St. Paul daily globe., 1892-10-30
Perforating Punetures OF His
Claim to Being Highly
Public Spirited.
Ke Plotted to Enrich Himself
al the Expense OF Meat
Eaters.
Attempt 10 Cloak With a Title
a Flagrantly Unoonstitu-
tlOnal Bill.
His Scheme so N Nafarious That
His Scheme so Nafarious That
Even the Republicans
Fought 1t.

lie NLOBE HIS dlIeduN pointed OUT
how reckless William Henry Eustis has
been of the health of Minnesota, and
Minneapolis in particular, by compass
Ing the defeat of the bill TO prevent pol
luton OF the waters of the Mississippi
river. Once upon time, however,
William Henry was a worker liz the
cause of public health. 1t came about
in this wise:
When the Twin City Stock Yards
company was organized William Henry
Eustis was secretary of the company.
His very dear friend, for whom he
speaks and works whenever possible,
Thomas Lowry, was one of the direct
OrS of the company. About the same
time stock yards were established in
South st. Paul. Albert Scheffer was
the head of the South st. Paul
concern. Eustis and Shelter, particu-
larly Eusti5, were solid Republicans
and firm believers i'll the protection
doctrime of the Republican party. But
they were getting none of the protec-
ton. They wanted little of it for
themselves instead of seeing the East
ern fellows gobbIe it all.
They would induce the Republican
legislature of Minnesota. 1889, to pass a
bill giving them monopoly of the
meat business in the state of Mime
sofa. Right there William Henry's
labor in the interest of the public health
began and ended, for the title of the
bill began, IAN act for the protection
OF the public health" etc. That bill
provided that all meat sold in Mime
sofa must be
Inspected gSefOre Slaughtered,
inspected ION the hoof.'' That meant
that all meat sold in Minnesota must be
slaughtered in the Twin City stock
yards. or i'll the yards of the South St.
Paul concern, as ii would shut out all of
the meat that HOW comes from Kansas
City, Omaha and Chicago. 1t also pro-
vided for the creation of an army OF
political retainers. 1t provided for an
Inspector, or inspectors, in every city,
township, village and borough IN the
stale. and left the matter of salary to
be determined by the inspectors. They
were to be paid in fees which should not
exceed 1.-The necessary cost of inspec-
ton" By the adoption of this bill all
but Minnesota beef would be shut out
of the market of the state. And by
Minnesota beef' is not meant beef
grown in Minnesota, but meat slaugh-
teredein Minnesota by William Henry
companies.
Albert Scheffer was at that time
member of the senate. EuStis was but
member of the third house, a lobbyist,
but he mad a good deal of influence.
Two bills of this title were introduced
In both houses, Senator Schetfer taking
care OF one in the senate. MIR. EuStiS,
through the lobby, looked after the
other bill in the house. Both bills went
to the judicial committees OF senate and
house. The house committee reported
recommending that action on the bill be
indefinitely Postponed.
In the senate the similar bill was passed
by a small majority. The senate bill
then went to the house. 1t was referred
to the judicial committee. Then the
WORK of the lobby, under the leadership
of William Henry Eustis, began. A
most determined effort was made to sad
die upon Minnesota one of the most in
famous pieces of legislation ever con-
ceived. The result of the lobbying. and
of William Henry Eustis' supposed
Skllful financiering, was that two re-
ports came from the committee OIL the
Dill. The majority of the committee
recommended that action on the bill be
indefinitely postponed, the disposition
made Of its counterpart few days be-
fore. The minority recommended that
the bill be passed. Exciting debates on
the measure ensued. Among the we'll
known Republicans who opposed the
passage of the bill were John Day Smith.
Freeman =. Lane, j. A. KeyeS and w.
a. Fleming. One day, when most of
the pronounced opponents of the bill
were absent from the house, this mo-
nopoliStic bill was railIoaded through.
Then came another struggle. The OPP
pOneuts of the bill-and, to their credit
be 1t said, several Republicans were
numbered among them-filed a protest.
This is che protest handed up by Eu-
gene Hay. now the Republican United
States district attorney for the district
Of Minnesota:
The Republican Protest.
Mr.. Speaker--We the undersigned. mem
bers of the house of representatives of the
twenty-sixth session of the legislature Of the
state of Minnesota. respectfully dissent and
protest against the passage of Senate File
No. 406 entitled AN act for the protection
of The public health by providing for the in
Rpection before slaughter. of cattle. sheep
and swine designed for slaughter for human
food believing the same to be injurious to
the public, and ask that the following and
our reasons therefor be entered upon the
journal of the house of this day:
First-We believe the true purpose of this
act is to prevent the sale OF certain products
of other states in Minnesota, and that the in
spection and sanitary features thereof are
simply preteXt by which ii is hoped to make
the law constitutional. Without these feat.
ures it is clear that the law would be uncon
Stitutional, and with them we entertain grave
doubts of its constitutionality.
Second-Waiving the question of constitu-
tionality, we are opposed to the policy of
such legislation, believing that harm rather
than good would result theretrom TO the citi-
Eens of the state. The farmers and cattle
raisers of this state would receive no substan-
tial or lasting benefits from it. and
by 1t we invite the closing of the markets of
other states against our CATTLE sheep and
SWINE; seeking to break down one monop-
DIV we are building up another. The result
Of the law Will be to increase the cost of meat
TO the consumer, and render more expensive
one of the prime necessities of life. 1t is one
OF the boasts or our country that it is the Only
place on the globe where the poorest laborer
may have meat on his table 500 days in every
year, and we cannot consent to the passage
of law the utmost tendency of which
would be to jeopardise this happy condition.
But our chief objection to this act and the
Kind of Legislation
we fear it is but the forerunner of. is that it
Is antagonistic TO the central idea upon which
Is based the union of the states. Two theories
npon this subject have run through the
minds of men from The formation of the gov
ernment the one being that our government
was confederacy of states bound together
by a rope of sand, to be destroyed and sew
cred bv the whim and caprice of the states;
the other that we are one nation. formed of
the several states, bound together by inde-
structble links of steel The former is false;
the latter is true. 1t was born of patriotism
and received Its baptism in the best blood of
the Anglo-SaXon race.
Those who have held to the true theory
have ways held that it was the proper
policy of the government to protect by proper
tariff laws its industries and labor against
every other government on earth, but be.
tween the states of the Union there should
be the most absolute freedom of commerce
The free and unObstructed interchange of
trade between the states. the right OF the
citizens of one state to sell, without let OF
hindrance. the products of their farms OF
factories in every state of the Union, the alb
solute destruction of ali state lines SO
far as commerce in general is concerned,
is the strongest link i'll the chain which
binds together the federal Union. Break
this link, and you have taken long step in
the direction of the dismemberment of this
Jaion. In our judgment, the effect of this
act would be to take a step in that direction
It's real purpose is to prevent the sale in the