Omaha Daily Bee Newspaper, March 12, 1892, Page 9

| TWELVE PAGES, THE OMAHA DAILY BEE. TWENTY-FIRST YEAR. HE PURE FOOD BILL Text of Senator Paddock's Argu- ment in Sapport of the Measure, ; HE INTEREST OF CONSUMING MASSES oy any Attempts Made to Sidetrack or Nullify the Bill Ably Evaded, DEATH BLOW TO FOCD ADULTERATION e Paddock Pure Food Bill Has Been Endorsed by Granges and Alliances, ‘V’m.l. SAVE MILLIONS FOR THE PEOPLE Ringing Appeal to the Senate In Behalf of the People—~Tho Bill tho Senate—The House Passes Favorable to It, For two years the Paddock pure food bill has been before the senato. Wednesday it passed that body by a vote of 81 to 19, The Bill goes over to tho houso intact in every essential provision as the first general un- adulteration law whicb has over passed either branch of congress, or which has ever been cousidered on the floor of either house. It is thought the house will pass the bill. The bill was debated at length last week. Senator Paddock held the floor of the senate for two hours in advocacy of this important measure, The discuasion will be found most inter- osting. Tue Bee reproduces Senator Pad- dock’s speech in support of the bill and the running debate in the senate upon it. So important 18 the subject to tho consumer generally that it has been deemed advisuble 10 give the morits of the bill the widest pos- siblo circulation throughout the west. Food and Drug Adulteratio The senate, as in committee of the whole, resumed the consideration of the bill (S. 1) for preventing the adulteration and mis- branding of food and drugs, for other pur- 1.} poses. Mr. Paddock—I understand that the sena- tor from Missouri (Mr. Vest) is entitled to the floor. Mr. Vest—Mr. President, when the senate adjourned yesterday evening I was endeavor- Ing to give my understanding as to the scope and compass of the measure pending before the senate. I was unfortunate enough, as I see by the mornin g papers, to have made the Impression that I was srguingin behalf of the bill. - I bad not stated what my opinions were as to the general tendency of such leg- Islation or'as to this specific biil,but had con- tented niyselt so far with simply examining the scope aud compass of the provisions of the bill if enacted as it now stands before the senate, 1 was partioularly addressing myself to the question of what is interstate commerce, of, us tho constitution expressos It, “‘commerce among the states.” 1 took is- sue with my friend from Texas (Mr. Coke) when he stated that everything throughout tho entive country is tho subject of comwerco among the stutes. Itis true that oeverything in the United States may become the subject of commerce among the statcs. Mr./Coke. “That is exactly what I stated, If the sénator will permit me. Mr, Vest. Then we are unfortunate in not andorstanding each other. As I understand the decisions of the supromo court and the plain language of the constitution itself, everything throughout the country which is /‘ the subject of commerce in tho states or out of the states may be the subject of interstate commerce, “‘or commerce among the states,” quotlng the language of the constitution, ut that is vory different from what has al- ready become the subject of commerce among thestates. The supreme courtof the United Statos has aecided that diseased meat, poisonous substances, deleterious to health or lifo, can not be the subjec rco among Lhe states, It is impossible that they stiould bo the legitimate subject of commerce anywhers, either among the states or with foreign nations, But that is a suoject of commorce among the states which is in a healthy condition or & logitimate subject of commerce and has rnssud into the hands of & common carrier or {s In process of transpor- tation from one state or territory to another. Therefore, if we adopt tho smendment pro- posed now by the senator in charge of the bill and interpolato the words *the subject of interstate commerce,” then the pending bill would simply be narrowed and restricted 1o articles which have gono Into the posses- sion of a common carrier or are in process of transmission from one state to another. Mr. Paddock~Will the senator permit me to ask him & question? Mr. Vest—Certainly, Mr. Paddock—I snould like to ask the senator if ho thinks the act would be nar- %rowed down beyond what it is already nar- rowed down by the provisions of section 10, if the bill shail pass tothe amendment to ‘which he 1s addressing his remarxs ! Mr. Vest—Of coursenot, and 1 understand that section 10 of the bill simply attempts in gonoral torms to restrict the operation of the bill to the subjects of interstate com- merce, Mr. Paddock--Thatamendment was simply in the diroction of definieness Lo satisfy some of our friends who are hypercritical in respect to matiers of this kind, Mr. Vest—-Waiving the term “hypereriti- cal,” Mr. President, permit me to say that 88 1 understand the seoator from Nebraska now, he does not propose that this measure shall effect any eoxcept articlos which are % the subject of commerce Amoux the states Mr. Sherman—Or which may become the subject. r. Paddock—~As to that 1 shall state further when I come to make some romarks, 1 do go a good way beyond that. Mr. Vest.—If you mean auything further than that, it is ‘unconstitutional unless you find the power to pass an inspection law~ by congress 1n the ‘‘general welfare” clause in the constitution. I was peculiarly unfortun- .“:e if that is the construction inteuded b, tha sonator from Nevraska 1n being reporte this morning as favoring any such pill. 1 do not belong to the school, to use the expres- 810 u to the party which from the beginning of the government, has believed that under the *'‘general welfare clause of the consti- tution congress could do anything. 1 have never believed for an nstant that that was a separate and independent grant of power in the constitution. Without going into that much debated and discussed tield, I simply content myself with saylog now that if that is the meaning of the senator from Nebraska, and he puts this power of national inspection upon the ‘‘general welfare” clause of the constitution, I cannot go with him in any such construction. I assume that he gets this power under the interstate-commerce clause, for in his amend- end he interpolates the words ‘'subjects of commeroe among the atates:” and if that be 80, then the irresistable conclusion is thet nothing except an article the sub- eot of lnterstate commerce can be louched for inspection, 1 aid yesterday that if, under that construction, ‘any Uuited States inspector coming from the Department of Agriculture should go into any retail or wholesale establishment in any state and demand the right to inspect any package, he would immediately be met with the unanswerable statement ‘‘by what au. thority do you come inside of a state with a national power in order to make me exhibit mwy goods to you as an officer of the United Btates government Evory senator will seahow vtterly impo- tent 1s this legislation if confined to thie regn- lation of the subjects of interstate commerce OF COMMUr0e Mmong the states, 1f it be--aud 1 admit that it is greatly to b desired—nec- essary to establish inspection s to all arti- cles of drink and food in the United States, 10 tho interest of the public health, then the only sure and sefe wav in which to do it is to use the instrumentalities and exercise the Pouver which I believo the constitution of the Tnited States intended to leave to the states in the shape of police regulations. In tho caso of Gibbons vs Ogden, ¥ Whoaton, which 18 the leading case, and was decided by Chiof Justice Matshall, that groat jurist