT. Well, Mr. Speaker, since gentlemen want some 
 division of tho time and are desirous of controlling the time in 
 opposition to the bill, let us try to reach an agreement about it. 
 
 Mr. WILLIAMS. That is what I proposed a while ago, but 
 the gentleman seemed not to understand me. 
 
 Mr. GROUT (to Mr. Williams). There was so much confu¬ 
 sion I did not understand you. How much time do you want? 
 
 Mr. WILLIAMS. I suppose an hour on each side. 
 
 Mr. GROUT. Taking out of your hour the time that you have 
 used, and out of mine the time I used? 
 
 Mr. WILLIAMS. Taking the time that I have used out of the 
 time on our side, and taking the time that you have used out w 
 tho time in favor of tho bill. 
 
 Mr. GROUT. Does the Chair understand the proposition of 
 the gentleman from Mississippi? 
 
 The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair does not understand 
 that there has yet been any proposition made. 
 
 Mr. GROUT. The gentleman's proposition is that there shall 
 bean hour allowed in favor of the bill, which I am to control, 
 and an hour in opposition to the bill, to be controlled by the gen¬ 
 tleman from Mississippi. 
 
 The SPEAKER pro tempore. Two hours in addition to tho time 
 that has already been consumed? 
 
 Mr. GROUT. No; two hours in all, the time the gentleman 
 from Mississippi has occupied to be deducted from his hour, and 
 the time I have occupied to be taken out of my hour. 
 
 2582 
 
12 
 
 The .SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Yennont 
 asks unanimous consent that debate on this bill be limited to two 
 hours, including the time already occupied by those who favor 
 and oppose the bill; that at the close of the debate the previous 
 ques'.nm shall be considered as ordered; that a vote be taken on 
 the bill and such amendments as may be pending immediately 
 afb-r tb.- raiding of the Journal to-morrow; that pending the gen¬ 
 eral debate any member shall have the privilege of offering an 
 amendment, and that the same shall bo considered after the close 
 of the dobat > when the bill is taken up to be voted on to-morrow. 
 Is there objection? 
 
 Mr. COOPER of Florida. I object. 
 
 The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is made. 
 
 Mr. Q ROUT. Objection is made, as I understand, to taliingthe 
 vote to-morrow morning. I ask tho Chair to submit the request 
 for unanimous consent to close the debate at the time indicated. 
 
 Mr. COOPER of Florida. My objection is to tho whole propo¬ 
 sition. Let the bill take its regular course. 
 
 The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Ver¬ 
 mont yield the floor? 
 
 Mr. GROUT. I do not. Unless there can he some understand¬ 
 ing with reference to this matter, we will proceed until the hour 
 is up, and then vote on the bill. We are perfectly willing to make 
 any fair arrangement : but unless some agreement can be reached, 
 we will try and get along without it. 
 
 Mr. TERRY. Go ahead, and see what you can do. 
 
 Mr. GROUT. All right. Let it be understood we are ready 
 now to make any fair agreement. 
 
 Mr. WILLIAMS. I do not understand that the gentleman 
 from Vermont has the control of the lime of the House or can do 
 anything except to move the previous question whenever he has 
 the floor to do so. 
 
 Mr. GROUT. And that I shall do at the end of the hour unless 
 an agreement is made. I so notify gentlemen. 
 
 A Member. You can not do so if you give up the floor. 
 
 Mr. GROUT. Of course not. I shall do so within my hour. 
 «***•**•* 
 
 Mr. GROUT. Mr. Speaker, how much time have I left? 
 
 The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has nine minutes 
 remaining. 
 
 Mr. GROUT. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. 
 Tucker] five minutes. 
 
 Mr. TUCKER. I move to amend this bill by striking out, in 
 line after the word “article,” all down to line G, including the 
 word “ cream;” so that it will read: 
 
 Be it enacted , etc.. That all articles transported into any State or Territory, 
 or remaining therein for use, consumption, sale, or storage therein, shall, 
 upon arrival within the limits of such State or Territory, do subject to the 
 operation and effect of the laws of such State, etc. 
 
 Mr. GROUT. Mr. Speaker. I raise a point of order against the 
 gentleman's amendment. I did not yield for an amendment. I 
 supposed the gentleman was going to submit some remarks. I 
 said to him somo time ago in open House that I did not feel like 
 admitting that amendment; that we had enough to do to take care 
 of the bill as it is. 
 
 The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair sustains the objection. 
 Tho Chair thinks that the yielding of five minutes to the gentle- 
 
 2582 
 
13 
 
 man for discussion would not authorize him to offer an amend¬ 
 ment in that time. 
 
 Mr. TUCKER. Of course, I do not desire to take advantage of 
 my friend's courtesy. If I have a right under the rules of the 
 House, and with proper regard for that courtesy which is duo 
 from one member of the House to another. I desire to offer the 
 amendment. If I have not the right, well and good. I am sure, 
 however, that the proposition which I lay down by the amend¬ 
 ment must commend itself to my friend from Vermont as substan¬ 
 tial and correct. Why single out the article of oleomargarine, 
 when the principle applies to all articles? My friend from Loui¬ 
 siana [Mr. Boatner] has well said Congress has undoubtedly, 
 under the Constitution, the power to regulate commerce with for¬ 
 eign nations, among the several States, and with the Indian tribes, 
 but that provision comes in conflict with another article of the 
 Constitution, which my friend from Vermont invokes in this bill, 
 namely, Article IV, section 2, which provides that the citizens of 
 each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of 
 citizens of the several States. No more, no less; ;dl. That is, 
 that the citizen of each State lias the right to do business in a for¬ 
 eign State, and to do that business under the same conditions that 
 the citizen of the State does the business under. A man comes 
 down from the city of Baltimore to the State of Virginia to do 
 business as a merchant. Under the decisions of the Supreme 
 Court quoted by my friend that man has the right, under the 
 interstate-commerce clause, to go there and do business as a mer¬ 
 chant without paying the State tax; whereas the citizen of Vir¬ 
 ginia is compelled to pay the State tax under the State law. I say 
 that the true policy is that no man should be permitted to enter a 
 State to do business in that State except in accordance with the 
 laws of the State. 
 
 Mr. COOKE of Illinois. Will the gentleman permit a question? 
 
 Mr. TUCKER. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. COOKE of Illinois. Suppose that the law of that State 
 comes in conflict with some provision of the Constitution of the 
 United States, as construed by the Supreme Court of the United 
 
 States? 
 
 Mr. TUCKER. Then it must give way, and, for the very rea¬ 
 son that it must yield to the decision of the Supreme Court, Con¬ 
 gress is here, in the person of my friend from Vermont, trying to 
 get rid of that difficulty. 
 
 Mr. COOPER of Florida (to Mr. Tucker). That is, you pro¬ 
 pose to do in whole what my friend from Vermont [Mr. Grout] 
 proposes to do in part—repeal the Constitution or the United 
 States by giving each State the power to interfere with interstate 
 
 commerce. 
 
 Mr. COOKE of Illinois. That is precisely what he is proposing, 
 is it not? 
 
 Mr. TUCKER. Yes, sir. 
 
 I propose to do exactly what my amendment states. As I have 
 said, it seems to mo that there ought to bo no principle better fixed 
 and settled than that the people of each State know better than 
 anybody else what is best for them, and when a stranger comes by 
 courtesy to do business in a particular State, surely he ought not 
 to claim that he is entitled to greater advantages from the State 
 than its own citizens enjoy. 
 
 Mr. GROUT. How much time have I left, Mr. Speaker ? 
 
 2582 
 
14 
 
 The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has four minutes 
 remaining. 
 
 Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker- 
 
 Mr. GROUT. I do not yield to the gentleman. 
 
 Mr. CANNON. I want to get accommodation for a little time, 
 by unanimous consent, to represent ray constituents, if I can. 
 
 Mr. ( rROUT. Very well; I am willing to have an arrangement 
 made after I have asked the previous question. 
 
