TWELVE PRGES , 1 jfHE OMAHA DAILY i TWELVE PROES ,
i "I"
TWENTY-FIHST YEAR. OMAHA , SATU11DAY MORNING , MARCH 12 , 1S92-TWELVE PAGES. NUMBER 207.
" 'THE ' PURE FOOD BILL
4
Tall Text of Senator Paddock's ' Argu
ment in Support of the Measure ,
THE INTEREST OF CONSUMING MASSES
r W
* tmany Attempts Made to Sidetrack or
Nullify the Bill Ably Evaded ,
DEATH BLOW'TO FOOD ADULTERATION
ho Paddock Pure Food Bill Has Been
Endorsed by Oranges and Alliances.
WILL SAVE MILLIONS FOR THE PEOPLE
jfV'A
V'A Hinging Appi'iil tn tlio Svnnto In Itclmlf
of the I'rniilc The Hill rnmci
the dchnte The House
jTnvoriihlo to It.
Foi two years the Paddock pure food bill
linn been before the senate. Wednesday It
lassed that body by a vote of 31 to 10. The
111 goes over to the house intact in every
essential provision as the first general un-
nilultoration law whlcb has over passed
clllier branch of congress , or which has over
been considered on the floor of oltbcr house.
It Is thought the house will pass the bill.
The bill was debitor ! at length last week.
Senator Paddook hold the floor of the sonata
for two hours In advocacy of this important
measure.
The discussion will bo found most Inter
acting. THE Ben reproduces Senator Pad
dock's speech In support of the bill and the
running debate in the senate upon It. So
Important is the subject to the consumer
generally that It has been doomed advisable
to glvo the merits of the bill the widest pos
sible circulation throughout the west.
I'ooil unit Irue Adulteration.
The senate , as In committee of the whole ,
resumed the consideration of the bill ( S. 1) )
for preventing the adulteration and mis-
. "N. branding of food and drugs , for olnor pur-
jv > jposes.
* Mr. Paddock I understand that the sena
tor from MUsuurl ( Mr. Vest ) Is entitled to
Iho floor.
Mr. Vest Mr. President , when the senate
idjournod yesterday evening I was endeavor
ing to give my understanding as to the scope
and compass of the measure pending before
the senato. I was unfortunate enough , as I
ECO by tbo morning papers , to have inado the
Impression that I was arguing in behalf of
the bill. I bud not stated what my opinions
were as tb'\he " general tendency of such leg
islation otra"s to this specific billbut hod con-
tenled'nryoolt ' so far with simply examining
the scope and compass of tlu provisions of
the bill if enacted as it now stands before
Iho sonata. I Was particularly addressing
myself tojlho question of what is interstate
commerce/or , as the constitution expresses
It "commerce the . " I
, among mates. took is-
tuovUIray , friend from Texas ( Mr. Coke )
ivtion bo stated that everything throughout
the entire country is the subject of commerce
imong the-suites. It is true that everything
in the United States may become the subject
of commerce ninon ; ; the states.
Mr.uO4U ? * Th at Is exactly what I stated ,
If tbo'srfnator will permit mo.
Mr , Vest ! Then wo are unfortunate In not
understanding each other. 'As I understand
the decisions of the supreme court and the
plain language of the constitution itself ,
everything throughout the country which is
rthu subject of commerce in the states or out
of the states may bo the subject of interstate
commerce , "or commerce among the states , "
quoting the language of the constitution.
But that is very different from what has al
ready become the subject of commerce among
the states. The supreme courtof the United
States has decided that diseased meat ,
poisonous substances , deleterious to health
or llfo , can not bo the subject of commerce
among the slates. It Is impossible that they
should bo tuo legitimate subject of commerce
anywhere , either among the states or with
foreign nations , liut that is a subject of
commerce among the states which Is in a
healthy condition or a legitimate subject of
Commerce and has passed into the hands of a
common carrier or is in process of transpor
tation from one state or territory to another.
Therefore , if wo adopt the umendmont pro
posed now by the senator In charge of the
bill and interpolate the words "tbo subject
of interstate commerce , " then the pending
bill would simply bo narrowed and restricted
tn articles which buvo gone Into the posses-
si on of a common carrier or are In process of
tranamusion from one state to another.
Mr. Paddock Will the senator permit mete
to ask him a question 1
Mr. Vest Certainly.
Mr. Paddock I should like to ask the
senator if ho thinks the act would bo nur-
owed down beyond what it Is already nar
rowed down by the provisions of section 10 ,
if the bill shall pass to the amendment to
which ho is addressing bis remarks I
Mr. Vest Of'course not , and 1 understand
that section 10 of the bill simply attempts in
general terms to restrict too operation ol
the bill to the subjects of interstate com
merce.
Mr. Paddock That amendment was simply
In the direction of detlnituiioss to satisfy
some of our friends who are hypercritical In
respect to matters of this kind.
Mr. Vest Waiving the term "hypercriti
cal , " Mr. President , permit mo to say that
us 1 understand the senator from Nebraska
now , ho does not propose that this measure
fi. shall effect any except articles which are
V tbo subject of commerce amoii : . ' the states.
Mr. Sherman Or which imiv become the
subject.
Mr. Paddook As to that 1 shall state
further when I porno to make ! > otno remarks ,
I do go a good way beyond that.
Mr. Vest. If you mean anything further
than that , It la unconstitutional unless you
find the power to pass an inspection law by
congress in the "general welfare" clause in
the constitution. I was peculiarly unfortun-
' Hto If that ia the construction intended by
tlia senator from Nebraska in being reported
this morning ai favoring any iuch bill. I do
not belong to the school , to use tlo expros-
io u to the party which from tbo beginning
of the government , has believed that under
the "general welfare" clause of the consti
tution congress could do anything. I have
never belmvod for an instant that that was a
separate and independent grant ol power In
the constitution. Without going Into that
mucn debated and discussed Hold , I simply
content myself with saying now that If that
Is the moaning of the senator from Nebraska ,
and ho puts tuts power of national Inipoctiot
upon the "general welfare" clause ot the
constitution , I cannot go with him In any
lueh construction.
I asiumo that bo gets this power under the
Intoiitato-commerco clause , for in bis amend-
mend he interpolates the words "subjects
of commerce among the utatci ; " anil If thai
bo so , then the Irreslitablo conclusion is thrl
nothing except an article tbo nub
Jfot of Interstate commerce can bo
touched for Inspection. I said
yesterday that If , under that construction ,
Mmy United States Inspector coming from tbo
Department of Agriculture should go into
ony retail or wholesale establishment in any
state ana rtorrmna.tbe right to inspect any
package , he would Immediately be met with
the unanswerable statement "by what au
thority do you come Inilde of a state with a
national power in order to make mo ox at bit
my goodi to you as an oftlcer of tha Uuiteo
Slates government ! "
Every senator will saahow utterly Impo
tent is this legislation if confined to tha regu
lation of the lUbjoots of Interstate commerce
pr eommsros tmoag the itatei , it It be-md
admit that It Is greatly to bo desired necessary - '
essary to establish Inspection os to all arti
cles of drink and food In the United Slates ,
n the Interest of the public health , then the
only sure and tsfo wav In which to do It Is to
iso the Instrumentalities and exorcise the
lower which I believe the constitution of the
Jnlted States Intended to lenvo to the states
n the nil ape of police regulations. In the
case of Gibbons vs Ogden , U Whonlon , which
s the loading case , and , vas decided bv Chlof
Justice Mat shall , that great jurist stated that
ill the powers us to quarantine , ai to Inspec
tion , as to the ho.ilth and morals of the people
ple , belonged to that largo class of powers
called the police powers , that are reserved
by the status.
