dk
w 'MR'iMin 0fikX mmtff
tatolMM0IMM
Mi
iiifr ffiJurtfiSfiC jjjfoWfl?
j
"
'. '.".
-Wr.
y-"
4
The Commoner.
VOLUME 6, NUMBER 23
r
r
&
fe,:-
S"
K . '
' -Mk
rr.
'ft.-
-ml
Ml
I 1
s , I
Mr. Roosevelt and the Meat Inspection Bill
Chairman Wadsworth of the house commit
tee on agriculture made public June 15 corres
pondence between himself and President Roose
velt with respect to the meat inspection bill.
The president's letter to Mr. Wadsworth follows:
-"The White House, Washington, Juno 14, 1906.
Mr. Dear Mr. Wadsworth: I have gone over
your bill very carefully and not only obtained
a report from Mr. McCabe, as I told you I would,
but also obtained a report from Mr. Reynolds
on it. I am sorry to say the more closely I in
vestigate your proposed substitute, the worse I
find it. Almost every change is one for the
worse, so that it hardly seems necessary for me
to enumerate them. Perhaps the amendment as
you have now draftod it is not quite as bad as
it was when you submitted it to me in the
first instance, but it is very, very bad. There
seems to be one point in which it is possible
that the amendment is even worse than the
original amendment, if as seems likely there is
no provision for making plants accessible at all
hours to the inspectors. In any event, I am
sorry to have to say that this strikes me as an
amendment, which, no matter how unintention
ally, is framed so as to minimize the chance of
rooting out the evil in the packing business.
Doubtless it suits the packers, who object to a
thorough-going inspection, much better than the
senate amendment and I have no doubt that not
only the packers, but their allies in business and
those stock growers who are influenced by them
would prefer it.
"But I am convinced it would, In the long
run be a heavy blow to the honest stock raiser
-and the honest packer to adopt these provisions
rather than the far better ones contanied in
the senate amendment for, as compared, with
the senate amendment, this proposed amend
ment which you tell me is that 'of the majority
of the house committee, would hamper in the
most grossly improper fashion the secretary of
agriculture in doing the work which you have
appointed him to do and will prevent even so
much, of this -work as can be done at all from
being well and thoroughly done. If the bill
should go through in the form that the majority
of your committee proposes, it might be that I
should sign it as working a certain slight im
provement over the present law, but if bo, I
should accompany It by a memorandum explicitly
stating how grave the defects were, and I can not
even promise to sign It, because the provisions
(about the courts as well as about other mat
ters) are so bad that in my opinion, if they had
been deliberately designed to prevent the reme
dying of the evils complained of they could not
have been worse.
"It seems to mo that the surest way to keep
our foreign trade from us, and indeed our inter
state trade likewise, is a thoroughly unsatisfac
tory condition, and to prevent its resuming the'
position which it formerly had, is to enact the
' TLu !iex 8lmpo PrPsed in the amendments
submittod to me by you.
"Sincerely yours,
"THEODORE ROOSEVELT.
"Hn,A Ja,me Wlid8wrth, Chairman Committee
on Agriculture House of Representatives!"
After this letter had been read and re-read
noro or loss Iatod y me ro,lowll6
You ai e Twrons welved yUr letter last U.
'"J05 wrong, very, very wrong' in your esti-
mate of the committee's bill, it is as nerfeot
oniewsfont!fi0n J? Carry o effecfyou
by a commlSpJ lf questIon as was ever prepared
the comSmin i KC0I!sres8- Eve'y member of
as voZoif ? S, aS0 utely ll(mest au sincere
as youiself in his desire to secure the passage
of a rigid meat inspection bill. They all know
the meaning of the English language.
n T Show yu how reliable the informa-
t ho hSi Tn ,yhlch yoil base yur opinions of
the bill, I call your attention to the following
o?gSei?tyOUr1lQtJer: Thero ,s n "ion
Se SSJStoS? PlaUtS aCCeSSible at a11 t0
"If you will turn to page 4 of the bill fconv
wordsS; h ,lin 2' yU WillXfind the MlpSSK
i '!Alld ?? ih&, PurPS such examination
and napfictloX said inspectors shall have access
at a" times to every part of said establishments
can, the English language be made any plainer?
Turn to page G, line 16, and you will find this
language:
"The secretary of agriculture shall cause
an examination and inspection of all cattle, sheep,
swine and goats, and the food products thereof,
slaughtered and prepared in the establishments
hereinbefore described tot the purpose of inter
state or foreign commerce to be made during the
night time, as well as during the day time, when
the slaughtering of said cattle, sheep, swine or
goats or the preparation of said food products
conducted during the night time Therefore in
at least one of the two criticisms you make of
the bill, you must admit that you are absolutely
wrong.
"You say: 'Doubtless it suits the packers,
who object to a thoroughgoing Inspection
"I told you on Wednesday night when I sub
mitted the bill to you that the packers insisted
before our committee on having a rigid inspec
tion law passed. Their life depends upon it,
and the committee will bear me out in the state
ment that they placed no obstacle whatever in
our way, but on the contrary, gave us many
valuable suggestions, based upon their practical
knowledge of thely business.
"Your other actual criticism of the amend
ment refers to the 'court" review clause The
worst that can be said of the clause is that it
. is perhaps unnecessary, that it is already covered
by existing laws. I have been taught always to
honor the judiciary of my country. I have been
taught always to respect the right of its citizens
and to respect the right of property,
and I can not believe that the mere repetition
of a provision which guarantees to the citizen
thq privilege of the courts of the land when he
believes his property rights are threatened can
be justly or properly objected to.