stated that ail the powers as to quarantine, as to inspoc tion, as to the health and morais of the peo- vle, belonged to that large class of powers callea the police powers, that are resorved by the states, There has been no question about which thoro has been suck diversity of opinion among jurists and botween the judges of the supremo court as in regard to the lino be- tween the police powers ot the stutes aud tho commercial power of the genoral government orof congrass. In the case of Leisy vs Hardin, decided in 185 United States reports, the suprome court divided, with five judges on one side and four on the other, and that division arose ay to what was the cffect of the congress of the United States declining to legislate as to intercommercial regula- tions and whether that gave the states the power to muke such regulations, and also as to the distribution between the powers con- ferred under the commerce clause of the con- stitution upoa congresses and the police powers resorved by tho states. Mr. Paddock—I ‘should like to ask the sen- ator a question, if he will yield. Mr. Vest—Certainly. Mr. Paddock—Does the senator say that either or the powers may not be used to sup- plement the other in order to carry out the special purpose or the particular pirpose as 1t may be of either? Mr. Vest—Mr. President, that is another question. The supremo court has decided that the quarantine laws and the inspection laws of a state, and the instrumentalities used for that purpose by the states, may be used by the general government, but it is no concession of power to the state. That is simply # question of using certain means to effectan end. We are discussing now the question of whether the geneval government under the commerce clause of the constitu- tion, exercise the police nowers ot tho states, 1 do nov propose to read all these decisions: but if any scnator is curious on the subject I refer him to the lust decision made, which ho will find in 140 United States reports, and in which Chief Justice Fuller dolivered the opinion of the court. I will not read from it except to give the syllabus, This is the caso in re Rohrer, and in it Chief Justice Fuller summarized this whole discussion in the following words, quoting from a decisiou of Justica Catron: And here is the limit between the sovoreign powerof the state and the fodoral power. That is to say, that which does not bolong to commerce is Within tho jurisdiction of the po- Tice power of the stato; ‘and that which does belong to commerce s within the Jurisdiction of the United States. And to this limit must ali the genorul views come, as I suppose, thut wero suggested:in the reasoning of Lhis court in the cases of Gibbon vs Ozden, Brown vs the state of Maryland and New York vs Miin What, then is the assumption of the stute court? Undoubtediy, in cffect, that the state hiad the power to daclare whit should be un article of inwful commerce in the particu- lar stats; and, ared that ardcnt ctorious to morals eused 10 bo commercial d that then the poil hed, und couscquently the powers of congr ould not int . The exclusive state power s made to rest, not on the fact of tho state or condition of t ticte, nor that 1t is property usually by ‘sule from hand to hand, but on th ration found in the state laws and asserted as the stato policy, that ft shall be excluded from com- merce. And by this means the sovercizn jur- isdiction in the state is attempte ereated. fu i case where It did uot” previously exist. 1f this be the true construction of the con- stitutional provision, thon the paramount poner of congress L0 regulate comme subjocttow very material imitation tukes from congress. und leaves with the states, the power to determine the commodi- ties, or articios of property, which arc the subjects of lawful commerce. Conzress may rezilate, but tho states deternine what shail orshall not be regututed. Upon this theory the power to rogulate commeorce, instead of belng varamount over the subject, wouid bo- come subordinate to the state police power; for it s obvious thut the power to doterinine the articlos which may bosubjects to com- merce and thus to circiimseribe’ its scope and operation, is, in effect, the controliing one. The police power wouid not only be a formid- able rival, but, In astruggie, mist necessarily triumph over ‘the commercial power, us tho power to rexulnte s dependent upon tho power to fix and determinc upon the subjects 10 be regulutod. I shall not quote any further from this de- cision, and L quoted so much for the purpose of showing what the suprome court, has at last determiued to be the line between the commercial power of congress and the polico powers of the state, and further to show this important fact in the present discussion, most imvortant 1 view of the pending bill, that the power is here givon to congress under this decision of the supreme court, about which there never should have been any doubt, to state which articles shall be the subjects of commerce among the states, That is within the power of congress, and s0 loug as cougress sees properto oxercise that power it does 1t by vistue of this ex- clusive grant. ‘I'herefore it follows that if the congress of the United States should say that an article should not be transported from one state to another it would have the right to do so. But at the same time it is clear and un- questionable that congress has no right undar the commerce clause of the constitution to exercise any right of inspection within the territorial limits of a stato. If that power of going into a state for the purpose of inspect- ing na article to ascertain whether it is bealthy or deleterious to human life and health exists at all, it comes from the broad and general blunket clauso of the constitu- tion in regurd to‘‘the general welfave,” 1t does not come from the commerce ciause of the constitution, becauso the power to go into a state and regulate commerce doos not exist in-the congress of the Uniled States, and, therefore, it follows logicully that none of the instrumentalities necessary to the ex- ercise of that power can be given to con- gress. That is all I proposa to sy in regard 1o that subject. Mr. President, what is the meaning of this legislation ! It belongs to that brood of wens- ures which 1o my judgment arc most dele- terious and most 1nimical to the proper con- struction of the constitution of the United States, that commenced with the oleomar- garine bill, and which I opposed with all the strength that I was capable of excreising, whereby the taxing power of the national fowrnmeul. is to ve used for police purposes n a state, It was declared both in the house of representatives and on the floor of the seu- ate during tho oleomargarine aebate by the chairmen of the respective committees on agriculture in the two bodies, that there was u0 sort of pretonse that the government needed the money to be raisod by the tax upon oleomargarine, aad it was openly avowed that the purpose was to tax out of existence, through federal jurisdiction, an ar- ticle of food in order to give the warket to a competing article. I have never ceased to re- gard that legislation as the most dangerous that could have been enucted by the cougress of the United States, and here follows logic- ally now another bill in the same direction, d I take it that no honest advocate of this bill will pretend te say that it is anything else except an attempt to exercise the police power under the guise of the taxing or rev- onue power of the governmeut, Here weare called upon to passa bill which gives to the Department of Agricul- ture the right to go intoastate and call upon any citizen to exhibit tis property, not when it has, but because it may at some fu- turo time, become the subject’of interstate commerce, and when the supreme court of the United States has already decided that until in the bands of the carrier or in tran- situ between the states and territories, iy does not come under the commerce clause of the constitution. Something has been said bere in regard to the catule inspection bill that was passed. 