 Mr. CANNON. That cuts off discussion. 
 
 Mr. GROUT. Mr. Speaker, I call for the previous question, 
 without further remarks. Let me say, while I call for the pre¬ 
 vious question now, I am still willing to make any arrangement as 
 to time that is fair and reasonable. The other side have occupied 
 all but twenty minutes of the hour. 
 
 Mr. WILLIAMS. A point of order. 
 
 Mr. GROUT. You can have all the time vou want to discuss 
 the bill. 
 
 Mr. CANNON. I ask unanimous consent for an extension of 
 the time for thirty minutes, to be divided half and half, for dis¬ 
 cussion; and that will leavetho gentleman in full possession of 
 the bill, and he will still be able to call for the previous question 
 at the expiration of that time. 
 
 Mr. GROUT. I will agree to that after the Chair states my call 
 for the previous question. 
 
 Mr. TUCKER. I hope the gentleman, in that connection, will 
 accept my amendment. 
 
 Mr. GROUT. Mr. Speaker, I demand the previous question. 
 
 Mr. CANNON. I ask unanimous consent that the time may 
 be extended thirty minutes before the previous question is ordered. 
 
 Mr. GROUT. A parliamentary inquiry. If my time expires 
 before the Chair states my call for tho previous question, will I 
 still be recognized to make that call? I have but four minutes. 
 
 The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Vermont 
 has already demanded the previous question within his hour. The 
 Chair holds that if. by unanimous consent, the time for debate 
 is extended, pending this, for thirty minutes, the rights of the 
 gentleman from Vermont will be the same as they are in forco 
 now. 
 
 Mr. GROUT. How, if refused? 
 
 The SPEAKER pro tempore. If refused, then the vote will be 
 on ordering the previous question. 
 
 Mr. WILLIAMS. But, Mr. Speaker, he can not yield to the 
 gentleman thirty minutes- 
 
 Mr. CANNON. I ask unanimous consent to extend the time 
 thirty minutes. 
 
 Mr. WILLIAMS. How is the time to be controlled in the 
 thirty minutes? 
 
 Mr. CANNON. I suppose half and lialf. 
 
 The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pending the motion of the gen¬ 
 tleman from Vermont, that the previous question be ordered on 
 the amendment, and to the engrossment, third reading, and pas¬ 
 sage of the bill, the gentleman from Illinois asks unanimous con¬ 
 sent that the time for debate be extended thirty minutes, to be 
 equally divided between the friends and the opponents of the bill, 
 and that at the expiration of that time the vote be taken on the 
 motion of the gentleman from Vermont. 
 
 Mr. WILLIAMS. Before that is submitted to the House Mr, 
 Speaker, under whose control is the time to be? 
 
 2582 
 
15 
 
 The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would recognize the 
 gentleman from Illinois to occupy the time in opposition to the 
 bill and the gentleman from Vermont to control the time in favor 
 of the hill. . , 
 
 Mr. TRACEY. A parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. 
 
 The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Missouri. 
 Mr. WILLIAMS. I want to ask a question. 
 
 Mr. TRACEY. I want to make this parliamentary inquiry; 
 Will thero he any opportunity to offer an amendment to the bill 
 during that time? 
 
 The SPEAKER pro tempore. Not under existing conditions. 
 Mr. CANNON. If the previous question is voted down, thero 
 
 will he. 
 
 Mr. TRACEY. Then let us vote it down. 
 
 Mr. CANNON. Let us have a discussion for thirty minutes. 
 The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to tho request 
 
 of the gentleman from Illinois? 
 
 Mr. WILLIAMS. I want to submit a parliamentary inquiry, 
 and I will ho excused for making it, because I am not as old and 
 experienced as many other gentlemen around me. The gentleman 
 from New York [Mr. Wadsworth!, chairman of the Committee 
 on Agriculture, in control of this bill, yielded to tho gentleman 
 from Vermont. Does ho yield for an hour, or does he yield tho 
 control of the bill to him? 
 
 Mr. WADSWORTH. I yielded the control of the bill to tho 
 
 gentleman from Vermont. 
 
 Mr. WILLIAMS. There are other members of the Committee 
 on Agriculture, one of whom I am, who desire to debate this bill. 
 Mr. STEELE. I call for tho regular order. 
 
 Mr. CANNON. I hope that my friend from Indiana will not 
 
 do that. 
 
 Mr. STEELE. I will yield for the purpose of discussion, but 
 
 not for these side speeches. 
 
 The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request 
 of the gentleman from Illinois for an extension of the time of 
 debate as stated by the Chair? 
 
 Mr. WILLIAMS. Provided that the previous question is not 
 
 coupled with it. I will not object. 
 
 Mr. CANNON. It leaves the previous question just where it 
 
 is now. 
 
 Mr. WILLIAMS. If it is the understanding that the demand 
 for the previous question is not coupled with the request, then I 
 will not object. If it is, I object. 
 
 The SPEAKER pro tempore. Tho Chair has stated tho request. 
 
 Mr. DOCKERY. A parliamentary inquiry- 
 
 Mr. WILLIAMS. If it has coupled with it, according to the 
 
 statement of the gentleman from Vermont- 
 
 Mr. DOCKERY (continuing). In thee vent the time is extended, 
 one-half to be controlled by the gentleman from Illinois, will ho 
 have the right in his fifteen minutes to offer any amendments? 
 
 The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair thinks not. 
 
 Mr. WILLIAMS. Understanding, Mr. Speaker, that the de¬ 
 mand for tho previous question goes with tho request for the ex¬ 
 tension, I object. Now, if the gentleman from Illinois will put 
 his request in his own way I will not object. 
 
 Mr. CANNON. My request is that the time for discussion be 
 extended thirty minutes. 
 
 Mr. WILLIAMS. To that I do not object. 
 
 2583 
 
1G 
 
 Mr. CANNON. Then at the end of the thirty minutes the 
 previous question will he voted upon. 
 
 The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection? 
 
 Mr. COX. I object. 
 
 The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is made. 
 
 Mr. CANNON. I wish you would not do that. 
 
 The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Vermont 
 has demanded the previous question-- 
 
 Mr. CANNON. I hope the previous question will be voted 
 down. 
 
 The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Vermont 
 has asked for the previous question on the amendment, and to the 
 engrossment, third reading, and final passage of the bill. 
 
 The question was taken on ordering the previous question, and 
 the Speaker pro tempore announced that the noes seemed to 
 have it. 
 
 Mr. GROUT. I call for a division. 
 
 The question being taken, there were—ayes 62, noes 06. 
 
 Mr. GROUT. I call for tellers. 
 
 Tellers were ordered; and Mr. Grout and Mr. Cannon were 
 appointed. 
 
 Mr. CANNON. I hope the Chair will appoint some one in my 
 
 stead. 
 
 The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair appoints the gentle¬ 
 man from Illinois [Mr. Cooke] to act as teller in place of the 
 gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Cannon] . 
 
 The House again divided; and the tellers reported—ayes 72, noes 70. 
 
 Mr. WILLIAMS. No quorum. 
 
 The SPEAKER pro tempore. The point is made that no quorum 
 has voted. 
 
 Mr. WILLIAMS. I withdraw that point, and I call for the yeas 
 and nays. 
 
 Mr. GROUT. I hope the yeas and nays will be ordered. Let 
 us all rise. 
 
 The yeas and nays were ordered. 
 
 The question was taken; and there were—yeas 90, nays 99, not 
 voting 105. 
 
 And so the motion for the previous question was lost. 
 
 Before the result was announced, Mr. Grout changed his vote 
 from “aye” to “no,” and on its announcement moved a reconsid¬ 
 eration. 
 
 Mr. WILLIAMS moved to lay that motion on the table, and 
 pending that motion, 
 
 Mr. GROUT moved that the House adjourn, which was carried. 
 
 2582 
 
 O 
 
EXTRACTS 
 
 FROM TFTE 
 
 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. 
 