Theio has been no question about which
there bus been sucb diversity of opinion
nmong jurists and between the judges of the
s n promo ooun as in regard to the line bo-
tuoen the police powers ot the states and tbo
commercial power of the general government
or of congress. In the case ) of Lols.v vs
Hardln , decided In 13."i United States reports ,
the supreme court divided , xvlth five Judges
on one side and four on the other , and that
division arose as to what was the effect of
the congress ol the United States declining
to legislate as to intorcommorclal regula
tions and whether that gave the states the
power to tn alto such regulations , and also as
lo the distribution between the powers con
ferred under the commerce clause of the con
stitution upon congresses and the police
powers reserved by the states.
Mr. Paddock I should like to ask the sen
ator n question , If he will yield.
Mr. Vest Certainly.
Mr. Paddock Does the senator say that
either or the powers may not bo used to sup
plement the other in order to carry out the
special purpose or the particular purpose as
it may bo of either !
Mr. Vest Mr. President , that Is another
question. The supreme court has decided
that the quarantine laws and the inspection
laws "of n state , and the Instrumentalities
used for that purpose by the states , may bo
used by the general government , but It Is no
concession of power to the state. That Is
simply n question of using certain moans to
effect an end. Wo are discussing now Iho
question of whether the general government
under the commerce clause of tbo constitu
tion , exercise the police powers ot the states ,
I do not propose to read all those ( locutions-
but if any senator Is curious on the subject I
refer him to the lust decision made , which ho
will flnd In HO United-States reports , and in
which Chlof Justice Fuller dnliverod the
opinion of the court. 1 will not road from it
except to give the syllabus. This is the
case in ro Uohrer , and in it Chlof Justice
Fuller summarized this whole discussion in
tbo following words , quoting from a decision
of Jusllca Catron-
Anil hero Is the limit between the sovereign
power of the state and the fodoril power.
That U to sav. that which does not bnlong to
commerce Is within Iho jurisdiction nf tha po-
llco ijowor of the state ; and that which ( loci
belong to commerce Is within Iho jurisdiction
of the United States. And to this limit , must
nil the general views come , as I suppose. Unit
wore suggusledin ; the reasoning of this court
In the cases of Gibbon vs Ozclen , Hronn vs the
stntoof Maryland and Now VorU vs Mlln.
What then Is the assumption of Iho stats
court ? Undoubtedly , In olfect. tli.it the
state had the power to dnclara what should bo
un article ot lawful commerce In the particu
lar siulo ; and , having declined that ardent
spirits and wines weio dolotoiioim to mor.ilH
and health , they co.ised lo bu cointiictclal
commodities there , and that then the police
power attached , and consequently the powers
of coiurusj could not Intcrfoio. The exclusive
stuto power Is made to rest , not on Iho fact of
the state or condition of the nitlclc , nor that
it Is property usually passing by s le from
liana tn hand , but on the declaration found In
the state lawsi and asserted us the st'tto
policy , that 11 shall bo excluded from com
merce. And by this moans the smorclun jur-
Isdlcllon In the state Is attempted to bo
created , In a case where It did not pievlously
exist.
If this be the true construction of tbo con
stitutional piovislon , then the paramount
ponor of congress lo totuilatu commerce Is
subject to a very inateilal Imitation ; for It
takes from congress , and leaves with the
states , the power to doleimlno the commodi
ties , or articles of piocrly | , which tuo the
subject-.of lawful commerce. Coiuross may
regulate , but thu states determine what shall
or shall not bu regulated. Upon this theory
the power to rognlato commerce , Instead ot
being paramount over the subject , would become -
como subordinate to tbo state police power ;
for It Is obvious that the power to determine
the articles which may do subjects to com
merce and thus to circumscribe Its scope and
operation. Is , In olTcct , the controlling one.
The police power would not only be a formid
able rival , but , In u struggle , must necessarily
triumph over thu commurcl il power , us the
power to regulate Is dependent upon the
power to llx and determine upon the subjects
to bo regulated.
I shall not quote any further from this de
cision , and 1 quoted so much for the purpose
of showing what the supreme court has at
last determined to be the line between the
commercial power of congress and the police
powers of the state , and further to show this
important fact in tha present discussion ,
most important in view of tbo pending bill ,
that the poivor Is here given to congress
under this decision of tbo supreme court ,
about which there never should have been
any doubt , to state which articles shall ba
the subjects of commerce among the states.
That Is within the power of congress , nud
so long as congress sees proper to exorcise
that poivor It does it by virtue of this ex
clusive grunt. Therefore It follows that if
the congress of tbo United Slates should say
that an article .should not bo transported
from ono state to another it would have tbo
right to do so.
liut at the same time It Is clear and un
questionable that congress has no right under
the commerce clause of the constitution to
exercise any light of Inspection within the
territorial limits of a state , If that power of
going into a state for the purpose of inspect
ing mi article to ascertain whether it is
healthy or deleterious to human life and
health exists at all , It comes from the broad
and general blanket clause of the constitu
tion in regard to "tho general welfare. " It
does not come from the commerce clause of
the constitution , because the power to KO
into a state and regulate commerce does not
exist In-tho congress of the United States ,
and , therefore , it follows logically that none
of the instrumentalities necessary to the ex
orcise of that power can bo given to con-
gross. That Is all I propose to say in regard
to that subject.
Mr. President , what is the meaning of this
legislation I It belongs to that brood of meas
ures which in inv judgment arc most dele
terious and most inimical 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 tbo
strength that I was capable of exercising ,
whereby the taxing power of the national
government is to oe used for police purposes
in a state. It was declared both In the house
ot reprosoutath os and on the floor of the ou-
ate during tbo oleomargarine aobatu by tbo
chairmen nf the respective committees on
agriculture in the two bodies , that tnere was
uo sort of pretouso that the government
needed the money to be raised by tbo tax
upon oleomargarine , and It was openly
avowed that the purpose was to tax out of
existence , through federal Jurisdiction , an ar
ticle of food In order to glvo the market to a
competing article. I htve never ceased to re
gard that legislation as the most dangerous
that could have been onuuted by the congress
of the.Uultod States , and here fellows logic
ally now another bill in the same direction ,
and I take it that no honest advocate of this
bill will pretend to say that It Is anything
else except an attempt to exorcise the police
power under tbo gulso of tha taxing or rev
enue power oltbe government
Hero wo are called upon to pass a bill
which gives to the Department of Atrrlcul-
turo the right to go into a state and call
upon any citizen to exhibit his property , not
when It has , but because it may at some fu
ture time , become the subject of interstate
commerce , and when the supreme court of
the United States has already decided that
until In the hands of the carrier or in trau-
situ between thu states anil territories , It
docs not come under the commerce clause of
the constitution.