1 agree with the senator from Connecticut [Mr, Platt] that it is very doubtful what the supreme court will say in rogard to that measure in its provisions as to products i tended for export, althouzh I have never been able to find auy other langusge which would embrace the purpose of such legisla- llo‘n aud could stand the test of judicial in- quiry, Tue first clause of the act for the inspec- :Xon of meats for exportation reads as fol- 0ws : That the seordary of urlo\.unn may power att; OMAHA, § cnuse to be made a careful inspection of salted pork and” bucon Intended for exportu: tion. Now, I submit that under this langunge the power of the United Stutos, or rather the nspection power attompted to e croated, is subject entirely to the volition of the party who has tho moat under his control, Sup- pose a United States officer goos o a packing house and demands that the proprietor shall exhibit salted meat or pork, and looks to this 1aw for his autiority. “He can only inspect such salted mont as is intended for exporta- tion, and how is that fact to bo ascertained? It must be ascertainad from the mental direction or intention of the party who con- trols the meat, and thorefors it is entirely voluntary with him whether ho puts that meat within this category or not. The next act that we passed was for the inspection of live cattle, hogs aund their car- casses, The first section of that act uses this language: Thut the socretary cuuse to bo made a cattie Intended for tries. Tho second section guage: That the secrotary of azriculture shall to by made a careful inspection of nil tle, tho meat of which is intended for exportation. ‘Pho third section repsats the same lan- guage, In all theso cases it is & question with the owner of the meat or tho party in possession whether he shall puat it within the category or not. Suppose that he says to the United States ofticer, *'this product 18 not intended for exportation,’”” what is the officer then to do? Is he to go into a judicial in- quiry or a quas! judicial inquiry to ascertain the fact? ‘'heso bills are necessarily imperfect be- cause, to be frank about it, the judiciary committes and the committee on foreign re- lations—one bill coming from the committee on foreign relations, and the other from the commitleo on ths judiciary—were both at- tempting to keep within the commorce clause of the constitution, and at the same time moot the evil, the sunpression or removal of which they bad in view. But I call the attention now of senators interested in this maiter to the act with which we are all famitiar, that in regard to trusts, “An act to protect trade uud com- meree against unlawful restraints and mo- nopolies.” The uct reads as follows: sction 1, Every contract, combination In the form of trust or otherwise, or conspirncy, fn restraint of trade or commorce among the soveral states, or with foreign nations, is bereby declared to bo lllegal. 'Every person who shall make any such contractor enzage in any such combination or conspiracy, shall be deemed guiity of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof, shall bo punished by fine not exceeding #.000, or by Imprisonment not exceading one year, or by both said punish- ments, in the discretion of the court, \ The sixth section of thal act reads as fol- ow! Sectlon 6. Any property owned under any contract or by ‘any combination, o pursuart to uny conspiracy (and being 'the subject therea?) mentionod 1n section 1 ot this act, and being in the course of transportation from one staie Lo another, or to « foreign country, shull be forfeited to the Un ted States In other words, two things are necossary to a forfeiture; first, that the article shall be the subject of unlawful conspiracy in re- straint of trade; second, that it shall be actually 1n transitu from onc state or ter- ritory to another or to a foreign country, I cnll attention to this language to show that in all this lezisiation which has been enacted the ideu is prominent that the subject about which wo are legislating must be in transitu or in the hands of the carrier for that pur- pose, and until it reaches the point of dosti- nation and the packago is broken or passes by sale from one citizen or another the com- merce cluuse of the constitution still afects it. That 1s the meaning of the decision of the supreme court in Gibbons vs Ugden, that the original package, until broken and the goods mingled with the goods of the citizens of the commonweaith, is still subject to this commerce clause of tue constitution, Mr. President, I call attention to the sev- enth subdivision on paga 5 of the bill, which seems to me exceedingly objectionable. In stating tne articles which come under this inspection law, it says: eventh. If {L consists of the whole or any part of a deceased, filthy, docomposed or putrid animal or vegzetablo substance, or any portion of an unimal unfit for food, whether munufactured or not, or 1f it is tho product ot a decensod animal, or of an animal that has died otherwise than by slauzhter. Provided, that an article of food ordrug which does not contain any ad ted poisonous ingredient shall not be deemedl to be aduiterate Now, L call attention to two features of this provision. Mr. Paddock—I hope the senator will not read that proviso as connectad with and re- lating to the first paragraph of that soction. It relates to the defivition that follows, Mr. Vest—Very good. I wiil take it with the umended definition aud will procewd with what little T have to say about it. Mr. Pudaock—It was made entirely as con- nected with the definition that follows. Mr, Vest—I will come to that in 8 moment, 1 will call atiention in the first place to the detinition of animal or of vegetable sub- stances which are attacked in this bill: 11 1t consists of the wholo or any partof a ceased, filthy. decomposed or putrid animal. M. President, that touches me in rather a sensitive part of my dietary organization, From defects, possibly of early education, 1 am very much addicted to thé products of the hog, and I do not know any animal which is more filthy in its habits; yot under this provision hog meat would come witbin the denynciation of this bill. Ic is an amena- ment to the Old Testament of a most violeat description. It seems to me that, standing s it is, there could be no more fatal defect in any legislation for a southern or western man. I do not think in all the category of animal life thero can be found anything more filthy 1n its habits than the ordinary Ameri- hog; for, whatever he may be in foraign countries, here hv is addicted to the most filthy practices and habits. Mr. Paddock—Will the senator allow met Mr. Vest—Certainly. Mr. Paddock—That is tte exact language of all the statutes or substantially tha same as all tho statutes (hat bave been enacted, commencing with KEngland and running through the alimeutary laws of Germany, and all the way through for tiwenty years since there has boan any legislption of this kind. Tho criticisim of the senalor is hy per- oritical. Mr. Vest. Itis agreat defect of legisla- tive definition, and I can havdly think that tho old Saxons, whose first historical nfe consisted in herding swine, would ever in their legislation, if they bad been consulted