 House of Representatives, January lb, 1897. 
 
 OLEOMARGARINE. 
 
 The SPEAKER. The regular order is the call of committees 
 for reports. The pending question is on the motion to reconsider 
 the vote by which the House refused to order the previous ques¬ 
 tion upon the bill (H. R. 1221) to make oleomargarine and all 
 other imitation dairy products subject to the laws of the State or 
 Territory into which they are transported. At the time when 
 this motion was made it was followed by a motion to adjourn; 
 and some gentleman proposed to lay on the table the motion to 
 reconsider, for which the Chair stated there would be opportunity 
 given when the matter came up again, if any gentleman desired 
 to make that motion. 
 
 Mr. COOKE of Illinois. I make the motion. 
 
 Mr. COOPER of Florida. I will move to lay the motion to 
 reconsider on the table. 
 
 Mr. GROUT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to sub¬ 
 mit a proposition, and 1 think time will be saved by agreeing to it. 
 
 If this motion is laid on the table it, of course, leaves the bill 
 open to discussion and amendment. If it should not be laid on 
 the table and the motion is reconsidered, I should even then ask, 
 as I did repeatedly on yesterday, for an agreement as to time for 
 discussion and amendment. The friends of this bill are willing 
 it should be discussed. 
 
 Mr. DOCKERY. Submit your proposition. 
 
 Mr. GROUT. Now, I ask unanimous consent that an hour— 
 so far as I am concerned, I think that will be sufficient—that an 
 hour be given to the discussion of the bill, and for the offering of 
 amendments under the rule, and that a vote be taken thereafter 
 upon the third reading of the bill. 
 
 Mr. CANNON. Why not put it in this way, if the gentleman 
 from Vermont will allow a suggestion: That by unanimous con¬ 
 sent the proceedings may be vacated which refused the previous 
 question, and that after an hour has been consumed in general 
 debate, the bill be open in the House as in Committee of the 
 Whole for amendments under the five-minute rule. In that way, 
 of course, the gentleman will keep control of the previous question. 
 
 Mr. GROUT. That will be entirely satisfactory to me, sir. 
 
 Mr. BAILEY. I would suggest that if the motion to lay on 
 the table were withdrawn, and the motion to reconsider the vote 
 by which the House refused to order the previous question were 
 withdrawn, it would still leave it open for debate. But by unani- 
 2581 1 
 
2 
 
 mons consent, if the request is granted, and I see no objection to 
 it, that same result would be reached. 
 
 The SPEAKER. The Chair will submit the proposition of the 
 gentleman from Vermont to the House. 
 
 The gentleman asks unanimous consent that the proceedings 
 under the motion for the previous question be withdrawn. Is 
 there objection? 
 
 Mr. CANNON. I think that it should be coupled with a fur¬ 
 ther request for unanimous consent that time be allowed for gen¬ 
 eral debate and for the consideration of the bill and the offering 
 of amendments in the House as in Committee of the Whole 
 under the five-minute rule. 
 
 The SPEAKER. The Chair will submit the request of the gen¬ 
 tleman from Vermont. The gentleman asks unanimous consent 
 that he may bo allowed to withdraw the demand for the previous 
 question- 
 
 Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will permit 
 me before that request is submitted. I know of four or five gen¬ 
 tlemen on this side of the House who have expressed a desire for 
 time, and I hardly think that thirty minutes would be sufficient. 
 I think it would require a little more time, probably forty min¬ 
 utes. 
 
 Mr. GROUT. What time would the gentleman from Missis¬ 
 sippi suggest? 
 
 Mr. WILLIAMS. I would suggest that the gentleman ask 
 unanimous consent for one hour and a half. 
 
 Mr. GROUT. That is entirely satisfactory to me. I ask unan¬ 
 imous consent to withdraw the motion for the previous question, 
 and that the House have general debate for one hour and a half 
 on the bill, and amendments afterwards under the five-minute 
 rule in the House as in Committee of the Whole. 
 
 The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gen¬ 
 tleman from Vermont? 
 
 There was no objection. 
 
 Mr. WILLIAMS. I ask uuanimous consent that the time 
 granted be equally divided between the two sides, one side to be 
 controlled by the gentleman from Vermont and the other to be 
 controlled by any gentleman on this side of the House whom the 
 Speaker may name. 
 
 Mr. GROUT. I will not object to that, although I may be per¬ 
 mitted to say that on yesterday forty minutes of the hour were 
 consumed by the opponents of the bill. 
 
 The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the division of the time 
 equally between the two sides? 
 
 There was no objection. 
 
 The SPEAKER.' If there be no objection, the Chair will recog¬ 
 nize the gentleman from Vermont to control the time of the 
 affirmative and the gentleman from Mississippi in opposition to 
 the bill. 
 
 There was no objection. 
 
 The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Vermont is recognized 
 as in control of the floor. 
 
 Mr. GROUT. Will the gentleman from Mississippi proceed 
 first? 
 
 Mr. WILLIAMS. Air. Speaker. I yield five minutes to the gen¬ 
 tleman from Virginia [Mr. Tucker], 
 
 ******* 
 
 2581 
 
3 
 
 Mr WILLIAMS. I yield to tlie gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
 Cannon! such time as ho desires. 
 v * * * * * * * 
 
 Mr. GROUT. Mr. Speaker, I now yield ten minutes to tho 
 gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Willis], a member of the com¬ 
 mittee which reported this bill. 
 
 Mr. WILLIS. Mr. Speaker, I have been in favor of most of the 
 laws passed with reference to oleomargarine, both by the National 
 Legislature and in the legislatures of the States, because I think 
 thiw move in the direction of justice and of right. I think this 
 law moves in the direction of justice and right, and in so far as I 
 can see it does not infract the rights of the States or the nation. 
 
 The history of oleomargarine, and of those who have made 
 earnest and urgent attempts to manufacture and put it upon the 
 American market, reminds me of a passage I have read in the 
 prophet Amos: 
 
 When will tho new moon be gone, that wo may soil corn? and tho Sabbath, 
 that, we may set forth wheat, making tho eplxah small, and tho shekel great, 
 and falsifying the balances by deceit? 
 
 That strikes one of the root propositions, not only of the great 
 ancient theocracy, bnt it strikes at the very animus of the oleo¬ 
 margarine interest. If you are going to have legislation that will 
 stand, legislation that the people in subsequent generations will 
 approve, legislation that will bo for the benefit of the great masses 
 of the people, it must proceed and can only proceed on honest 
 
 principles. 
 
 Now, nobody has undertaken or is undertaking to prevent, as 
 I understand it, the manufacture or sale of oleomargarine, but is 
 simply setting up a claim that oleomargarine, if it speak at all in 
 the American markets, shall call a spade a spade; that it shall not 
 speak with a lying tongue; that it shall not come, as the gentle¬ 
 man from Nebraska [Mr. Hainer] so well said, “masquerading 
 under false colors,’'reminding us, so aptly as he did, that the supe¬ 
 rior never masquerades in the garb of the inferior, but the inferior 
 in that of the superior. 
 
 Now, Mr. Speaker, a word in regard to the eloquent and glow¬ 
 ing remarks of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Cannon], which 
 have been referred to by tho gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. 
 Boatner |. I will not say that the article called oleomargarine is 
 a deleterious compound and an unhealthy food product for some 
 stomachs. Why, I know that a cobblestone has gone through the 
 gizzard of an ostrich. [Laughter and applause.] 
 
 Mr. TOWNE. How do you know that? 
 
 Mr. WILLIS. Because I have seen it. [Renewed laughter and 
 applause.] But I will undertake to say that oleomargarine is not 
 a wholesome food product for some people. Now, ask me how I 
 know that. [Laughter.] But I will tell you the way I know. It is 
 because, as the colored man says, “ I have proved it by ’sperience.” 
 [Laughter.] Anything that has got hog’s lard in it will keep up 
 an unpleasant memory in my stomach for half a day. [Laughter. I 
 But anything that comes to me in the sweet and uncontaminated 
 globules of pure cream is not only harmless, but nutritious and 
 health inspiring. 
 