Something has been said here In regard to
tbn cattle Inspection bill that was passed. I
agree with the senator from Connecticut
[ Mr. Platt ] that it U very doubtful what the
iupromo court wilt say In regard to that
measure In Its provisions as to products in
tended for export , although I have never
been able to flnd any other language which
would embrace the purpose of such legisla
tion and couli Bland the test of Judicial in
quiry.
The first clause of the act' for the inspec
tion of moats for exportation reads as fol
lows :
Tliut the seorik-ary of sericulture may
ciuso to bo made a careful Inspection of
silted pork and bacon Intended for export i-
tlon.
tlon.Now , I submit that under this language
the power of the United Sluios , or rather the
nspcctlon power attempted to no created , U
subject entirely to the volition of the party
who has the moiit under his control , Sup
pose n United States ofllcor pees to a packing
house and demands that the proprietor shall
exhibit salted msat or pork , and loom to this
law for his authority. lie can only Inspect
such salted moat as Is Intended for exporta
tion , and how Is that fact to ba ascertained !
It must bu ascertained from ltto mental
direction or Intention of the party who con
trols thn moat , and therefore It is entirely
voluntary with him whether ho puts that
moat within this category or not.
The next not that wo passed was for the
Inspection of live cattle , hogs and tbolr car
casses. The first section of that act uses
this language :
That the secretary of agriculture shall
cause to ho maclo n careful Inspection of all
rattle Intended for export to fotolgn coun
tries.
The second section rcpaaU the same lan
guages
Th.it the secretary of agriculture shall
CHIISO to b ) mudo n careful Inspection of all
HuiuUtlu , the moat of which Is Intended for
exportation.
The third section repeats the same lan
guage. In all these cases It Is a question
with the owner of the moat or the party In
possession whether ho shall put It within the
category or not. Suppose that ho says to
the United States ofllcor , ' 'this product is not
Intended for exportation , " what Is the ofllcer
then to dot Is ho to go Into a judicial In
quiry or a quasi judicial Inquiry to ascertain
the fact !
These bills are necessarily imperfect be
cause , to bo frank about It , the judiciary
committee and the committee on foreign re
lations one bill coming from the committee
on foreign relations , and the other from the
committee on ths Judiciary were both al-
tolnptlng to keep within the commerce clause
of the constitution , and at the same time
moot the ovll , the suppression or removal of
which thov bad In view.
But I call the attention now of senators
Interested in this matter to the act with
which wo are nil familiar , that in regard to
trusts , "An act to protect trade mid commerce
morco against unlawful restraints and mo
nopolies. " The act reads as follows :
Section 1. Every contract , combination In
the form of trust or otherwise , or conspiracy.
In restraint of trade or commerce among the
sovuial states , or with foreign nations , Is
hereby declared to bo Illegal. Every person
who shall make any suoh contractor engage
In any .such combination or conspiracy , shall
bo deemed guilty of n misdemeanor , and , on
conviction thereof , shall bo punished bv Uno
not exceeding * . > .OU3 , or by Imprisonment not
exceeding ono year , or by both said punish
ments , In the discretion of the court.
The sixth section of that act reads as fol
lows :
Section B. Any property owned under any
contract or uy any combination , or pursuant
to iinv conspiracy ( and being the subject
thereof ) mentioned In section 1 of this act. and
being In the course of transportation from one
stiuu lo another , or to : i foreign country , shall
bo forfeited to the Un ted States.
In other words , two things are necessary
to a forfeiture ; first , that the article shall be
Iho subject of unlawful conspiracy in re
straint of trade ; second , that , it shall be
actually in tr.insltu from ono state or ter
ritory to another or to a foreign country. I
call attention to this language to show that
in all this legislation which has been enacted
the idea is prominent mat the subject about
which wo are legislating must bo in transltu
or in the hands of the carrier for that pur
pose , and until it roaches tno point of desti
nation and the pacKaeo Is broken or passes
by sale from one citizen or another tbo com
merce clause of the constitution still affects
it. That is the moaning 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 commonwealth , is still subject to this
commerce clause of the constitution.
Mr. Provident , I call attention lo the sev
enth subdivision on page f > of the bill , which
seems to mo exceedingly objectionable. In
staling Ine articles which come under this
inspection law , it says :
rioventh. If It consists of the whole or any
part of a deceased , filthy , decomposed or
putrid animal or vegetable substance , or any
portion of an animal unlit for food , whether
manufactured or not , or if It Is the product ot
a dec Hbod animal , or of an animal that has
died otherwise than by slaughter. Provided ,
thai un article of food or drug which deus not
contain any adjed poisonous Ingiodlont shall
not bo ( leoiuoJ to bo adulterated
Now , I cull attonlion lo iwo fealures of
Ibis provision.
Mr. Paddock I hope the senator will not
read that proviso as connected with nd re
lating to the first paragraph of that section.
It relates to the Ueiinition that follows ,
Mr. Vest Very good. I will Utto It with
the amended definition and will proceud
with what llttlo I have lo soy aboul it.
Mr. Paddock It was mndu entirely as con
nected witn tno definition tnat follows.
Mr. Veal I will como to lhal in a moment.
I will call attention in the flru place to the
definition of animal or of vegetable sub
stances which are altacked in this bill :
If It consists of the whole or any part of a
ceased , filthy , decomposed or putrid animal.
Mr. Pi'cslJent , lhat louches ma In ralher a
sensitive part of my dietary organisation.
From defects , possibly of early education , I
am very much addicted to the products of
the big , and I do not know any animal which
Is more llltby In its habits ; yet under this
provision hoi ; meat would como within the
denunciation of this bill. It , is un amend
ment to the Old Testament of a most violent
description. It seems to mo that , standing
as it is , there could bo no more fatal defect In
any legislation for a southern or western
man. I do not Ihlntt in all Iho category of
unimal life there can be found anything moro
filthy in its habits than Iho ordinary Ameri
can hog ; for , whatever ho may bo in foreign
countries , hero ho is addicted to tbo most
lllthy practices and habits.
Mr. Puddock Will Ibo senator allow mo !
Mr. Voit-Cortalnly.
Mr. PaddocK That is tto exact language
of nil the statutes or substantially Iho same
as all the statutes that have been enacted ,
commencing with Kngland and running
through the allmoutary laws of Germany ,
and all the way through for txronty years
since there has bo u any leylotion ! of this
kind , The criticism of the senator is hyper
critical.
Mr. Vest. It is a great defect of loglsla
live deiinitlon , and I can hatvity think that
Iho old Saxons , whose first historical life
consisted in herding swine , would ever in
their legislation , if they had been consulted
about it , have denounced Ibo bog or put biin
In thu catalogue found in this section ,
Bui , again , Ihe senator says , in tbo hill ;
That tin aillolo of food or drug which does
not coiittln uny added poisonous ingredient
hhall not be deemed to bu adulterated.
