24 OLEOMARGARINE. 



THURSDAY, December 20, 1900. 



The committee met at 10.30 a. m. 



Present: Senators Proctor (chairman), Hansbrough, Warren, 

 Foster, Bate, Money, Heitfeld, and Allen. 



Also, Hon. William W. Grout, a Representative from the State of 

 Vermont; Hon. W. D. Hoard, president of the National Dairy Union; 

 C. Y. Knight, secretary of the National Dairy Union; Hon. William M. 

 Springer, representing the National Live Stock Association; Frank M. 

 Mathewson, president of the Oakdale Manufacturing Company; Rath- 

 bone Gardner, representing the Oakdale Manufacturing Company; 

 Frank W. Tillinghast, representing the Vermont Manufacturing Com- 

 pany; Charles E. Schell, representing the Ohio Butterine Company; 

 John F. Jelke, representing the firm of Braun & Fitts, of Chicago, 

 111., and others. 



PERSONAL EXPLANATION. 



Senator ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, before the hearing progresses further 

 I desire to make a brief statement, to be entered on the record as a 

 part of the proceedings of the committee. 



During the last three days I have been in receipt of numerous tele- 

 grams from different gentlemen in my State to the effect that it is 

 reported in Nebraska that I am opposed to this so-called Grout bill 

 and strongly urging me to support it. I have never, either publicly 

 or privately, given utterance to anything from which any man could 

 infer that I was either for or against the bill; but yesterday I had 

 occasion to ask General Grout some questions, from which it was 

 inferred, I suppose, by the lobbyists present in favor of the measure, 

 that I was opposed to it; and during the night and this morning I have 

 received numerous telegrams to that effect. 



There is but one conclusion to be drawn from the situation, and that 

 is that telegrams were sent out yesterday to the State of Nebraska, 

 after the conclusion of the hearing before the committee, to the effect 

 that I was opposed to this bill and urging persons there to flood me 

 with telegrams to support it. 



I want to enter nry protest against this cheap- John peanut political 

 method. It is an old and threadbare scheme to undertake indirectly 

 to bring pressure upon a Senator to support a measure regardless of 

 its merits by the implied threat of a withdrawal of support at home 

 if he fails to do so. I have no words to express my utter contempt 

 for this method and for those who would engage in it. 



The lobbyists who are supporting this bill are doing it more injury 

 than its open and avowed opponents. This method can have no effect 

 upon my action. If after the hearings, are concluded 1 become con- 

 vinced that the bill ought to be supported and become a law, I will 

 support it, regardless of public sentiment in my State or elsewhere; 

 and if, on the other hand, I become satisfied that it ought not become 

 a law, I will oppose it and vote against it, regardless of any pressure 

 that may be brought to bear in its support. 



1 desire to add, in conclusion, that if any more reports are sent out 

 to the effect that I am opposing the measure or supporting it, and if I 

 am the recipient of any more letters or telegrams which I may have rea- 

 son to believe emanate from the lobbyists in favor of or against this 

 measure, I shall ask that these hearings be private and that no one but 