 Mr. HENDERSON. Makes you feel like dancing a hornpipe. 
 
 [Laughter.] 
 
 Mr. WILLIS. Yes- 
 
 A Member. They would turn you out of church, then. 
 
 2581 
 
4 
 
 Mr. WILLIS (continuing). And tho illustrations introduced 
 in some parts of the speech of tho gentleman from Illinois were 
 somewhat amusing. In trying to illustrate, I believe, the point 
 he was making with reference to charges against oleomargarine 
 not being a healthful food product, he brought in the question of 
 leather. He said that some of tho leather sold in the market as 
 calfskin was made of horse hide, but he forgot the idea that one 
 went on the outside of the man and the other on the inside 
 [laughter], and there is a tremendous difference, Mr. Speaker, 
 between that which is on the outside and that which is on the 
 inside of a man. [Renewed laughter and applause.] 
 
 Now, if a man has a good digestion, if ho has a good strong 
 stomach, lie can probably eat and digest anything in the whole 
 category of food products, from a tough Texas mule to a quail. 
 If he has such a stomach as that, I will not join issue with him on 
 his natural-born right to eat oleomargarine. [ Laughter.] But I 
 will say to you that I do not want it and will never have it, sim¬ 
 ply because it is unwholesome for me. 
 
 But I am only one of a great multitude. Now, what is the harm 
 in having a law or many laws, in order to make the thing sure, 
 that will give a man the opportunity to judge what he is eating 
 and to make a safe selection? Life at best is none too long. The 
 comforts of this world are not overmultiplied, and the question of 
 dietetic products, dietetic arrangements, dietetic articles is one of 
 the most important of all we have. All these laws proceed upon 
 sanitary and health-giving and justice-establishing principles that 
 this country ought always to give its hand to. I am in favor of 
 this bill, because I believe it is a reassertion of the principle of the 
 decision of the Supreme Court; and from the very fact that there 
 seems to be a spirit of uprising sometimes in this country against 
 the authority of the Supreme Court; from the very fact that some 
 of our friends from the South and very many of them from the 
 North, once under the a>gis of the old-time Democratic party which 
 used to clamor for State rights, have forgotten that guiding star 
 that led them and their forefathers, and under the influence and 
 magnetism of some of these strange gods of modern times, have 
 gone off and framed a great political platform that seems to de¬ 
 nounce, or at least to discount, the authority of the decisions of 
 the Supreme Court. Let Congress assert itself in this bill, and 
 let us peas it. 
 
 ******* 
 
 Mr. WILLIAMS. Will the gentleman from Vermont now con¬ 
 sume some of his time? 
 
 Mr. GROUT. There are but ten or eleven minutes remaining 
 on this side, and I shall yield it to one gentleman. I think we 
 should be allowed to close. 
 
 Mr. WILLIAMS. How much time have I remaining? 
 
 The SPEAKER pro tempore. Eight minutes. 
 
 Mr. WILLIAMS. Does the gentleman from Vermont prefer 
 that I go ahead? 
 
 Mr. GROUT. Yes; I prefer to have you occupy your time. 
 
 Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Speaker, a desire is expressed by the 
 gentleman from Vermont that this side consume the balance of 
 its time, and then he will consume his. 
 
 Mr. Speaker and gentlemen of the House, when the gentleman 
 from Ohio [Mr. North way] was speaking, he said that the States 
 and the people were engaged in "a warfare against an injurious 
 25S1 
 
5 
 
 and deleterious food product.” With that warfare I sympathize 
 heartily; but the trouble with the gentleman's position is that 
 oleomargarine, butterine, cottolone, and these various substances 
 are not unwholesome, deleterious, or injurious food substances. 
 If they were, they would fall now under the sanitary and police 
 powers reserved to the States in the Constitution of the United 
 States, as was announced by the Supreme Court of the United 
 States on the very article of oleomargarine when it delivered lately 
 on the oleomargarine statute of Massachusetts. What were tho 
 facts in that case? The facts are set forth by the court, and they 
 were agreed facts. I quote: 
 
 It is admitted that the article sold was sent by the manufacturers thereof 
 in tho State of Illinois to the petitioner, their agent in Massachusetts, and 
 
 was sold by him in tho original package— 
 
 I call the attention of the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Lacey] 
 to that fact. He said when he was on his feet that when the oleo¬ 
 margarine was in the original package it was not within the scope 
 of regulation under the police powers of the State. The admitted 
 fact in this case was that it was in the original package— 
 
 and that in respect to the article sold, the importers and tho petitioners 
 had complied with all the requirements of the act of Congress regulating tlio 
 sale of oleomargarine, and it was marked and distinguished by all the marks, 
 words, and stamps required of oleomargarine by the laws of this Common¬ 
 wealth— 
 
 That is, the State of Massachusetts. 
 
 Now, the Supreme Court of the United States held upon (hat 
 state of facts that the law of the State of Massachusetts, which 
 does everything which my friend from Delaware [Mr. Willis] 
 says ho wants to do, everything that my friend from Vermont 
 [Mr. Grout] says that the bill is intended to do, namely, forbid 
 absolutely the sale of oleomargarine whenever sold under the guise 
 or semblance or butter, whenever it was sold it all, unless it came 
 within the following proviso: 
 
 That nothing in this act shall bo construed to prohibit the manufacture or 
 sale of oleomargarine in a separate and distinct form, and in such manner as 
 will advise tho consumer of its real character, free from colorations or 
 ingredients that cause it to look like butter 
 
 Now, the statute of Massachusetts forbade the sale of this prod¬ 
 uct with that proviso. Tho Supreme Court of tho United States 
 under this state of facts and with this proviso held that act to be 
 constitutional. Therefore it follows that if all the gentlemen 
 wanted to get was what they say they want to get (and gentle¬ 
 men will understand by that that I mean that if their intent in 
 passing the law was all the effect of the proposed law), then there 
 is no need for the law. But the trouble about the whole tiling is 
 that the law goes further than they say they want to go. and gives 
 the State the power not only to do what Massachusetts did, and all 
 they say they want to do, and what the Supreme Court says they 
 can now do, but it subjects oleomargarine to any law of the States, 
 whatever the law may be, whether on the statute hooks now or to 
 be hereafter passed, and puts it within the broad scope of the police 
 powers, which are held to be so much a part and parcel of the re¬ 
 served rights of a sovereign State that the Supreme Court of tho 
 United States has held that no clause of the Constitution can invade 
 them. Where tho trouble of the gentleman from Ohio comes in is 
 this: That if he can prove what he asserts, viz, that this is an un¬ 
 wholesome and injurious product, he would have no need to pass 
 2581 
 
6 
 
 the law; but as it is in fact, despite his assertion, a wholesome and 
 healthful product, hut as he wants to shut it out under the pretext 
 that it is an unwholesome food product, he is in favor of the pas¬ 
 sage of this law. 
 
 Now, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Lacey] said 
 something facetious about horse beef, and said it will be absurd 
 to comparo the two things, because if people want horse beef they 
 ought to have horse beef, and the gentleman thinks the)’ ought to 
 have it if it was sold as horse beef; and then he wants this prod¬ 
 uct sold also, provided it shall be sold as oleomargarine, and says 
 they are making no opposition to any law provided that it is sold 
 that way. 
 
 Mr. GARDNER. Will the gentleman yield to me for a ques¬ 
 tion? 
 
 Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir; I have only eight minutes, and I 
 desire you to make it brief. 
 
 Mr. GARDNER. Have you ever seen or have you ever heard 
 any reputable person say that he has seen oleomargarine for sale 
 in a retail store under its own name? 
 
 Mr. WILLIAMS. I am tolerable “ reputable,” and I have seen 
 it scores of times, and so has everybody upon this floor who has 
 ever entered a retail store. I have seen it branded “cottolene,” 
 I have seen it branded “butterine,” and branded “oleomarga¬ 
 rine,” and everybody can see it if they will go down to the stores in 
 Washington. 
 