about it, have denouncel the hog or put him in_the catalogue found in this section, But, again, the senator says, in the bill: That an articlo of food or drug which does not contain uny added poisonous ingredient shall not be deemed to be aduiterated. He suys that does not quality this pre ion, but'the whole of the bill. Is it possible that the senator from Neoraska means that a poisonous article which is made more poison- ous is exempt from the operation of this pro- posed act! Let me read this so as to show that there is no injustice done: Provided, That un article of food or drug which does not contaln any added polsonous Ingrediont shull not bo deeined to bo adulter- ated. In other words, if it is all arsenic or strychnine, and there is no other poisonous drig aaded to 1t, it is an article of legitimate commerce, Mr, Paddock. cism, Mr. Vest. I do not mean to ve unfair, Mr. Paddock, That relates eutirely to the definitions which follow and to which must be added in each case those things that are described thereafter in order to take them out of the list of exceptions. That is an ex- ception to the rule of adviteration. r. President, If the senator will allow me just a moment further. Mr. Vest—Of course. Mr. Paddock—The paragraph to which he refors is to be read in connection with the three clauses which follow : First, in the case of mixtures or compounds which ay e now or from time to time here- after known us aricles of food wnder thelr own distinctive nawes, and nov included in definition fourth of this section. Second, In the case of articles labelea, branded or tagged s0 as to plainly indieate that they are mixtures, cowpounds, combinu- tions or blonds. Now, it must be oither an imitation or there must be somelhing adaed to it, & sonous ingredient, If there 1s that con- ition made by the addition of poisouous in- gredients or if it is au imjtation, then it is not excepted as an adulteration, Mr. Vest.—I will take toen, the additional explanation of the senator of Nebraska. ‘sovidod, That an artiole of food or drug of agriculturo shall roful fnspestion of all port to foreign coun- repoats the same lan- That is a very unfair criti- TURDAY TORNING, which docs not contaln any added polsonous In.{r’('llh‘nl shail not he deeidd 1o b naulte uted. Iirat, in the ease of mixtures or compounds wh miay be now or from time to t'me here- after known as ariicles of food under their own distinctive names. and not included in definition fourth of this sectiop Second, in the case of atioles lnbeled, brandod or turged 8o as to plalnly indicats that thay are mixtures, compamnds, combina- { tions or blend Third, when uny matter or ingrodient has been added to the food or drag becaise the sume 18 roguired for the produgtion or prepar- Atlon therdof as an urciole of EOMMOFeo [0 & stato fit for carrluge or_consumption, and not fraundulently to increase the bulk, we ght. or measure of the food or draw, ior concenl the Inferlor quality thereot; Prowided, That the sime shall be ‘labeled, branddd or tagged, us proseribed by the secrotnry of! agrioultiire, so a8 to show thom to bo compouhds «nd the ox- act charaoter thereof; And provided furtner, That nothinz in this net shail bo construed as requirin z or compelling proprivtors or manu- tactirers of propriotary medidines to disciose thelr trado formulias, Fourth, where the food ordeug Is unavold- ably mived with soma oXtrangous matter in the process of coliection or praparation. Mr. Paddock—That is the usual provision, bul sometimes by accident in making the compounds something may be put into them in the assembling of the ingreaients, Mr, Vest-—Exactly; still this provision in very plain language provides— That an artiole of food 5 drug which does not contaln any added polsonous ingredient shiall not be deemed to be adu.terated. ‘That is to say, although itmay he poisonous already, if it is honestly labeled, and al- thougn it may kill a whole wowuship by its use, if there 1s no other poison put Into it, 1t does not come within the provisions of tho statute. Mr. Paddock—That is a very extravagant and very extraordinary assumption, Mr. Vest—Very good. Mr. Paddock—Certainly nothing in the phraseology or in the association with tho other definitions all the way through the definition paragraphs of the bill can possibly admit of any such constraotion. Mr. Vost—Very good, Mr. President. I think I can exist under the senator's criti- cism after reading his bill. The extraor- dinary language he uses here to convey an idea which ho says he did not intend to con- veyr exonorates him from any disposition to bo harsh in his criticisms on what Isay. I submic that here is the language: Provided, That an article of food or drug which does not contain any udded poisonous ingredient shall not bo deemed to be adulter- Flrst. Tn the case of mixtures or compounds which muy be now or from time to timo here- after known as articles of food under their own distinctive names, and not included in defiuition fourth of this section. And so on. In other words, let us take a practical illustration. Suppose that a man invents a food product which he calls the es- sencae of cor, or of wheat, or of ryo—I will take any hoalthy article of food--and ho brands it the essence of corn, when, on in- speotion, it turns out that it contains a poisonous article, strychnine, arsenic, prus- sle acid, or any of the known poisons, dele- terious to human life; it is honestly branded and ho puts it out on the public for sale, Now, under this provision— Mr. Paddock—Suppose the senator takes somo practicuble thing, something that everybody knows about. Suppose he takes a peculiar and particular brand of covnstarch or something of that kind, of which there are very many, upon which the trade-mark of the manufacturer is found, that is, corn- starch defined as such, If there is added to it—and there iz no objection to that, because there is no disposition to discriminate sgainst anything that is honest and fair and is branded for what it may be—but if there 15 added to that cornstarch, which is a special and particular munufacture known to all the world under the trade-mark of the manufac- turer, any ingredient which is in any respect poisonous, then it is taken out from under this description. That is all vhero is of it. It is perfectly plain. Mr. Vest—Then the language is most un- fortunate, *‘any added poisonous ingredient.” Mr. Paddock—What is ‘‘added{"’ Som! thing that is added to that which is defined and presented and has a distinctive charac- ter! Mr. Vest—Exactly, and ‘there might be a very sevious question as to the meaning of that word *poisonous,” or as o the propriety of using the word in that connection. Thera may be an article placed In & food product which is nota poisen, and yet atthe same time is deleterious 1o health life and. Mr. Paddock—It is the usual provision found in the statutes of Knglana aud in the aliontary laws of Germany, and found in the statute of Massachusetis,whick has prov- en to be one of the most efticacious laws on this subject that has been framed angwhere, and which is cuiversally recognized as & pro- per law. Mr. Vost—I am not _discussing tho laws of Massachusetts or the laws of Englaund. 1 am talking about a statute which it is proposed to place upon the statute boots of the United States, and upon which Iam called on to vote. Now, I want to say in conclusion that I know that all through the country, and I represent a large agricultural state, there has been u vast amount of sentiment worked up in favor of some legislatipn for pure food, as it is termed, and I know that granges, al- liances, couventions and nowspapers have all demanded «...