Ho says that does not quality thia provls
Ion , but the whole of the bill. Is it possible
that the senator from Nebraska moans tbut a
poisonous article which Is made moro poison
ous is exempt from the operation of this pro
posed actj l ot me read this so as to show
that there is no injustice done ;
I'rovldeil. That an urtlclo of food or druc
which docs not contain any added poisonous
Ingicdlont shall not ho deemed to bu adulter
uted.
In other words , if it U all arsenic or
strychnine , and there Is no other poisonous
drug added to it , It is an article of legitimate
commerce.
Mr. Paddock. That Is a very unfair criti
cism.
cism.Mr.
Mr. Vest. I do not moan to be unfair.
Mr. Paddock , That relates entirely to tbo
definitions which follow und to which must
ba added In eaoh case those things that are
described thereafter in order to tnko them
out of the list of exceptions. That is an ex
ception to the ruin of adulteration.
Mr. President , If the senator will allow me
Just a moment further.
Mr , Vo t Of course.
Mr. Paddock The paragraph to which he
refers Is to bo reo.d in connection with the
throe clauses which follow :
First , In the case of mixtures or compounds
which may bo now or from time to time here
after known us articles of food under their
own distinctive numes , and not Included In
definition fourth of this section.
Hocond , in the case of articles labeled ,
branded or tagged so as to plainly Indicate
that they are mixtures , compounds , combina
tions or blonds.
Now , it must be either an Imitation or
there must be something added to it , a
poisonous ingredient. If there is that con.
ditlon made by the addition of poliopoas in
gredients or If It is an Imitation , then It Is
not excepted as an adulteration.
Mr. Vest. I will take then , the additional
explanation of the senator of Nohraika.
Provided , That an urUolu ol food or drug
which docs not contain any nddeil poisonous
ingredient shall not lie deemed to bo adultur-
nteil.
1'lrst , In the case of mixtures' or compounds
which in ly be nntr or from tlhin to time here
after known as articles afford under thrlr
own distinctive names , and not Included In
dcllnltlon fourth of this spctlon
Second , In tha cnse Ot articles labelel ,
branded or tapped sons to plainly Indlc.ito
that limy are mixtures , eomriqunils , combina
tions or blomH i
Third , when uny m-Utor or Ingredient Ins
been added to the fond ot drug bee tllsn Iho
satno Is required for the production or prepar
ation thereof as an articleof oommoroo ( n n
Rtato fit for carriage or consumption , und not
fraudulently to incrotieu the bulk , weight , or
iiiuasiiroof "tha food ordnitr.ior conceal the
Inferior 1111 illty thereof ; 1'rovlded , That thu
siimcxhiil bo labeled , brnntlad or tuifged , a
proscribed by the soorotnry cm ngrloiilture. FO
as to shuw them to bo compounds und the exact -
act character thereof ! Anil provided further ,
Tlml nothing In tills net shall bo construed us
rcnnlrln : or coinpolllng proprietors or manu
facturers of proprietary mcJIdlnes lo disclose
their Irado formula- ) .
Fourth , wncro the food or.drug Is unavoid
ably mixed with soiiin oxtrinuous matter In
thn process of collection or preparation.
Mr. Paddock That Is the usual provision ,
but sometime ? by accident In malting the
compounds something may he put Into them
tn the assembling of Iho ingredients ,
Mr , Vest Exactly ; still tnls provision In
very plain language provides
That an article of food or dm * which does
not contain any uddod poisonous Ingredient
shall not bo deemed to bu adulterated.
That Is to say , although u may ho poisonous
already , If It" is honestly labeled , and al
though it may kill a whole township by Its
use , If ihoro is no other poison put Into It ,
U does not como within the provisions of tha
statute.
Mr. Paddock That is a very oxtrnvaganl
and vorv extraordinary assumption ,
Mr. Vest Very good.
Mr. Paddock Certainly nothing In the
phraseology or In the association with the
other definitions nil the way through tbo
deiinitlon paragraphs of the bill can possibly
admit of any such construction.
Mr. Vest Very peed , Mr. President. I
think I can exist under the senator's ' criti
cism after reading his bill. The extraor
dinary language he uses hero to convoy an
Idea which bo says ho did not Intend to con
vey exonerates him from any disposition to
bo harsh In his criticisms on what I say. I
submit that hero is the language :
1'rovldod. That an article of food or drug
which docs not contain any added poisonous
Ingredient shall not bo deemed to bo adulter
ated.
I'lrat. In the ease of mixtures or compounds
which may bo now or from time to tlmo horo-
uftor known as articles of food under their
own distinctive names , and not Included In
definition fourth of this section.
And BO on. In other words , lot us take a
practical illustration. Suppose thai a man
invents a food product which ho calls the es
sence of corn , or of wheat , or of rye I will
take any healthy article of food and ho
brands It the essence of corn , When , on in
spection , It turns out that it contains a
poisonous article , strychnine , arsenic , prus-
slc acid , or any of the known poisons , dele
terious to human Ufa ; it is honestly branded
and ho puts it out on the public for sale.
Now , under this provision
Mr. Paddock Suppose the senator takes
some practicable thing , something thai
everybody knows about. Suppose ho lakes a
peculiar and particular brand of covnstarch
or something of that kind , of which tbcro
ore very many , upon which Iho trade-mark
of the manufacturer Is found , thai is , rorn-
slarch defined as suob. If there is added to
it and tbcro is no objection to that , because
there is no disposition Indiscriminate against
anything thai is honest and fair and is
branded for what it may bo but if there is
added lo that eornstarch , which is a special
and particular manufacture known to all the
world uudnr the trodo-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 ihero Is of 11. It
is perleolly pUln. v
Sir. Vest Then Ibe language is moat un- ,
forlunale , "any added poisonous Ingredient. "
Mr. PuduoaH Wbal IV "added < " Some-
Ihlng lhat is added lo that which is dolincd
and piosoDtcd and has a distinctive charac
ter !
Mr , Vest Exactly , and there might DO n
very serious question as to the moaning of
( hat word "poisonous , " or as to the propriety
of using Ihe word in that connection. Them
may bo an article placed In ft food product
which is nol a poison , and yet ai the same
time Is deleterious to health life and.
Mr. Paddock It is the usual provision
found in Iho statutes of England and in tbo
nlunrmtary laws of Germany , and found in
ibo statute of Massachusetts' which has prov
en to be ono ot the most , ofliouciotis laws on
this subject that has boon framed anywhere ,
and which is quiver-tally recognized as a pro
per law.
Mr. Vest I am not discussing the laws of
Massachusetts or the laws of-England. 1 urn
talking about a slatuto which it Is proposed
to place upon the stututo booUs of the United
States , and upon which I am called on lo
voto.
voto.Now
Now , I want to say in conclusion thai 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 legislation for pure food ,
as ills termed , and I know'that ' , granges , al
liances , conventions and newspaper * have
all demanded i--- most Imperative terms ,
bv petition and otherwise , that this or some
similar bill shall bo enacted.