 Mr. CANNON. I have bought it scores of times in preference 
 to three-fourths of the article sold as butter. 
 
 Mr. WILLIAMS. Now, there is a gentleman I know my friend 
 will admit to be “reputable,” because he is from the right latitude. 
 
 Now let us go on. The gentleman from Iowa says that men 
 ought to be allowed to buy oleomargarine if they want to, but 
 that they should know what they are doing. I agree with him; 
 but the trouble with this bill is that if it becomes a law a man 
 can not buy oleomargarine, whether he knows what he is doing or 
 not, provided the State in which ho wants to buy it forbids its 
 sale. The gentleman says that he does not want “ the legitimate 
 domain of butter invaded.” What is “the legitimate domain of 
 butter ”? To be butter, is it not? So that oleomargarine can not 
 invade the legitimate domain of butter unless it goes there pre¬ 
 tending to be butter. But the trouble with this bill is that it goes 
 beyond the prevention of that fraud, and provides in effect that 
 oleomargarine, not only in the guise of butter, but in any other 
 guise, can not bo sold or bought if the State of New Hampshire, 
 or the State of Vermont, or the State of Mississippi, or any State 
 forbids the sale or purchase of it within the State limits. 
 
 If this bill passes, and if the Supreme Court holds that the law 
 is constitutional, that will be its effect. I have my doubts of its 
 constitutionality, but I am not goiim to indulge in such a remark 
 as was made by the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Hainer], who 
 said that the Supreme Court having made a certain decision, the 
 matter would be all right if the people were not afraid that the 
 decision might bo changed. In the last campaign people who 
 referred to possible changes of Supreme Court decisions were 
 denounced as “anarchists ” [laughter], but I will not so denounce 
 tho gentleman from Nebraska. 
 
 ***»»## 
 
 2581 
 
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Tlio gentleman from Vermont 
 rMr Grout] has one minute remaining. 
 
 1 Mr. GROUT. I shall not occupy that minute. I ask that the 
 hill ho now read for amendment. 
 
 The SPEAKER pro tempore. The hill will now he read for 
 amendment under the five-minute rule. 
 
 The bill was read, as follows: 
 
 ^ it enacted, etc., That all articles known as oleomargarine, butterine. 
 imitation butter, or imitation cheese, or any substance m the semblance of 
 butter or cheeso not the usual product of tlio dairy and not made exclusively 
 Jrfnure and unadulterated milk or cream, transported into any btate or Ter¬ 
 ritory or remaining therein for use, consumption, sale, or storago therein, 
 shall^upon arrival in such Stato or Territory, bo subject to the operation 
 and effect of the laws of such State or Territory enacted in tlio exercise of 
 nolice powers to the same extent and in the same manner as though such 
 artFcles or substances had been produced in such State or Territory, and shall 
 Sot bo exempt therefrom by reason of being introduced therein in original 
 packages or otherwise. 
 
 Mr. TUCKER. I offer the amendment which I send to tho 
 ^The Clerk read as follows: 
 
 After tho word “articles,” in line a, strike out “known as oleomargarine, 
 butterine imitation buttor, or imitation cheeso, or any substance m t ho sem¬ 
 blance of butter or cheese not tho usual product of tho dairy and not made 
 exclusively of pure and unadulterated milk or cream. 
 
 Mr. GROUT. The gentleman proposes to strike out. What 
 does he propose to insert? 
 
 Mr. TUCKER. Nothing. . . . 
 
 Tho SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from V lrginia 
 rMr, Tucker] has the floor. 
 
 Mr. TUCKER. I merely offer the amendment. I have nothing 
 to say about it. , . .. , 
 
 Mr. GROUT. Wliy, Mr. Speaker, that amendment would abso¬ 
 lutely disembowel the bill. ....... , , . 
 
 A Member. Of course; that is what it is intended for. 
 
 Mr GROUT. I say the amendment would absolutely eviscera te 
 the bill. If that is the gentleman’s object, the same end could bo 
 reached, if he has sufficient numerical strength on his side, by 
 voting down the bill on its third reading. It does not seem to mo 
 that we need spend any time in discussing the amendment, 
 
 Mr. TUCKER. I should like to have a vote. 
 
 Mr MORSE. Mr. Speaker, I move to amend by striking out 
 the last word. I mako this motion for the purpose of saying a 
 word by way of answering the attack made upon my State in 
 some of the 'illustrations which have been used m the argument 
 of gentlemen on the other side. It has been said in the course of 
 the debate on this floor, by the way ot justffying this oieomarga- 
 rine fraud upon the great fanning mterestsand theconsumersof 
 this country, that the manufacturers of Massachusetts are not 
 honorable merchants and business men and are ^y°f fraudin 
 the manufacture of leather, shoes, woolens etc. ^est by silence 
 I should appear to give consent to that charge, I u ish to saj a 
 
 W Tea 1Hhe attention of the Houso to the fact that a distinoshed 
 Representative of Massachusetts on one occasioninante^lam 
 times, when the dark crisis was impending and the muttenn|S of 
 war and secession were heard, stood on this ft 
 answer to an attack on our Commonwealth, that threw down 
 her glove to the whole band of her assailants. That man was 
 
8 
 
 Anson Burlingame. Now I stand in my place and in behalf of 
 the manufacturers of Massachusetts, and. measuring my words, I 
 say that for business honor, for enterprise, for integrity, I throw 
 down the glove of her manufacturers, bankers, and business men 
 to the world. [Applause.! 
 
 Mr. Speaker, the manufacturers of Massachusetts sell woolen 
 goods and shoes for what they are. There is no attempt, as in the 
 case of oleomargarine, to palm it off for something it is not. If 
 there is any split leather in their shoes they are sold for split 
 leather, and for half the price of whole leather. If their clothes 
 are made in part of cotton (as charged), it is to cheapen them 
 and bring them in the reach of the poor, and they are sold for what 
 they are. 
 
 I say now, in this presence, that the manufacturers of Massa¬ 
 chusetts, by their genius, enterprise, and inventive skill, have done 
 more than any other section of the country, or perhaps of tho 
 world, to produce articles of necessity and luxury, ton thousand 
 articles which go to adorn and embellish modern civilized life, and 
 made cheap by the inventive genius of her sons, so as to place 
 them in the reach of the humblest of our citizens, and so that 
 humble people to-day enjoy comforts and luxuries that were un¬ 
 known to the wealthy a few decades ago. I have in my district, 
 at Brockton, one of the great shoe markets of tho world, and they 
 make as good shoes as are made on the face of the earth. Con¬ 
 trast the price of shoes to-day with tho price a decade or two de¬ 
 cades ago; contrast the price of cloth and clothing and a thousand 
 things with the price a decade or two ago. 
 
 Mr. Speaker, I might go through the whole category of articles 
 made by the manufacturers of Massachusetts and used in civi¬ 
 lized life, and prove by statistics that our manufacturers, for honor, 
 for enterprise, for integrity, and for success, can safely challenge 
 the world. More than that, Mr. Speaker when the yellow wings of 
 a pestilence flap themselves in a Southern sky when fire or famine 
 or flood or pestilence overtake any section of our country or over¬ 
 take humanity anywhere in tho wide, wide world, in starving 
 Ireland, in famine-stricken Russia, or tho far-away victims of tho 
 Sultan in Armenia—I say, who pours out its treasure like water 
 to relieve affliction and distress? Why, these same manufactur¬ 
 ers who have been abused and misrepresented on this floor to-day, 
 these men who are accused of making clothing out of “shoddy” 
 and shoes out of “pasteboard.” 
 