** ~ most imperative terms, by patition and otherwise, that this or some similar vill sball be enacted, Now, Mr, Presidont, I bellave that tho con- stitution of the United States iutended that inspection and quarantine laws should be in the hunds of the states. My reading of the history of tho commerce clause of the con- stitution convinces me beyond question that the menning of that clause was that the evils existing under the old articles of con- federation, which permitted any state to discriminate in its legislation sgainst the products of another state attemptod to be brought within its limits, should be done away with, and that the constitution meant in the commerce clause, when itused the wora ‘‘regulate’” that the manner of conduct- ing the commerce of the country among the states should be under the jurisdiction of congress, and I have no sort of doubt that the guarantine power and the inspection power was intended tobe left with the states, becauseit wasa local matter to a large extent and one which the people of the states through their legislative authorities wora most competent to determine, As Isaid a few minutos ago, here 1s one of that brood of bills growing out of the feeling of paternalism which has taken possession of this country from one end to the other. Instead of going to their stato authorities the people of the United States aro being taught now to come o congress for every- thing from 1,000,000 acres of land down to'a paper of pins, The states are slowly-—mo, not slowly, but rapidly—having their consti- tuticnal powers taken away from them and the power vested in the congress to do unings which were intended by the framers of the constitution to be left to the states axclusivoly. Therofore we find in every state of this union & growing sentiment that state suthority amounts to nothing and that the splendid coptralized governmeot at Washington is able to do anything; that when we invoke the constitution we are told that ‘‘you belong to & past ersa; you are not a pussenger on the Car of Progréss; you are not living in the blazing sunlight of a new civilization,” : Iam proud to say, Mr. President, that I believe in the constitution as construed by the supreme court of the Uaited States, and T would ratoer quit public life thaa to give my vote for a bill like this, that I believe is a prostitution of the commercial clause in the coustitution in order to exereise tho police powers of the states. For this reason, sir, I shall most cheerfully cast my vote against this measure. Mr. Paddock—I am very glad the senator from Missouri now belioves in the constitu- tion and will stand by it. Mr. President, I had not intguded, as I said at the commencement of thls discussion —— Mr. Palmer—I have no doupt the senator from Nebrasks intends addressiog the senate at length on this bill. 1 Mr. Paddock—Mr. Preside) 1 shall not 'mitted Lo go y 8 o'clock we be able to do so0 unless [ am' abead pretty soon, because al have a special order. Mr. Palmer—I desire to permission before he proc tion to strike out a part of suit bim, in order that be point bafore him while add al to, Me. Paddock - That is all right. The Vice Presideut—There is a motion peuding to strike out seo ki the senator's to make & mo bill, if it will havé tnat g the seu- MARCH 12, Tends, which 1 Coke), thal 2--TW l';LV E PAGI was offered by thoe senator from Texas (Mr. | tho Coke), Mr. Paddook—What is the exact motion ! Mr, Palmer—If the senator from Neoraska will termit we, I will move to strike out all of sectioa 1 after the woods “‘chief chemist,’ in the tenth line of the section, and alsp all of the third section and all of the fourth sec- tion. The Viee President ment already pending, ator from Texas (Mr. Coke). Mr, Paddock—1'0e amondament of the sen- ator from T'axas embraces a part of the prop osition which the senator from Illinois now makes, Mr, Palmer--If the proposition T make is not in ordor, of coursoe | withdraw it. Mr, Paddock—It can be offored at the proper time, Mr. Palmer—At the suggestion of gentlo- men who are more familiar with the rules than I am, I withdraw the amendment for toe prosent. Mr. Paadock— Mr. Prasident, I had not in- tended, as I stated at the commencement of this discossion, to make a formal speech, but the very carefully propared arguments of tho senators from Texas and Tennessee tho other day, aud the speech of the senator from Missouri [Mr. Vest| today, bave seemed to make it necessary to give to many of their statements and conclusions a more format and thorough answer than would be possibie in a running debate. With this upology in advance, and Indulging the hope that the very great importance of the measure under considoration may command for mo the ut- tention of the senate, I will procoed. Mr. President, when this bill was first taken up for discussion, in answer to the ex- travagant estimates placed Lpon the cost of its admivistration if it should bocone a law, made by both the senator from Tennessee [Mr. Bate] and the senator from Texas [Mr. Coke], 1 insisted that such estimates had no foundation in reason, or common seuse, or fairness. In support of what I then said, I now present the letter of Prof. Wiley, wi ten under the direction and with ‘the ap- proval of the secretary of agriculture upon this subject. It is as follow: DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTU ry, WASRINGTON, D, O., February 24, beg to submit the follow estimate of the cost. in 50 far us the chomicul work is concerned, of carrying out the provis- ions of the pure food bill now under considera- tion In the senate: There ara. of course, many difficuitics In tho way of ¢lving anything 1ike an accurate esti- niate of the amount of noney necessary; but thave varetully gone over each provision of the bill,and I think I can safely say tbat the totul cost of the chemical work, including the procuring of saraples und the necessury trav- eling expenses of the chemists who may bede- wulled for this purpose, will not excoed $100.- 00 per annum, Tn ull such work I have found that It s far better to have the chemist himsolf obtaln tk swuwiples of the, suspected foods rather th depend upon an inspector who hus no tec nical knowledge of the matter under consid eration. Tn tho work which has aiready bec done by thisdivision in food adulteration, we ave purchased all our samples of suspected foods througl our own chemists, finding this method of procedure far suncrior to any other one. The estimate which L give, therefore,in- cludes not only ohemlcal work,but also tho necessary expontes uttending the procuring of sumples. It does not, of course, tnclude the ercotion and equipment of a’ labora lurge enough to accommodate the incre number of workers, This matter s olr provided for in a bill which is now be house for the erectlou of scientific | ries for the use of the Department of Agricul- 'here 1s an amend- bmitted by the sen- DIVISION OF ur I think I can safely say, with the oxperience of six years In this Dusiiess, thut the law can De thoroughly enforced, inso far us the chem- ical work 15 concerned, for the amouut men- tioned above. Respectfull: H. W. WiLey, Chomist. Hon. A. 8, PADDOCK, United States Scnate. Both of the senators to whom I have re- forred iusisted that thousands aad tens of thousands of officials would be requirod ,and this, too, in the face of the fact that the last section of tho bill, which was suricken out _\'eslerdilly on }ny motion, provlld‘iug for an appropriation B "8 work under PG RN the Shmie aimaint indicated in the official estimate I have read. Tho senators apnear to have assumed that there will be required under its provisions a universal