Now , Mr. President , I believe that the con-
stitulion of tbn United States intended that
inspection and quarantine laws should bo In
tha bunds of the states. My reading of tbo
history of the commerce clause of the con
stitution convinces mo beyond question that
the meaning of that clause was that the
evils oxlsllng under the old. articles of con
federation , which pormitlou any slate to
discriminate In 1U legislation against tbo
of another state attempted to bo
Eroducts within its limits'should ' bo done
away with , and that the constitution meant
in the commerce clause. wUon it used the
word "regulalo" lhal the manner of conduct
ing the commerce of tbo country among tbo
slates should be under tbo jurisdiction ot
congress , and I have no sort of doubt thai
Iho quarantine power and thu inspection
power was intended to be loft with the
slates , because it was a local mailer to a
largo extent and ono tvhich the people of the
states through their leglMatlvo authorities
worn most competent lo determine.
A > I said a few minutes ago , hero is ono of
that brood of bills growing out of the fooling
of paternalism which has taken possession
of this country from one end to the other.
Instead of going to their state authorities
the people of the United States are being
taught now to como to congress for every
thing from 1,000,000 acros.of land down to a
paper of pins , The stales aru slowly no ,
nol slowly , but rapidly having tbolr consti
tution nl powers taken away from them and
the power vested In the congress lo do
things which wore Intended by tbo fraraoH
of the constitution to bo left to the states
nxclusivoly. Therefore wo flnd In every
stale of this union A growing sentiment thai
Btate authority atnounU to nothing and that
ttfo splendid centralized government at
Washington is able to do anything ; that
when wo invoke the constitution we are told
that "you belong to a past era ; you are not
a passenger on the car of progress ; you are
not living in the blazing sunllghl of a new
civilization. " i
I ant proud to say , Mr. President , thai I
believe in tbo constitution ai construed by
tbo suprenio court of tha United States , and
I would rather quit public Ufa than to give
my vote for a bill like this , that I believe Is a
piostltutlon of tbo commnrcrul clause In tbo
constitution in order to exercise the police
powers of the statoa.
For this reason , air , I shall most cheerfully
cast my vote against this measure.
Mr. Paddock I am very glad the senator
from Missouri now bellovei in the constitu
tion and will stand by It ,
Mr , President , I had not intetidcd , as I said
at tbo commencement of thU discussion
Mr. Palmer I have no doubt the senator
from Nebraska Intends addressing the senate
at length on this bill. >
Mr. Paddock Mr. President I shall not
be able to do so unless I am. permitted to go
ahead pretty soon , because nU It o'clock we
have u special order. * I
Mr. Palmer I desire to ikf * the senator's
permission before ho procecllrto make a mo
lion to strike out a part of thp hill , if Jt will
suit him , In order that beiay have that
point before him while addr&ilng the ten
ate.
ate.Mr.
Mr. Paddock-That Is alt right.
, The Vice President There it a motion
I pending to itrike out sootloui 7 and 8 , which
was oIToiod by the senator from Texas ( Mr.
Coke ) .
Mr. Psddook What Is the exact motion i
Mr , Pftlmor If Iho senator from Nebraska
will i ormlt mo , I will move to slrlito out all
of section 1 atur the woods "ohluf chemist , "
In the tenth line of the section , and also all
ol the third section and all ot the fourth sec
tion.
tion.The
The Vloo President There is an amend
ment already pending , submitted by the sen
ator from Texas ( Mr. Coke ) .
Mr. Paddobk The amendment of the sen
ator from Texas embraces n part of the prop
osition whicb tbo senator fro in Illinois now
makes.
Mr. Palmer If the proposition I make Is
not in order , of course I withdraw it ,
Mr , Paddock It can bo offered at tbo
proper tlmo.
Mr. Palmer At the suggestion of gentlemen -
men who are moro familiar with the rules
than I am , I withdraw the amendment for
tno prcxont.
Mr. Pftddock Mr. President , I had not In
tended , as I stated at tbo commencement of
this discussion , to make a formal speech , but
the very carefully prepared arguments of
the senators from Texas and Tennessee the
other day , ami the speech of the senator from
Missouri [ Mr. Vest ] today , bavo seemed to
make It necessary to glvo to many of tholr
statements and conclusions a more formal
and thorough answer than would bo possible
In n running dobato. With this apology In
advance , and Indulging the hope that the
very great Importance of tbo measure under
consideration may command for mo the ul-
tuntlon of the senate , I will proceed.
Mr. President , when Ibis bill was first
taxon up for discussion , In answer to the ex
travagant estimates placed ipon the cost of
Its administration If It should become a law ,
made by both the senator from Tennessee
[ Mr. Bate ] and tha senator from Texas [ Mr.
Cokol , 1 Insisted that such estimates had no
foundation In reason , or common sense , or
fairness. In support of what I then said , I
now present the letter of Prof. Wiley , written -
ton under the direction and with the ap
proval of Ibe secretary of agriculture upon
this subject. It is an follows :
DEPARTMENT oi Anuicui.Tunc , DIVISIONor
OiiEMisTiir , WASHINCITO.X. 0. U. , February 24 ,
18iiJ.-Slr : I bog to submit the following
estimate of the cost. In bo fur us the chemical
uotlt 1s concerned , of carrying out the provis
ions of the pure food bill now under considera
tion In the senate !
There are. of course , many dlfllcultlcs In the
way of giving anything Ilka an accurate esti
mate of the amount of money nocesnary ; but
I have carefully KOUO over each provision of ,
the billanJ 1 tliluu 1 can safely say tbat the
total cost of the chemical worn , Including the
procuring of samples and the necessary trav
eling expenses of the chemists who may bedo-
uillcd for this purpose , will nol exceed $100.-
LtX ) per annum ,
Jn all such work I have found that It Is far
better to have thu chemist himself obtain tl.o
samples of thu , suspected foods rather than
depend upon an Inspector who bus no tech
nical knowledge of the matter under consid
eration. In the work which has already been
done by this dlv.alon In food adulteration , wo
have purchased all our samples of suspected
foods through our own chemists , llndlng this
method of procedure far superior to any other
one. Thu estimate which 1 give , theioforo.ln-
clndes not only chemical work , bul also the
ncccssiry expenses attending the procuring
of samples. Jt dons not , of course , Include the
erection und equipment of u laboratory
largo miough to accommodate the Increased
number of workers. This mutter U nlrearty
provided for in u bill which Is now bofoiu the
houbo for the erection of sclcnllllu laborato
ries for the use of the Department of Agricul
ture.
I think I can safely say , with the experience
of six years In this business , that the law can
bu thoroughly enforced , In so far us the chem
ical work is concerned , for thu amount men
tioned above. Ucspectfully ,
II. W. WILEV , Chemist.
lion. A. S. PADDOCK , United States Senate.
Both of the senators to whom I have referred -
forred Insisted that thousands and ions of
ihousands of official ) would bo required , and
ibis , lee , In iho face of the fact that the last
section of the bill , which was stricken out
yesterday on my motion , providing for an
jpp pprlaUonjprQijD year's" work , under Jj , ,
"placed'the fequireujontiarthe same amount
indicated in tno olllclal estimate I have road.