 Mr. Speaker, Massachusetts needs no eulogium or defense from 
 me in these closing hours of my service here. In the language of 
 one of her great sons, we say, “There she stands.” Mr. Speaker, 
 if this is the last word I shall speak in this House, I stand in my 
 place and throw back to the gentlemen who made these charges 
 against the manufacturers of the Commonwealth I have in part 
 the honor to represent—I say I deny that her manufacturers are 
 guilty of fraud and deception in their products. [Applause.] 
 ******* 
 
 Mr. GROUT. Mr. Speaker, just a word in regard to this amend¬ 
 ment, which is really very objectionable. It provides that— 
 
 All articles transported into any State or Territory, or remaining therein for 
 nse. consumption, sale, or storage therein, shall, upon arrival within the 
 limits of such State or Territory, bo subject to the operation and effect of 
 tho laws of such State, etc. 
 
 25S1 
 
9 
 
 Tliis would be a complete surrender by Congress of the consti¬ 
 tutional power with which it is now vested to regulate commerce 
 between the States. It goes far beyond any decision yet made by 
 the Supreme Court, and far beyond the purpose contemplated in 
 this bill. The court, in Plumley vs. Massachusetts, simply say 
 that where a fraud is sought to be perpetrated in the sale of an 
 article of food taken from one State into another the police 
 power of the State into which it is transported may lay its hands 
 upon the article and strip it of its false garb and compel its salo 
 for exactly what it is. But this amendment of the gentleman 
 leaves all articles, whether fraudulent or otherwise, to bo con¬ 
 trolled by State legislation, which simply abrogates the consti¬ 
 tutional power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce. 
 
 Mr. TUCKER. I think my friend is entirely mistaken about 
 that, and I think he will see it on reflection. All articles aro to 
 be subject, under the proposed bill as amended, to the police 
 power in the State. That police power in the Stato refers to any¬ 
 thing which is deleterious to health or morals; so that if oleomar¬ 
 garine, if beef, if lard, or all articles are amenable to that objec¬ 
 tion, the police power of the Stato would have the authority to act 
 upon them. 
 
 Mr. GROUT. But still it should be remembered that the court 
 in the Plumley case bases its decision simply upon the fraud. 
 Where fraud is attempted to be practiced, the court says the State 
 has the power to prevent it, and that is all this bill asks. The 
 police power of the State seizes on this article when it goes into the 
 State in “semblance of butter or cheese,” and under no other cir¬ 
 cumstances. To make the thing entirely plain, after this amend¬ 
 ment is disposed of, and perhaps one or two others offered, I 
 intend offering an amendment, which has been agreed upon be¬ 
 tween myself and the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Wil¬ 
 liams] , and which will make this point clear to all. He is not 
 willing to offer it, because, even when adopted, he says he would 
 not be willing to vote for the bill. Sol propose to offer it. I hope 
 the amendment of the gentleman from Virginia will be voted 
 down. 
 
 Mr. TUCKER. I hope the amendment will be voted up. 
 [Laughter.] 
 
 The question was taken on the amendment of Mr. Tucker; and 
 on a division (demanded by Mr. Tucker) there were—ayes 23, 
 
 noes 88. 
 
 Accordingly, the amendment was rejected. 
 
 Mr. GIBSON. I offer the amendment which I send to the 
 Clerk’s desk. 
 
 The amendment was read, as follows: 
 
 Strike out “or,” in lino 7, page 1, after tlio word “Territory,” and insert 
 
 the word “and.” 
 
 Mr. GROUT. I ask the Clork to read the bill as it will be if 
 that amendment is adopted. 
 
 The Clerk read as follows: 
 
 Transported into any State or Territory, and remaining therein for use, etc. 
 
 Mr. GIBSON. The object of that amendment is to avoid this 
 possible construction, that under the bill as it is now framed it is 
 probable that oleomargarine in transitu might be subject to tho 
 State police laws. Tho object of this is to confine it to oleomar- 
 2581 
 
10 
 
 garine transported into a State and remaining there for use, sale, 
 etc. 
 
 Mr. GROSVENOR. The amendment is perfectly unnecessary, 
 because this says in plain words that the law only applies to that 
 which is transported into a State and retained there for use. 
 
 Mr. GIBSON. I wish to make it read— 
 
 and remaining therein— 
 
 Instead of— 
 or remaining therein. 
 
 Mr. GROUT. There is no objection to that amendment. I do 
 not think it changes the bill. 
 
 The amendment was agreed to. 
 
 Mr. GROUT. Now, Mr. Speaker, I offer the following as a 
 proviso to the bill, not because I think it necessary, for the bill 
 itself, in express terms, goes upon the ground that in order to 
 touch this product by the police power ol' any State it must be in 
 “the semblance of butter or cheese.” But to make it plain,so 
 that there shall be no question as to the power of the State to pro¬ 
 hibit it when it comes as oleomargarine, this amendment is of¬ 
 fered, as I have stated, after a conference with the gentleman 
 from Mississippi [Mr. Williams]. 
 
 The SPEAKER. The Clerk will report the amendment. 
 
 The Clerk read as follows: 
 
 Provided, That nothing in this act shall bo construed to permit any State 
 to forbid the manufacture or salo of oleomargarine in a soparato and distinct 
 form and in such manner as will advise the customer of its real character and 
 free from coloration or ingredient that causes it to look like butter. 
 
 The SPEAKER. The question is on the amendment offered by 
 the gentleman from Vermont. 
 
 Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Speaker, I desire to offer a substitute 
 for the amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont. 
 
 The Clerk read as follows: 
 
 Add to the bill the following: 
 
 “ Provided , The salo in original packages of such articles, produced in any 
 State or Territory, and marked as provided by the laws of the United States, 
 shall not be prohibited by the laws of any other State or Territory.” 
 
 Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Speaker, I understand from the advo¬ 
 cates of this bill that the purpose of it is to prevent the sale of 
 oleomargarine and kindred products under fraudulent names. 
 If that be true, this amendment or proviso that I offer to attach 
 to the bill will permit the bill to be operative to that extent; hut 
 if the purpose of the friends of this bill is to absolutely prevent 
 the sale of oleomargarine produced in one State in any other 
 State, then gentlemen will not support this proviso. This pro¬ 
 viso is that where oleomargarine or kindred articles are produced 
 in any State or Territory, and are marked as provided by the laws 
 of the United States, then their sale shall not be prohibited by the 
 laws of any State. The States retain in their hands the right to 
 make just as stringent regulations as they choose to prevent 
 fraud in the offering and sale of this kind of article; and when 
 the United States shall have acted and made all the requirements 
 they choose to make, then it provides that those States shall not 
 by their laws override these requirements of Congress and pro¬ 
 hibit the sale of that article. It seems to me that if the friends of 
 this bill are in earnest in their declaration that its purpose is 
 simply to prevent the sale of fraudulent food products, they ought 
 2581 
 
11 
 
 to be willing to accept this proviso and retain the power in Con¬ 
 gress to make all the limitations it may choose to make from time 
 to time in the future and not give to the individual States the 
 right to override this limitation made by Congress. 
 
 Mr. GROUT. Mr. Speaker, this amendment or substitute really 
 says that the bill shall have no effect. In other words, it enacts 
 into statute law the original-package decision and more, too, and 
 repeals or does away with the decision of the Supreme Court in 
 Plumley against the State of Massachusetts, on which this bill is 
 based. 
 
 Mr. CONNOLLY. Will you permit me to ask you a question? 
 
 Mr. GROUT. Certainly. 
 
 Mr. CONNOLLY. You desire to do something more than 
 merely prevent the sale of a fraudulent food product? 
 
 Mr. GROUT. Nothing more, as is expressly written in the first 
 lines of the bill, and then as added by the proviso at its close; and 
 this for the purpose of making it so plain that “the wayfaring man, 
 though a fool, may not err therein.” 
 
 Mr. CONNOLLY. You say when oleomargarine is marked as 
 oleomargarine and is sold in the semblance of butter, your bill 
 prevents that sale. 
 
 Mr. GROUT. Precisely so: because they can take the tub off, 
 as I stated yesterday, and set it alongside of butter and sell it any¬ 
 where they please as butter, and nobody can tell the difference, 
 and this very thing is done in this city every day. 
 