inspection embracing cvery article of food and drug that is manufactured and sold to the consuming public at retail as well as av wholesale, which is wholly incor ‘All that is coitemplated by this bill analysis of acticles of food or drugs, being subjucts of interstate commerce, which may come under suapicion from tume to time as aaulterated and misbranded articies on some such theory or plan as that upon which the nunting out of the manufacturers and sellers of counterfeit money is conducted, and I re- peat now, what I said the other day in the hurried answer made by me to some of these extravagant assumptions and charges of my houorabls friends ou the other side, thaf, taking the exponse of the adminisiration of the Massachusetts law as a basis for the cost of tho administration of this proposed act, the estimate of the Department of Agri- culture, to which I have referred, is within entirely reasonable bounds. Our friends are greatiy disturbed because the exact number to be “employed and the salaries 10 be paid to each are not definitely fixed in the bill, alhough the maximum amount iu the ppropriation, beyond which nothing could be expended, was then in the bill; but the whole subject of the appropria- tion 1s now relegated to the two houses of congress to be provided for through their regular approprition’ committees. We all know that this means no more than $15),000 in any possible contingency, and we all know that beyond the limit of expenditures thus to be fixed in the appropriation bill it will be impossible to o i the expenso of administra- tion, Manifestly it would not be wise nor in the interest of economy to definitely name the number to be annually employed nor their actual compeusation, because the service from its very nature ‘would necessarily be vuriable and uncertain as to the number and the period of the employmiont of the persons used in the field during the year, In some morths a large amount of work in the way of inspoction and analyses might be required, while insome other wouths of the year little would be necessary. It has been usual to give some discretion in the adminis- tration of all laws of this character to the chief executive officer churged with the responsibility of their administration. This measure, therefore, on & comparatively new and a most imporuant line of investigation, is not faulty in the respect mentioned &ud ' is nov entitled to the fierce criticisms indulged in by the senators to whom I have referred, in the elleged interest and under the pretense of economy, Mr. President, may it not be true that our friends are really more troubled ubout cotton seed oil thau about the constitutiont Mr. Prosident, beg to rapeat what I have before said, that, considering this very interest alond, they ure making @ serious mistake. 1tis @ significant fact that the reputable packers aud manufacturers of compound lard, in which cotton seed oil is used in part, are themsolves in favor of the passage of this bill for the protection of tho very inter- est which the senators from Tennessee and Texas desire to protect through its defeat. They believe it is better for this very srticle itself that there shail be an honest, open- handed manufacture and sale of itto the consuming public. The suspicion now at- taching to it, the ban under which it rests, can only be removed by some such lezislation as this, The producers of hogs desire and are seek- ing only this result. They and their repre- sentatives here make no assault upon cotton- seed oil nor upon the compound lard of which it is a constituent part. They ouly ask thut it shall be branded and sold for exactly what it is, and not dishonesuy sold for what it is not, i. e., “‘pure leaf lard.” The charge of those senators as 10 & combination or con- spiracy on the part of the hog-producers and their particular representatives here for the purpose of securing legislaticn discriminat- ng against cotton-seed oil in favor of the edible fat of swine, is without the least foundation in fact, ‘The best witnesses in proof of this state ment are the intelligent dealers and com- pound lard manufacturers, who are enor- mously interested in maintaining its commer- olal reputation as an edivle fat for the uses indicated, I make this statemeut with the coufidence of an intimate, an absolute knowl- edge, gained from personsl inquiries exten- sively made by myself for the sole purpose of ascertaining the exact views of the people to whom I have referred. Aud now, Mr. President, speaking gener- ally, baviog in mind this charge of the sena- tor from Tennessee iv the commencement of his speech the other day, which was fully indorsea h{ the seuator from Texas |Mr, this measure was forwulated for | against purposs of discriminating otton seed oil, 1 defy either of them to point to any provision orany line in this bill which discriminates espocially against any honest and honestly branded article of food in favor of any othor such article. The senator from Tennesseo indulged in a €ood deal of vory extravagant criticism as to certuin imaginary political aspocts of this legislation, and, “in order that I may avold any possible misstatement of what was so freely and, as I think, so ungenerously said under this particular head by him, I quote an extract or two of the many in his speech of this charactor. I'ho seoator said: The country Is about entering uvon the great quudrennial campatgn for the prosidency.and this bill proposes to put It within the pawer of one department to appolnt ws many ‘chem- Ists, nspoctors, clorks, Iaborers, und other employes” as the houd muy deon necessary w carry the proviglons of this act. anil uny political work for which their hands and lieids nay be ready and apportune. Acain ho s There miuy be a demand for pure food legis- lat on, but that demuud does not contemlato ELVing opportunity for the impure politics, the adulterated voting, and the misbranded oloc- tion devicos which” lurk concenlod within the limitless discrotion conferred on any secrotary of ugricuiture by this bill. “For the purboso of protecting commerce'” this biil renders it possible for une of the oxeoutive dopartments to thus corrupt the vo Ities of the country by commissioning a multitudo of partian em- ployes, disguised as pure food “Inspectors and other omployes.” and statlon them ns videttes along the ilncs of overy railroad, and of course within handy distance to voting pre- elncts. in overy stage, L can not vote to Introduse a P'rojan horse with u belly full of inspectors and other om- Rloyes to oben our gutos for @ republican or u donoeratic triumph, and for these, If no other reasons, T do not think it should receive at the hands of represcntatives of tho peopls such favor us will justify the congress in passing a bill which carrles such possibiiities, yen, probabilities, of political Vil Ho further says : ‘Thero is a possibility with partisan uny secrotary of 90,546 active officers, at varled salaries, bolng appointed to wateh food and drugs, und, if need e, take an active hund in doing uny politioal work in a political campaign, his 1s, to say the least of it, bringine tho discussion of A moat important measure, which this is belioved by the great body of the peovls of this_country to bo, down to a very low plane. It is not only an assault upon American official integrity generally, but it is a dircct charge that the motive of all of us who have been laboriously employed in the promotion of this legislation has not beon to seoure the passage of such a mezsuro becauss there 15 a great public need and an overwhelming and honest demand for the same, but for the purpose of setting in mo- tion certain political