Tha senators appear to have assumed lhal
ibero will be required under Us provisions a
universal inspection embracing every article
of food and drug that is manufactured and
sold to the consuming public at rolall as well
as al wholesale , which Is wholly incorrect.
All thai Is contemplated by this bill is the
analysis ot articles of food or drugs , being
subjucts of Interstate commerce , which may
como under suspicion from tune to tlmo as
adulterated and misbrandcd articles on some
such theory or plan as tbat upon which Iho
hunting oul of the manufacturers and sellers
of counterfoil money Is conducted , and I re
peat now , what I said the other day In the
liurrlcd answer made by mo to some of those
extravagant assumptions and charges of my
bouorablu friends on the olbor side , lhat ,
Inking the expense of the administration of
the Massachusetts law as u basis for the
cost of Ibo administration of this proposed
act , the estimate of iho Deportment of Agri
culture , to which I have referred , is within
oniirclv reasonable bounds.
Our friends are greatly disturbed because
the exact number to bo employed and Iho
.salaries to bo paid lo each are nol definitely
fixed la Iho bill , although the maximum
amount in the ttppropriatloa , beyond which
nothing could bo expended , was then in the
bill ; but , Iho whole uuojoct of Iho appropria
tion is now relegated to the two houses of
congress to be provided for through their
regular appropritloh' committees. We all
know that Ibis means no more limn f ir.UOO
tn any possible- contingency , and wo all know
thai beyond Ihe limit , of expenditures thus to
bo fixed in the appropriation bill it will be
impossible to go In the expense of administra
tion. Manifestly it would nol bo wise nor in
the Interest of economy to definilcly name
the number to bo annually employed nor their
actual compensation , because the service
from lls very nature would necessarily be
variable and uncertain as to the number and
iho period of the employment of Iho persons
used In Iho field during tbo year.
In some months a largo amount of work In
the way ot Inspection and analyses might bo
required , whtlo in omo other months of the
year llttlo would bo necessary. It has boon
usual to give some discretion in the adminis
tration of all laws of this character to the
chief executive ofllcor charged with the
responsibility of their administration. This
measure , therefore , on n comparulivoly new
and a most Important line of Invcstifution , is
nol faulty In tha respeot mentioned and is
not entitled to the fierce criticisms indulged
In by the senators to whom I have referred ,
in the alleged Interesl and under tbo pretense
of economy.
Mr. President , may it not be true that our
friends are really moro troubled about cotton
seed oil lhau uboul the constitution ( Mr.
President , ! beg lo rapeat what I have before
said , that , considering this very interest
alouo , ihey are making a serious mistake.
It Is a significant facl that the reputable
packers and manufacturers of compound
lard , in which cotton seed oil Is used In part ,
are themselves in favor of the passage of
this bill for the protection of the very inter
est which the senators from Tennessee and
Texas desire to protect through Its defeat.
They believe It Is better for this very avticlo
Itself that there shall bo an honnsi , openhanded -
handed manufacture and sale of it to the
consuming public. The suspicion now nt-
lonhlng to it , Iho ban under wblch it jests ,
can only be removed by some sucb legislation
ai this.
The producers of hogs doslro and are seek
ing only this result. They and their ropro-
sonlatlvos hero make no assault upon cottonseed -
seed oil nor upon the compound lard of which
it it a constituent part. They only ask tbut
It shall be branded and sold for exactly what
It Is , and not dishonestly sold for what it is
nol , 1. a. , "puro leaf lard. " The charge of
those cenators as to a combination or con
spiracy on the part of the hog-producers and
their particular representatives hero for the
purpose of securing legislation discriminat
ing against cotton-seod oil In favor of the
edible fat of swine , is without the least
foundation In fact.
Tbo best witnesses m proof of this state
ment are tbo intelligent dealers and com
pound lard manufacturers , wlu are enor
mously Inlorostod in maintaining lls commer
cial reputation at an edible fal for tbo uses
indicated. I make this statement with the
confidence of an intlmato , un absolute knowledge
edge- , gained from personal Inquiries exten
sively made by myself for the solo purpose of
ascertaining the exact views of the people to
whom I have referred.
And pow , Mr. President , speaking gener
ally , having In mind this charge of the > ona-
tor front Tennessee in the commencement of
bU speech the other day , which was fully
indorsed by tbo senator from Texas IMr.
that tbli measure wm formulated for
the express purpose ot discriminating
against cotton seed oil , I defy either of them
to point to any provision or any line In this
bill which discriminates especially ng.Unst
any honest and hontstlv branded article of
food In favor of any other such article.
Thu senator fiom Tennessee Indulged in n
good deal of very extravagant criticism as to
certain Imaginary political aspects ot this
legislation , and , in order thai I may avoid
an v possihlo mUslittomunt of what was so
freely anil , as I think , so ungenerously said
under this particular head by him , 1 quota an
extract or two ot tha many in bis speech of
this character.
The senator said :
The country Is about entering noon the great
quadrennial campaign for thu prnsldmicy.und
this bill proposes to put It within the power of
one dopm ment to appoint us m.inv "chem
ists. Inspootors. clerKs , fr.borers , and other
employes us the bond may deem nccossnrv
toeirry out thn provision * ) ot this net , anil
any political work for which their hands and
heads may bo ready and opportune.
Asaln ho says :
There nvitiu u demand for pure food logls-
Int on , but that demand Uoos not contemplate
Rlvlnif oppoi ttinltv for thu Impure politics , the
adulterated voting , and the inlsbrumled elec
tion devices which Inrk concealed within the
limitlessdlsuiotIon conferred on nnysei-talary
of iigilculturo by this bill. "Kor thu purpose-
of protecting commcrcu" this bill renders It
possible for one of the oxcotitlvo deputinnnts
to thus corrupt the po'ltlcs of the country by
commissioning a multlludo of partis in em
ployes , disguised as pure food "Inspectors and
other employes. " and station them us vlduttcs
along the lines of ovoty railroad , und ot
cour.so within handy distance to voting pre
cincts. In every state.
1 can not vote to Introduce n Trojan horse
with u belly full of Inspectors and other om-
plovon to open our cutns for u lopiibllcun or u
democratic triumph , und for these , If no other
reasons , 1 do not thltiU It should receive at the
h inds of representatives of the people such
favor as will Justify the congress In passing a
bill wh en carries noh possibilities , yon ,
probabilities , of political bvll.
Ho further soys :
There Is u posslbllltywlthln thodlsorotlon of
partisan uny secretary of 'JO.KX iictlvo ofllcors ,
at varied salaries , being appointed to wutch
food and drugs , and. If necil bo , take un ucllvo
bund in doing uny political work In a political
cunipalgn.
