Waterbury evening Democrat., 1889-02-19
THE INSPECTION OF BEEF.

HE UT
 Representative O'Neill's bill providing for commission to examine beef cattle on the hoof in this state is provoking fire of savage criticism throughout the state, and it is being condemned with a unanimity that bodes ill for the success of the measure. It is held, and seem- ingly with much justice, that the bill, while ostensibly in the interest of the Connecticut beef raisers, is in reality a savage blow at the interests of the thous- ands of beef consumers in the state. There is one thing, however, which the state papers ought to remember, and that is that Mir ONeill should not be held up to criticism, for he is the father of the bill only to the extent of bringing it before the house, as he stated at the time of presenting it that it was intro duced by request.
 Similar bills have been introduced in at least nine other states, and it is urged by those who are pushing them that they are designed to crush out the dressed beef monopoly. Such purpose may be praiseworthy, but we think the success of the scheme would be simply
 a leap from the frying pan into the fire, and that too at the expense of the consumers of beef The objections
 to Chicago dressed beef are not tenable except as they allege that the cattle are
 Lot in healthy condition when killed,
 and of that there should be better evi- dence than the unsupported statement of the ranchmen who are opposed to the
 trade. No beef that is newly killed is fit to eat. It should hang several days
 before being offered for food. Slaugh- tered at Chicago and put in cold storage or refrigerating cars it is really better when it comes out of the car than when it went in. Transportation facilities,
 even with all the improvements that
 have been made in recent years, are not dition surrounding the animals in transit, and the fewer hours a steer is confined in any car the better for the consumer. The dressed beef is all right, and the re- duced prices that have come to the con- sumer as result of the business ought 1 to be enough to caution prudence In any legislation that might result in it's sup
 pression or restriction. Certainly the present hubbub. and the intent at least of MT O'Neill's bill, seem to be in the in than of the consumer. Upon this the
 retail purchaser may depend. His interest seems to lie in the preservation of both systems. Between middlemen and freight carriers the cattle raiser and beef eater get very little show as it is. Once either the live stock or the dressed beef trade
 business is made monopoly they will get nonea at all. Thepurchaser will be glad to pick bones and thank heaven that he is permitted to live. Certainly the passage of MT O'Neilrs measure could seem to have no other effect than to increase the retail prices of beef. The beef farmers of Connecticut could not begin to raise enough to supply the wants of our peo- pie, and the inevitable consequence of a law that should so discriminate in their favor would be to raise the price of beef.
 Indeed, the proposed legislation is in the line of one of the most obnoxious fea-
 lures of tariff protection. It's only effect would be to discriminate in favor of the live stock men of the west as against the dressed beef trade and the consumers In this state. It ought not to require much
 argument to show that Mir O'Neilrs
 bill should not pass. And we believe
 that the members of the legislature,
 outside the few who see possible advan-
 tage to themselves as raisers of cattle, | will oppose the bill and so insure it's de-
 feat. Mir O'Neill himself we take it will
 not be disposed to regret it's fate.