machinery which is in- tended to be corruptly used for partisan pur- poses. It would be difficuit to conceive of any legislation whicn vould possess moro strongly the characteristics of politics than did the politica! discussion of this measure in which my friend from Tennessee indulged himself. "It is certaioly rather a serious matter to charge, even by indirection, that not only those who have heen directly vn- gaged in its formulation ana presentation, but tho great body of tho people themselvea, who have aimost “universally demanded it, have been moved chiefly by the desire 1o have inaugurated a cheap, nasty, political schome for corrupt partisau uses. Mr. Bale—May [ interrupt the senator? Mr. Paddock—I prefer not to be inter- ruvted. I bave ooly a very short time, and the senator wiil have plenty of opportunity to make any statement he dosires aftor [ conclude my vemarks, For, if this plan of legislation is of the character described by the senator, it must be that all who bave been instrumental in bringing it forwara must have been moved by partisan motives 10 secking 1ts enactment, ‘This is the logical conclusion of his argument, and none other than this is possiole. So it is a refiection upon the state logislatures, the boards of trade, the great commercial oxchanges snd Askoclations,. the. farmers' alllances aund granges, thé grout ariny of roplitable manu- facturers and dealers, and the thousands of other honored citizens all over the country who biave indorsed the provisions ana urged the passage ol tnis measurs. And I am com- pelled to (rankly say that tnis is not the kind of argument tnat is calculated to satify the country that the senators who make it are themselves moved by other than political or selfish motives, Mr. Prosident, the division of chemistry, which, under the secretary of agriculture, is to have tho administration of the proposed law, is us nearly nonpartisan in its work ns such an institution can be under our system. It is purely a scientific forco whose work is largely on the lines of practical science. The enlargement of tho scope of its authority and work as proposad by this measure cannot chauge its character in this respect and those assaults, iu_anticipation of the imposi- tion of the added duties contemplated by the bill, are unjustifiable and injurious to the purticutar interests of the people, which 1t is the duty of that division to conserve. Of course the directing head is the secretary of agriculture, and whother . vepublican or & democrat, no secretary of agriculture would be capable of prostituting a great scientific division of bis department to the low pur- suits of corrupt and corrupting poliuies de- scrived by the senator. ‘The efforts of the friends of this proposi tion have been wholly in the direction of non- partisan legislation and nonpartisan adminis- tration 1n respouse 1o a universal nonparti san demand, and'I do uot believe its enemics will succeed in their attempt to bring ths great nndertaking down to the level of ward and preeinct politics. Again, Mr.” President, my iriend from Tennessee assumes that proprietary wedi- cines will be in no way subject to the opera- tlons of this proposed law. ~There is nothing in the act warrauting this conclusion. The presumption is that proprietary medicines having each a special trade-mark aesigna- tion will always be what they are and have been uniformiy branded; but this bill re- quires that thoy shall be exactly what thoy are designated und represonted to be. In other words that thore shall be nothing in or about any of them which are subjects of in- terstate commerco that shull in auy respect whatavor “tend to deceive the purchaser.” There 18 no inhibition upon the necessary analysis to dotermine this fuct, There is, however, aud very properly, an innbibition against the disclosure of their formulas, This is an oxception 1 the case of these par- ticular articles, the proprioty and justice of which is 80 apparent as to require no com- mwent. In his general criticism on section 10, which reads as foliows: “That this act shull not be construed to in= terforo with commerce wholly fnternal in any stute. nor with vhe oxerclse of their police powers by the soveral stutos— my friena says that “while it is designed to guard each state from the operation of this proposed national law, it will place a cordon of inspection around every state,” Ie fur- then states in the same cornection that “'this proposed law of congress has no power to prevent the manufaoture of adulterated articles in the states, but is conflued exclu- sively to hindering the movement of such ar- ticles across the borders of states.’’ He says: *‘The introduction, not the manufac- ture, is forbidden.” He says again: ‘“I'here is no prevention, no stoppage of adulteration attempted, ouly the movement or introduc- tion of adulterated articles.” But in another paragraph of bis speech, in his criticisms upon sections 7 and 8 of the bill, be complains that “‘the bill invades the state and seizes hey manufacturers and deal- ers who had no part in introducing or ship- pIng the artioles into snother state,” and, in the same connection Le further complains that “‘that of course enables the agents of the general government * * * 1o go and lay violent hands in a way to wake nim a criminal, even if he be a manufacturer in the very heart of old Virginia.” To bo precise, the sonator says in one paragraph of his speech that the manufacturer cannot be mo- lested, and in another that he van be made a criminal under the provisions of the hill, This would appear to be the reductio ad ab- surdum of argument. Section 10, without any qualification what- ever, confines every provision of the act, of whatever pature, to articles which are dis- tinetively, necossarily, and absolutely sub- jects of interstate comwerce. The pro- visions of sections 7 and 8, which the senator criticlses, are still further directly qualified by the declaration in each section that the articles to e dealt with must be such art- cles as come “‘under the provisions of this act,’ which means ot one but all of its pro visions, including sections 2 and 10, both of which, in the plainest language, confine ail e provisions of ihe act to arilcles which oxpress thediscrotion of | I‘I’WE{L\IE( PAGES. . \UMBER 2 aro exclusively subjects of interstate com- morce, But. 0 make assurance doubly sure’ as to this, on my motion yesterday thie essential vrovisions were amendod in the direction of @reator dofiniteness oy the insertion of the exact dofinition now recognized by the pres- ent state of the law and the adjudication of the courts, as follows: *“‘Articles which are subjects of 1:terstate commeroe,'” Mr. Dresident, when, whoro and under what circumstances those articlos, which must b subjocts of interstate commorce, to be dealt with at all, may be lawfully de- manded under its provisions for analysis, is to be dotermined by tho rules and regula- tions to bo prescribed by the seoretary of agriculture, which must bo vased not alone upon the requiremoents of this particular act, but upon the entiro state of the Inw as set* tled by the decisic of the supreme court respecting the powers of the foderal author- ity in such casos, \Whoever administers this proposed et wiil be bound not only by the constitution, but by all the law and all the decisions of the supreme court affecting the same. There is nothing whatever in this bill, with its qualifying provisions, apecific- ally authorizing an inspection or analysis of anything that 1s not in all respects a subjoct of ‘interstuto commerce, Whether the analysis oan commence in the manufactory whore the original paokages are