This is , to say the lonst of it , bringing the
discussion of a moat important measure ,
which this is believed by tno great body ot
the people of this countrv lo bo , down to a
very low plane. It is not only an assault
upon American official intogrllv generally ,
but It Is a direct charge that the motive of
all of us who have boon laboriously employed
In the promotion of Ibis logislallon has nol
been to secure the passage of such a measure
hucauso there is a great publlo need and an
overwhelming and honest demand for the
same , but for the purpose of setting In mo
tion certain political maohlnory which Is In
tended to bo corruptly used for partisan pur
poses. Il would bo dlfficull to conceive of
any legislation which could possess moro
strongly the characteristics ot politics than
did the political discussion of this measure in
which my friend from Tennessee indulged
himself. It is certainly rather a serious
mailer to charge , oven by indirection , that
not only those who
have been directly en
gaged in its formulation and presentallon ,
bul iho greal body of iho people themselves ,
who have almost universally demanded il ,
have been moved chiefly by tha desire to
have inaugurated a cheap , nasty , political
schema for corrupt partisan uses.
Mr. J3ato May I interrupt the senator !
Mr. Paddock I prefer not to be inter
rupted. I bavo only a verv short time , and
the senator will have plenly of opporlunlly
to make any statement ho desires after I
conclude my remarks. For , if Ihls plan of
legislation is of Ibo characler described bv
Iho senator , il musl bo lhat all who have
boon instrumental in bringing II forwtru
must have been moved by partisan motives
in seeking its enactmcnl. This is the logical
conclusion of his argument , und none other
than this is posbiolo. So it is a reflection
upon tbo stale legislatures , the boards of
trade , the grout commercial exchanges and
ttssooialionsr- . fannora1-'alliances and
granges , the grout ataiy of reputable manu
facturers and dealers , arid the thousands of
other honored citizens all ever the country
who have Indorsed the provisions and urged
the passagoof tnls measure. And I am com
pelled to frankly Bay that this is nol Ihe kind
of argument tnat is calculated to satlfy the
country that the senators who make it uro
themselves moved bv other than political or
selfish motives.
Mr. President , the division of chemistry ,
which , under the secretary of agriculture , is
to have Iho administration of the proposed
law , is as nearly non partisan in its worlt as
such an institution can bo under our system.
It is purely a scientific force whoso work Is
largely on the lines of practical science. The
enlargement of the scope of lls authority and
work as proposed by this measure cannot
change Its character in this respect and
those assaults , lu anticipation of the Imnosi-
Uon of Iho added duties contemplated by Iho
bill , are unjusllfloble and injuiious lo tha
particular inlorosls of the people , which it
is Ibo duly of lhal division lo conserveOf
course Ibo dirocllng head is iho secretary of
agriculture , and whether a republican era
a democrat , no secretary of agriculture would
bo capable of prostituting a great scicnlilio
division of his department to tha low pur
suits of corrupt and corrupting politics de
scribed by the senator.
The efforts of the friends of this proposl-
tlon have been wholly in Iho direction of nonpartisan -
partisan legislation and nonpartlsan adminis
tration in response to a universal nonpartl
san demand , and"I do not believe its enemies
will succeed in their attempt to bring this
great I'ndertaking down to the level of ward
and precinct politics.
Again , Mr.1- President , my friend from
Tennessee assumes that proprietary medi
cines will bo In no way subject to the opera
tions of this proposed law. Thorp , is nothing
in the act warranting this conclusion. The
presumption It thai proprietary medicines
having each a special trade-mark designa
tion will always bo what they are and have
boon uniformly branded ; but this bill re
quires that they shall bo exuolly whal ihoy
are designated and represented to bo. In
other words thai tlioro shall be nothing in or
about any of them wblch are subjects of in-
lorsiato commerro that shall in uy respect
whatever "tend to deceive the purchaser. "
There is no Inhibition upon the nccossarv
analysis to determine thi > fact. There is ,
however , and very properly , an inhibition
againul iho disclosure of their formulas ,
This Is un exception in tbo case of these par
ticular articles , the propriety and justice of
which Is HO apuarent as lo require no com
ment. In hU general criticism on section 10 ,
which reads as follows ;
That this act shall not hu construed to In-
torfoio with commerce wholly Internal in uny
state , nor with the e.xcrolso of their police
powers by thu several states
my friend 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 stato. " Un fur-
then stales ia the same connection thai
"this proposed law of congress has no power
to prevent the manufacture of adulterated
articles In the states , but Is confined exclu
sively to hindering the movement of such ar
ticles across tbo border * of slates. " lie
says ; "Tho Introduction , nol the manufac
ture , Is forbidden , " Ho says ngaln : "Thoro
Is no prevention , no stoppage of adulteration
attempted , only the movement or Introduc
tion of adulterated articles. "
Dut In another paragraph of bis speech , In
his criticisms upon sections T and 3 of the
bill , ho complains that "the bill Invades the
state and seizes her manufacturers and deal
ers who had no part in Introducing or shipping -
ping tbo articles into another slate , " and , in
the same connection ho further complains
that "that of course enables the agents of
the general government * " * lo go and
lay violent hands lu a way to make him a
criminal , oven if he be a manufacturer in the
very heart of old Virginia. " To bo precise ,
the senator says in one paragraph of bis
speech thai the manufacturer cannot be mo-
lostcd , and In another that ha can ba made a
criminal under thu provisions of iho hill.
This would appear to bu the roductlo ad ab-
surdum of argument.
Section 10 , without any qualification what
ever , confines every provision of the act , of
whatever nature , to articles which are dls-
tlcclively , necessarily , and absolutely sub
jects ot Interstate commerce , The pro
visions ot sections 7 and 8 , which the senator
criticises , are still further directly qualified
by the declaration In each section that the
articles to oo dealt with must bo cucb arti
cles as como "under the provisions of this
act , " wblch means not ono but all of its pro
visions , Including sections 3 and 10 , both cf
which , In the plainest language , conlino all
tbo provisions ol ; u act to article * which
are exclusively subjects of Interstate corn-
morco.
But , "to make nsstiranco doubly sure" as
to this , on my motion yesterday tha essential
provisions were amended In the direction of
greater doflnltcnpss by the Insertion of iho
exact definition now rcrognlzod by the pres
ent state ot the law and the ndjudlcHtlon ot
the courts , as follows : "Arlleltis which nr
subjects of interstate commerce. "
Mr. President , when , where and under
what circumstances those articles , which
must bo .subjects of Interstate conimoico , to
bo dealt with at all , mav bo lawfully uo-
mundod under Its provisions for analysis , is
to bo determined bv the rule nud regula
tions to bo prescribed by the secretary of
agriculture , which must bo based not alouo
upon the requirements of this particular act ,
but upon the cntlro state of the law as set
tled by thu decisions of the supreme court
respecting thu powers of the federal author
ity In such cases. Whoever ruUnlnlstors this
proposed act will bo bound not only uy the
constitution , but by nil the law and nil the
decisions of the supreme court affecting lha
same. There Is nothing whatever In this
bill , with lls qualifying provisions , specific
ally authorizing an Inspection or analysis of
anything thai is not In all respects a subject
of Intorstuto commerce.