"The rest of your letter deals with gen
eralities and a general condemnation of the com
mittee's bill. If you or your advisers will point
out specifically wherein it actually fails to ac
complish your purpose I can assure you it will
be promptly remedied.
"You say further along in your letter.
" 'And I can not even promise to sign It,
because the provisions are so bad that in my
opinion, if they had been deliberately designed
to prevent the remedying of the evils complained
of, they could not have been worse
"I regret that you, the president of the
"United States, should feel justified, by innuendo
at least, impunging the sincerity and the com
petency of a committee of the house of repre
sentatives. You have no "warrant for it.
"Very truly yours,
"J. W. WADSWORTH.
"To Theodore Roosevelt," president of the United
States."
The appeal and review which the ' packers
wanted, and which the president criticised, is pro
vided for in the following clause of the House
substitute:
"That any inspection of cattle, sheep, swine
or goats, the meat and the meat food products
thereof directed to be made in this act, shall be
subject to appeal from the decision of the in
spector making such inspections to the chief
inspector in charge located at such establishment
in which such inspection so complained of is
made, and from the decision of said chief in
spector in charge an appeal shall lie to the chief
inspector in that locality, and from his decision
an appeal shall lie directly to the chief of the
bureau of animal industry of the department
of agriculture at Washington:
"Provided, that the secretary of agriculture
may, upon his own motion, at any time, consider
any case so appealed or may direct the chief of
the bureau of animal Industry of the department
of agriculture to so consider any such case, and
the decision of the secretary of agriculture or of
the chief of the bureau of animal industry, act
ing under his directions as herein provided
shall be final and conclusive.
"Provided, however, that nothing contained
herein shall deprive any person, company or
corporation claiming to be affected Injuriously
by any of the rulings or decisions provided for
n this act, affecting the rights of property or
interests of such person, company or corporation
from appealing from such ruling or decision and
from having .the same reviewed and testing the
legality or constitutionality of such ruling or
decision in the circuit court of the Unitec States
in the district or circuit In which sa?d ruling or
decsion is first made, and the right to take such
appeal to test such ruling or decision is herehv
conferred." '
Two minority reports were filed in the house
One was signed by Lamb of Virginia, Bowie of
Alabama and Chandler of Mississippi; all demo
crats. This report declares in favor of the
Beveridge amendment, "after correcting certain
minor provisions." This report also objects lo
the placing of the cost of inspection on the
government; protests against the court review
clause, and the waiving of the civil service law
for one year in the selection of inspectors. After
stating that the packers are to blame for existing
conditions, the report says:
"Can it be tolerated that those whose acts
endangered the public health and undermined
the public confidence shall escape from the con
dition which they have created without penalty
of any kind and with the added premium of two
million dollars annually from the treasury of
the United States to pay the expenses of correct
ing their own wrongs?" The court review pro
vision of the substitute is characterized as "a
sword over the heads of the inspectors engaged
in the discharge of their duties and to cripple
materially the efficiency of the service." Under
this provision the report says a federal circuit
judge can review the findings qf any inspector
and of the secretary of agriculture, whether on
a point of sanitation or with respect to the con
dition of any meat, or meat food products, and
"thereby have the inspection system of the United
States, intended to protect the public health, to
be tried and controlled by the federal circuit
courts. We assert that it is not a propel- judicial
Junction which they have attempted to impose on
the courts." The waiving of the civil service
provision is declared to be an "unsound and vic
ious policy." The inspectors appointed within
the period named, it says, will hold office for life.
A second minority report was filed, signed
by Representatives Haugan of Iowa and Davis
of Minnesota, republicans. These gentlemen be
lieve that the government should pay the " cost
of the ante-mortem and post-mortem inspection,
but they think that the packers should assume
the cost of such further Inspection as may be
necessary. In this second reply criticism similar
to that extended by the democrats is registered
against the court review clause, and the civil
service provisions.
On June 16 President Roosevelt replied to
Chairman Wadsworth, and reiterated his objec
tions, particularly' as to the court review' clause.
WHAT ABOUT THE OTHERS7
The, Washington correspondent for the Pitts
burg Dispatch' says that during the discussion
of the conference report on the Indian appropria
tion bill in the senate Senator X.aFolletto
cited a case in which one firm of lawyers in In
dian Territory had been paid $750,000 for ser
vices to the Indians.
"Another case in which the cornfield lawyer
failed to attend to business," remarked Senator
Spooner, glancing mischievously at Senator Till
man, who replied:
"The cornfield lawyer can't attend to all the
stealing; if he did, he would never sleep."
The "cornfield lawyer" has done very well,
and because of his faithful services has won
the respect and confidence of the people. It
would seem that some of the other of the many
lawyers in the senate would be able to do some
thing in the way of protecting the public treasury.
JJJ
THE QUANTITATIVE THEORY
The New York Press, republican, said some
thing about Mr. Bryan's "abandonment of the
free silver fallacy." Referring to the Pres3' state
ment, Louis F. Post, writing in the Public, Chi
cago, says: "Mr. Bryan has not abandoned what
the Press calls, 'his free silver fallacy,' which con
sisted In the quantitative theory of money the
theory tha't the value of money is determined by
supply and demand. He was for silver coinage
in order to Increase the supply of money when
gold was 'scarce; he has not concerned himself
about silver recently because the increase in the
supply of gold has augmented the quantity of
money more than he had hoped for from the
free cojnage of silver. In other words, nature
has supplied the quantity of money In gold which
Bryan demanded of the government in silver.
To say, then, that he has changed his position is
a misrepresentation."
AfldaLiL'WLtiiaiii