 Mr. CONNOLLY. When the tiling is sold in the original pack¬ 
 age itself? That amendment relates to' the original package. 
 
 Mr. GROUT. Mr. Speaker, this amendment is all that the 
 oleomargarine factories in Illinois or anywhere else can ask for. 
 Let us vote it down. 
 
 Mr. CANNON. If I may be permitted, I move to strike out 
 the last word. I want to ask my friend if he has taken into con¬ 
 sideration the propriety of amending the law of 1886 , which reads 
 as follows: 
 
 That for tlio purposes of this act the word “butter” shall 1)6 understood to 
 mean the food product usually known as butter, and which is made exclu¬ 
 sively from milk or cream or both, with or without common salt, and with 
 or without additional coloring matter. 
 
 Doss the gentleman propose anywhere in this legislation, before 
 he gets through with it, to get rid of that which is to him a perni¬ 
 cious practice of coloring butter as a food product? 
 
 Mr. GROUT. The gentleman has asked me a question, and I 
 will try to answer it. Butter has a color of its own—the color of 
 gold—and lias had it from time immemmorial, even from tlio time 
 when Jael, the wife of Heber, the Kenite, “ brought forth butter 
 in a lordly dish.” 
 
 Frequently during the winter months, whilo the cow is on dry 
 feed, a little coloring is added, to suit the fancy of the consumer, 
 but the article still has its own proper color. Surely there can be 
 no offense in artificially intensifying the color of batter. Nor, in 
 itself, is there anything intrinsically wrong in coloring oleomar¬ 
 garine. The wrong consists in selling the nasty fats of which it 
 is composed, not as oleomargarine, but as butter, which could not 
 be done if the filthy stuff had not the color of butter. Right here 
 is the wrong, right here is the fraud, which can only be committed 
 by this piratical product when it sails under false colors. This is 
 my answer to the gentleman. 
 
 2581 
 
12 
 
 Mr. CANNON. Rich, creamy butter, where the animal is fed 
 upon good clover, has a yellow color; but in the absence of such 
 feed the butter is white. 
 
 Mr. GROUT. No; it is never white. 
 
 Mr. CANNON. Oh, yes; substantially white. Now, does my 
 friend propose to continue the practice of taking the white but¬ 
 ter, or that which is substantially white, made from the milk of 
 poor, lean cows, and coloring it with anatto or other coloring 
 matter? Is that kind of fraud to still go on, and is that counter¬ 
 feit butter to continue to demoralize the stomach of the eloquent 
 gentleman from Delaware without rebuke by my friend from 
 Vermont? [Laughter.] 
 
 Mr. GROUT. Mr. Speaker, I compliment the gentleman on 
 his ingenuity in undertaking to bring into this discussion in the 
 closing moments a subject entirely foreign to the matter in issue. 
 If the gentleman thinks there is something wrong in the coloring 
 of butter which he so prates about, I shall be glad to sit down with 
 him and philosophize upon that subject early and late; but that 
 has nothing whatever to do with the question now before the 
 House. Wo are now called upon to say whether it is a proper 
 thing for one State to overhaul an article of food coming from 
 another State “in the semblance” of that which it is not, and tear 
 off its mask and compel it to go upon the market for what it really 
 is; in other words, wo are simply to determine the question 
 whether the States have the power to stop a cheat and a fraud in 
 an important article of food, ovei>tliough it come from another 
 State. This is the whole story. I hope we shall vote down this 
 proposed substitute. 
 
 The question being taken on the substitute proposed by Mr. 
 Connolly, the Speaker declared that the noes seemed to have it. 
 
 The House divided; and there were—ayes 78, noes 98. 
 
 So the substitute was rejected. 
 
 Mr. TRACEY. Mr. Speaker, I send to the desk a substitute 
 for the amendment. 
 
 Tho proposed substitute was read, as follows: 
 
 Provided , That nothing hbrein shall bo so construed as to authorize any 
 State or Territory to prohibit the transportation and sale of such articles in 
 original packages when transported or sold in their true character. 
 
 ******* 
 
 Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the substi¬ 
 tute. The oleomargarine battle which was fought on the floor of 
 tho House some years ago was one of the hardest contests I ever 
 saw. It lasted for many weeks—one long, continuous, tireless 
 filibuster against the bill. The gentleman from Illinois spoke this 
 morning of ‘ ‘ opposition here and there. ” The opposition did come 
 from “ here and there;” it was located chiefly in Kansas City and 
 in Chicago, where vast wealth is massed to make money at tho 
 expense of the agricultural interests of this country. [Applause.] 
 The attempt has been made to have it appear that the lard and 
 tallow interests are against the bill pending before us. I repre¬ 
 sent a district where lard, tallow, and all the dairy products form 
 the leading articles of production; and I do not believe that there 
 is a farmer in my district who is not against this fraud and in 
 favor of this bill—not one. [Applause.] 
 
 I hold in my hand a telegram from the dairy commissioner of 
 Iowa, urging the Iowa delegation to stand by and support this 
 2581 
 
13 
 
 bill. No member of the Iowa delegation needed that telegram. 
 A quick ear for the heart beat of the agricultural interests of Iowa 
 was enough to instruct us as to the wishes of our constituents. 
 We have been through this battle before: and I want to say to 
 my distinguished friend from Illinois [Mr. Cannon], who pointed 
 at the frauds in the manufacture of other articles, that the time 
 is fast coming when legislative attention. State and national, must 
 be directed to all of these frauds. And he only “points the moral 
 and adorns the tale” when he gives those illustrations. I say 
 wherever you find a fraud imposing upon the people—running 
 masked batteries into the commerce and trade of this country— 
 do not stand back and howl at the efforts that are being made to 
 strike at the first fraud, but help us now and bring on your bat¬ 
 teries and let us attack the others. For one I am for this bill and 
 every bill that will unmask deception and let us have fair play 
 among the people of this country. [Applause.] 
 
 Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I move to strike out the last word. 
 I have lived long enough to learn that in matters of legislation 
 when I act on any question in the light of the facts I can very well 
 afford to rely for j ustification upon the facts. It is not necessary 
 for me, nor as I believe for any other gentleman, to ignore the facts 
 in order to justify ourselves upon this question. 
 
 What is proposed to be done here? What is the evil proposed 
 to be remedied? There is a product manufactured called oleo¬ 
 margarine. From the place where it is manufactured till it 
 reaches the consumer it is marked carefully, effectively. It is a 
 wholesome product. The men who make it, whether they livo in 
 the district of the gentleman from Iowa, or in mine, or elsewhere, 
 and those who furnish the material from which it is made, are 
 American citizens and have the right to follow a lawful calling. 
 And when these men do make that product, then in fairness under 
 the Constitution they have, in my judgment, a right to find a mar¬ 
 ket for it. That they have found, and not under a false pretense, 
 not with a lie in their mouths or in the mouth or the product 
 they sell. 
 
 Now, because they do find that market and great masses of 
 people in the United States knowingly buy that product for a food 
 product, and because, forsooth, it interferes with the makers of 
 other food products, gentlemen are swiftfooted to clothe them¬ 
 selves with a defense of the farmer and seek to legislate in his be¬ 
 half. I flunk that this matter when it comes to be tried upon its 
 merits, if it ever does, in the light of the approval or condemna¬ 
 tion of the people, will not be judged by declamation. I am thank¬ 
 ful to believe that such is the case. 
 
 I can not go with the gentleman who proposes this legislation, 
 notwithstanding its eloquent approval by the gentleman from 
 Iowa [Mr. Henderson], because the legislation (not speaking 
 offensively) is a fraud on its face. Professing to do one thing, 
 with a misrepresentation in its stomach, it seeks to do another 
 thing, and is blessed by the men who deal in declamation and 
 denunciation. For that reason I shall vote against this bill, and 
 without apology. 
 