Whether the analysts can commence In the
manufactory where the original piokagosnro
already made up and directed with the usual
shipping address to the party or parties r -
siding and doing business In a slate or terri
tory other than that tn which manufactured ,
or whether they cannot ho touched until they
are upon a dray moving to the railroad depot ,
or , even later , until they are upon a oar ni
n freight train ready lo bo moved out from
Ihe state whcio manufactured Into the state
or territory to which they are destined ; and
when they shall have arrived at the point ot
destination In such state or territory ,
whether tha Inspection or analysis of sucb.
original packages Is to bo undertaken at the
depot on their arrival , or on iho dray convoy
ing ihom to the wholesale or commission
house , or whether the sample cmi bo de
manded from these original packages when
they shall have been placed on iho shelves of
the wholesale or commission homo of the
seller ; or whether ut each and all of those
places , Is uol a quesllon requiring to bo de
termined hero now , but il is n malter of ad
ministration to bo hereafter determined , if
Iho bill becomes a law , nol bv Iho piovision *
of Ihls acl alone , bul by Iho oxncl mqauuro-
nionl und limitations of the power granted
by the constllulion lo the federal govern
meut to regulate commerce among the sev
eral slates and to promote the general wel
fare.
fare.Tho
The purpose and aim of this proposed law
is , by general definitions only , to confer all
the authority , and uo moro than lawfuliy
flows from the constitution , as the volume of
the snmo may have boon determined by tbo
decisions of the court of lust resort , and
there is nothing whatever in the provisions
of Iho bill indicating an intention on lha part
of lui framers and promoters lo attempt to go
further than this ; nor is there anything in it
to warrant Iho statement thai It gives any
agent of the government of the United
Stutcs uulhorily to to into a manufactory or
retail place of a'ny kind in any state without
the consonl of the proprietor thereof , and
demand to purchase any of iho samples nu-
Ihorizod to bo purchased for analysis which
"
aie not distinctively the subjeots" intor-
slalo commorco. The bill , however , is pur
posely drawn on lines broad enough lo admit
of this being dona under an undeislnndlag
with n state willing and consenting to ro-
opuralu with the federal government'to prevent - ,
vent the frauds at which the bill alms. In ,
stales wlioro the projonl state of the law
does not admit of such co-opurntlon the ,
bill Is simply anticipatory. Indeed , Mr.
President , I may safely admit all thai lha
senator from Tuxus Mr. Coke has bald in
respect of the constitulional limitations ap
plicable to its provisions , and tbo bill will
stand unlmpeached. l\ \f
Hero , Mr. President , I desire to 'road an
extrncl from a speech which I had the honor
lo make In iho sonule In the flrsl session of , - > , -
Iho Fiftieth congress upon the plouro-
pncumonla bill , whicb Is somewhat on the
line of the observations I am now submitting
as to tbo general principles. However , before -
fore reading this extract I desire to say , in a ,
prefatory way , that I do nol chum nor oxp'oalAW
for my views on n constitutional quastloiiln'p/V ,
same respect from the lawyers of the'isniuilo
as Is duo to the arguments on the powers'and
dutioj in question by my learned Irlend from
Texas , whoso reputation as an able lawyer is
so lirmly established.
It must bo remembered , however , thai the
senator from Texas argues always upon the
most radically reslrlctlvo lines us lo the cou-
slilullonal limitations upon the fodotal au-
Ihorily , while I freely admit lhal I Indulge a
much broader view us to these limitations ,
looking from the standpoint of libornl con
structlon respecting , particularly , the ( real-
mont of all matters and things obslructlvo or
injurious to Intorstuto commerce or prejudicial -
cial to "the general welfare , " resulting from
poorly executed , perhaps wholly unexecuted ,
or , perhaps ovorexecuted state inspection
laws , or from any other like causes arising in
the stato.
Mr. President , I now road from my former
remarks to wblch I have referred :
"But , sir , it is contended by some lhat the
powers reserved to the stales lo enaol quar
antine , health , Inspection , und other similar
taws carry wilh them exclusive control as to
pollca regulations of ull kinds and for all
purposes whaisoovor ; thai iho national Jur
isdiction over this subject , If It exists at all ,
is secondary , subordinate , or auxiliary to
stale uuthorliy , and that the exercise of the
sninu is permissible- only when tbo state to
bo affocled gives assenl iherelo. Abslraclly
considered Ihls may bo true , but in the con
crete It is nol true. The power to regulate
commercial intercourse between the states
belongs exclusively to the national govern
ment by specific grant. It Is u power to bo
exercised solely and independently by
authority of congress , nol for iho stales as
such , but for u' ' tha people of Iho United
States standing together , and perfectly
equal ui to their rights , privllugou and im
munities as cltlions of one nationality in
respect of all mutters and things connected
with such commerce and intercourse be
tween the stales.
This power Is nol only specifically granted
to tno national government for tbo benefit of
the whola people , but It is with equal itotln-
Itenoss prohibited to iho states , The inspec
tion laws are distinctly subordinate to this
larger grant of powers , and in order to oin-
phuslzo this subordination more fully und
forcefully it is provided that those very laws
shall bu subjoctto the revision and control of
the congress in order to make It certain that
this exceptional authority may not bo used In
any manner or form to impede In the slight
est degree the free course of commerce be
tween the people In all sections of thu union ,
which Iho national government is spaclally
required to promote and proserva.
Undoubtedly , sir , thereis a perfect and un
broken concensus of opinion running through
all the donates in congress and all the deci
sions by the courts since the adoption of the
constitution that the state may legislate
primarily for the protection of the publlo
morals , the puulio health , aim the domestic
welfare generally of society in the stuto : but
I have been unablu to find any decision of tUo
supiomo court , from Chlof Justice Marshall
down to the present day , indicating that , if
through an Incompetent , a negligent , or an
Indlllcrent administration of the affairs of a
state , the sufficiency of Its general statutes or
the poverty of Its resources , or all of tboso
combined , Iho health or olhorlocal conditions
huvo boon permitted to fall so low as to be
come continuously a menace , an obstruction
to tbo commerce between other states neces
sarily passing through the state so ullliclrd ,
that the national government could not i'i-
tervotie and acl dlioctly upon such conalt'u ' is
for amelioration or removal , and tbo n 11-
ntatomont of the commerce- thus niterruj'cd '
anil threatened with destruction.
Indeed , from my reading of tha cons
tion I am satisfied that Iho warrant of auv ur-
ily Is not only given , but the duty is ImpiTa-
tlvoly onjoinnd upon the congress by ih 'con
stitution to make full and caroftl pro p.lon
against ull such contingencies. Nor U i pcr-
mUsihlc , in rny opinionfor congress tn .avail
the Invitation nor bo dotorrou by the ] - 'test '
of the state so affected when uupsllod lhat ,
conditions exist therein obstructive of com
merce between the Rovnicl state * whlc i the
constitution t.ays must ba protected bv the
national authority without rofotonco tn the
geographical lines of any particular state and
which the stato. refuses or neglects to remove.
In thu celebrated case of Gibbons vs Ogden -
don , made historic by the learned opinion de
livered by Chief Juitlco Manhull , lu