already made up and airected with the usual shipping address to the party or partios re- siding and doing business in & state or torri- tory other than that in which manuvactured, or whether thoy canuot be touched until they are upon a dray moving to the railroad depot, or, even later, until thoy are upon a car of a froight train ready to be moved out from the state where manufactured into the state or territory to which they are destined; and when they shall have arrived at the point ot dostination in such state or territory, whether the inspection or analysis of such original packages is to bo undertaken at the depot on their arrival, or on the dray convey- ing them to the wholesale or commission house, or whother the sample can Lo de- manded from these original packages when shall have been placed ou the shelves o the wholosale or colamission house of the seller; or whothor ut cach and all of thes places, is not a question requiring to be des minea here now, but it {s a_matter of ad- wministration to be hereafter determined, it the bill becomes a law, not by the provisions of this act alone, but by the exact measure- ment and limiiations of the power granted by the constitution to the fedoral governs ment to regulate commerce among the sev- eral states and to promote the gencral wel- fare. The purpose and aim of this proposed law is, by general definitions only, to confer all the authority, and no more than lawfully flows from the constitution, as the volume of the same may have heen determined by the decisions of the court of lust resort, and there is nothing whatever in tho provisions of the bill indicating an intention on the part of its framers and promoters to attemt to go further than this; nor is there anything in it to warrant the statement that it gives any agent of the governmont of the United States suthority to 2o iuto a manufactory or rotail place of any kind 1 any state without the consont of the proprietor thereof, and demana to purchase any of the samples au- thorized to be purchased for analysis which are not distinctively the subjeots of inter- state commorce. The bill, however, 1s pu vosely drawn ou lines broad enough to admit of this being done under an understandiag with a stato willing and consenting to co- operate with the foderal government to pre- vent the frauds at which the bill alins, In states wlere the present state of the law. does not udmit of such co-operation the till is simply anticipatory. Indeed, Mr. President, I may safely admit all that the senator from Texus--Mr., Coke—has said in respect of the constitutional limitations ap- plicable to its provisions, and the bill will stand unimpeached. Af Hero, Mr. President, I desire to_read an extract from a spzech which I had the honor to make in the senate in the first session of the Iiftieth congress upon the plourc- pucumonia bill, which is somewhat on tho Lino of the observations I am now submitting as to the general prunciples. However, be- fore reading this extract I desire 10 sy, 1o, prefatory way, that I do not cluim nor oxpo for my views on aconstitutional questiou tia samo respect from the lawyers of the seunte as is due to the arguments on the powers and dutios in quastion by iy learned triend from ‘I'exas, whose reputation as an able lawyer is 50 tirmly established, It must be remembered, however, that the senator from Texas argues always upon the most radically restrictive lines a5 to the con- stitutional limitations upon the fodoral au- thority, while I freely admit that I indulge a much broader view us to these Jimitatious, looking from the standpoint of liheral con struction respecting, particularly, the treat- ment of all matters and things obstructivo or jurious o interstute commerce or prejudi- cial to “‘the general welfare,” resulting from poorly oxcouted, porhaps wholly unexceuted, or, perhaps overexecuted state inspection 1aws, or from any other like cuuses arsing in the state, Mr. Presicent, I now read from my former remarks 1o which I have reforred : “But, sir, it is contended by some that the powers roserved to the states to enact quar- antine, health, inspection, and otber similar laws carry with them oxclusivo control as to polica regulations of all kinds and for all purposos whatsoaver; that the national jur- 1sdiction over tnis subjecy, if it exists at all, is secondary, subordinate, or auxiliary to state authority, aud that the exercise of the sume 8 pormissible only when tho state 0 be affected gives assent thereto. Abstractly cousiderea this may be trus, but in the con- crete it1s not true, The power to rogulate commercial intercourse between the states belongs exclusively to the national govern- ment by specific grant. It is a power to be exercised solely and independently by suthority of congress, not for the staies as such, but for ul' the peoplo of the United States standing together, ana perfectly equal 4s to their rights, privileges and im- munities as citizens of one nationality in respect of all mattors and things connected with such commerce and iniercourse be- tween tho states, ‘This power is nov only specifically grantsd to tne national govornment for tho bonefit of the whole people, but 1t is with equal defin- iteness prohibited to the states, The lspec- tion Jaws are distiuctly subordinate to this larger grant of powers, and in order to em- phasize this subordination more fully and forcefully it is provided that these very laws shall be subjectto the revision and control of the congress in order to make it certain that this excentional authority may not be used in any manger or form to impede in the slight- est degree the free course of commerce be- tween the people in all sections of the union, which the national goverament is specially required 1o promote and preserve, Undoubtedly, sir, there is & parfect and un broken concerisus of opinion running through all the devates in congress and all the daeci- sions by the courts since the adoption of the constitution that the state may legislate primarily for the protection of the public morals, the public health, ana the domestic wolfars genorally of sociéty in the stato; but 1 have been unable Lo find any decision of the supreme court, from Chiet Justice Marshall down to the present day, indicating chat, if through an incompetent, & negligent, or indifferent adinistration of the affairs of state, the sufliciency of its general statues or the poverty of its resources, or all of these combined, the health or otherlocal conditions huve been permitted to fall so low as to be- come continuously a menace, an obstruction 1o the commorce botween other states neces- sarily passing through the state so afilict d, that the nauonal government could not it tervene and act diiectly upon such condit'c s for amelioration or removal, and the r - statement of the commerce thus interrv; od and threatened with destruction, Indeed, from my reading of the cons'' - tion I am satisfied that the warraut of aur - 1ty is notonly given, but the duty is impeii- tively enjoined upon the congress by th * con. stitution to make fuil and carveft! pro.i.ion agaiust all suct contingencles. Nor is i per- 1issible, 1n my opiuion, for congress t .wait the invitation nor be deterred by the o8t of tho state so affected when supisiicd that couditions exist therein obstructive of com- werco between the severel statos whic . the coustitution says must be protected by the national suthority without reforence to the geographical lines of any particular statoand which tho state refuses or neglects 1o remove, In the celobrated case of Gibbons vs Og- den, wade bistoric by the learned opinion de- livered by Chief Justice Marshall, i whioh