 I have no fears hut that when I am called on to meet my agri¬ 
 cultural constituency (and it is peculiarly an agricultural con¬ 
 stituency) they will nave intelligence enough to understand that 
 their products of tallow and leaf lard are combined and churned 
 through milk and made a cheaper product than butter, going to 
 25S1 
 
14 
 
 the homes of multiplied thousands who earn their living in the 
 sweat of their faces, who can not buy fine dairy butter at 30, 40, 
 and 00 cents a pound, but who buy this in preference to bad but¬ 
 ter—when they understand that, I will risk my justification. 
 Anyhow, whether I am justified or not, my judgment is that this 
 legislation is vicious, is fraudulent—pretending to do one thing 
 when it in fact does another. And to retain my self-respect, and 
 from my conviction of what is right, I shall vote “no.” [Ap¬ 
 plause.] 
 
 Mr. HENDERSON. I move to amend by striking out the last 
 word of the substitute. Mr. Chairman, if there is anything 1 feel 
 badly about it is to see my colleague from Illinois [Mr. Cannon] 
 resorting to declamation. He is the only gentleman who has done 
 so this afternoon. When I came upon the floor he had all the 
 appearance of a man in a high ecstacy on this subject, and was 
 assailing other frauds. I am not here for declamation. I am not 
 here with any prepared speech. A man does not need much prep¬ 
 aration when he is attacking a curse of the kind that is being 
 attacked by this bill. The gentleman by his remarks would make 
 it appear that I have attempted to question his motives. Ho 
 knows me better than that. I attacked some of his references, 
 but I had no intention of attacking his motives, or those of any 
 other member of the House. 
 
 Every man hero has a right to fight for his own constituents 
 and their interests. But one thing I do know, Mr. Speaker. I 
 know where the head and front of this defense is located. It is 
 located in the great capitalized institutions of Chicago and Kan¬ 
 sas City, with Air. Armour and Mr. Swift and those men who 
 have destroyed the cattle interest of the great West, including my 
 own State, keeping down the price of every slaughtered animal 
 and raising the prico of every pound of beefsteak sold in the 
 limits of the United States. It does not need declamation to tell 
 God’s simple truths to this House and to the people. I simply 
 mean this, and I allude to my friend from Louisiana, who asked 
 a short time ago why legislation in the interest of one class against 
 another should be enacted, and who said that a State had not a 
 right to do it. In response to him I say that a State has a right to 
 put stripes on its convicts in the penitentiary, and I am in favor 
 of everything in that line that will brand infamy and brand false¬ 
 hood, so that it may be recognized by the people. Let the vio¬ 
 lators of law and those who are transgressing the great rights of 
 the people in the commerce of the United States be designated so 
 as to give fair protection to all classes in the country and equal 
 punishment to all criminal impositions. 
 
 But, Mr. Speaker, because I am denouncing the manufacturers 
 and sellers in a fraudulent way. I am not denouncing any gentle¬ 
 man who thinks proper to defend what ho believes to be the 
 interest of the tallow and lard raisers in his district. The tallow 
 and lard raisers in my district are milk producers and butter 
 producers as well. But they find a market for their tallow and 
 their lard as such. All we want is fair play, so that these articles 
 can not bo reduced in price or value by forgery and fraud. 
 
 I withdraw the pro forma amendment. 
 
 #•»***** 
 
 Mr. MONDELL. I am in favor of allowing local legislation in 
 all matters that do not conflict with the general good of the people 
 of the United States, and do not conflict with the commerce of 
 3581 
 
15 
 
 the United States; but I am opposed to any legislation that in any 
 way prevents the manufacture and free distribution and sale, 
 from one end of this nation to the other, under its true name and 
 properly branded, and sold for what it really is, of any product 
 whatever that is wholesome and not injurious. Therefore I am 
 opposed to all legislation of this character. [Applause and cries 
 of 4 ‘Vote!” “Vote!”] 
 
 Mr. GROUT. Mr. Speaker, I believe the House is ready to vote 
 upon this question. I shall submit no remarks, but desire to have 
 read from the Clerk's desk a telegram which I have just received, 
 which shows that this is not only a question in which the rural 
 districts and agricultural States are interested, but that it is a 
 matter in which business interests everywhere are concerned. 
 
 The Clerk read as follows: 
 
 Baltimore, Mo., January 1U, 1897. 
 
 Hon. William W. Grout, 
 
 House of Representatives. Washington, D. C. 
 
 Congratulations upon getting your bill up for discussion. Explain that it 
 is a facsimile of the provisions of the Wilson law with respect to liquor, and 
 no novelty in the way of national legislation. Wo wish you speedy success. 
 
 BALTIMORE CITY PRODUCE EXCHANGE. 
 
 Mr. GROUT. Now, Mr. Speaker, I ask for the previous ques¬ 
 tion on the bill and amendments, unless some gentleman wishes 
 to be heard. 
 
 The previous question was ordered. 
 
 The SPEAKER. The previous question is ordered on the bill, 
 the amendments, and the substitute for the amendment. Tlio 
 
 f uestion is first on the substitute of the gentleman from Missouri 
 Mr. Tracey] for the amendment. The Clerk will report the 
 
 substitute. 
 
 The Clerk read as follows: 
 
 Provided, That nothing herein shall bo so construed as to authorize any 
 State or Territory to prohibit the transportation and salo of such articles in 
 original packages when transported or sold in their true character. 
 
 The question being taken on the substitute, on a division (de¬ 
 manded by Mr. Tracey) there were—ayes 88, noes 100. 
 Accordingly, the substitute was rejected. 
 
 The SPEAKER. The question now is on the amendment of the 
 gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Grout], which the Clerk will 
 report. 
 
 The Clerk read as follows: 
 
 Provided , That nothing in this act shall be construed to permit any State 
 to forbid the manufacture or salo of oleomargarine in a separate and distinct 
 form, and in such manner as will advise the consumer of its real character, 
 free from coloration or ingredient that causes it to look liko butter. 
 
 The amendment was agreed to. 
 
 The question being taken on the engrossment and third reading 
 of the bill as amended, on a division (demanded by Mr. W illiams) 
 there were—ayes 122, noes 88. 
 
 Mr. WILLIAMS. Yeas and nays. 
 
 The yeas and nays were ordered. 
 
 The question was taken; and there were—yeas 128, nays 98, not 
 voting 133; as follows: 
 
 ******* 
 
 Mr. CURTIS of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I desire to withdraw my 
 vote. I find I am paired with the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. 
 Owens. Were he present, I should vote “ yea.” 
 
 2581 
 
16 
 
 Mr. BOATNER. Mr. Speaker, my colleague, Mr. Robertson, 
 is detained from the House by illness. I do not know how he 
 would vote. 
 
 Mr. DOCKERY. Mr. Speaker, I am paired with the gentleman 
 from Pennsylvania, Mr. Binotia.m. If he were present, the Grout 
 amendment having been adopted, I should vote for the bill. 
 
 Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I am paired with the 
 gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Towne. If he were present, I 
 would vote “ yea” and be would vote “nay.” 
 
 Mr. FOOTE. Mr. Speaker, my colleague, Mr. Bennett, was 
 called out a few moments ago. If present, lie would vote “ yea.” 
 
 Mr. BROMWELL. Mr. Speaker, my colleague, Mr. Taft, has 
 been called home by important business. He would have voted 
 for the bill if present. 
 
 Tho result of the vote was then announced as above recorded. 
 
 The bill was accordingly engrossed and read the third time. 
 
 The SPEAKER. The question is on the passage of the bill. 
 
 The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the 
 ayes seemed to have it. 
 
 Mr. WILLIAMS. Division! 
 
 The House proceeded to divide. 
 
 Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the call for a 
 division. 
 
 The SPEAKER. The call for a division has been withdrawn. 
 The ayes have it, and the bill is passed. 
 
 On motion of Mr. GROUT, a motion to reconsider the vote by 
 which the bill was passed was laid on the table. 
 
 2581 
 
 O 
 
 u37