The San Francisco call., 1906-06-17
SAYS MEASURE
IS INADEQUATE
President Is Opposed to
Packing House Bill
Amendment.
Court Review Provision.
in His Opinion, Is
an Absurdity.

an Absurdity.
WASHINGTON. June 16.-President
Roosevelt has added another chapter
20 the literature of the meat inspee-
ton controversy. 1t was not through
! any desire of his that the correSpon-
dence between himself and Re0res7n-
tative Wadsworth. chairman of the
! committee on agriculture. was pub
lished in its entirety InasmucE. aS~-
ever, as Chairman Wadsworth deemed
it desirable that the letters should be
published. and gave them to the public.
the President regards it as proper to
complete the correspondence thus far
exchanged by the publication OF his
reply to Wadsworth's letter
In his letter the President while
! admitting his error in stating that the
House substitute contained no provi-
sion for the making of inspections OF
packing houses at all hours of the day
or night. says the substitute still is
inadequate to meet the requirements
! of the situation The President says
that after a conference with Represen-
tative ADAMS of Wisconsin, a member
OF the agricultural committee, he is
convinced Adams will accept the sug-
gestions made 10 him regarding the
bill.
STATES HIS OBJECTIONS.
He says that Adams. in each case.
stated that he personally would ac
cept the alterations proposed. These
changes include the elimination of the
court review proposition and dozen
other alterations. In the opinion OF
the President. the suggested changes
| would make the House committee sub
stitute "as good as the Beveridge
amendment" The President adds that
he IS not concerned about the Ian
guage of the amendment. but with the
accomplishment of the object In view.
"thoroughgoing and rigid and net q
sham inspection"
Following is the text of the Presi-
dents letter to Chairman Wadsworth:
THE WHITE HOUSE,
MASHINGTON. ID. c., June 10, 1906.
My Dear Mr.. Wadsworth. In the hrst
place | wish promptly to acknowledge
the one portion OF your letter in which
you are in the main right. I was in
error in the statement. which I accepted
from senator Bsveridge. that there was
no provision for making the plants ae-
esssiole at all hours.to the inspectors
The provision was put in in another
place, but 1t 10 not as good as the origi-
nal provision. The court review prOvi-
sion is the one to which I most object
although by no means the only one to
regards this. l wish TO repeat that IL
deliberately designed TO prevent the
Demedying OF the evils complained OF,
this is the exact provision which the
friends of the packers and the packers
themselves would have provided. IL is
sion is needed. Way have you not put
Such provision in the p0st0ffice law
as IT affects fraud orders in the law as
II anects fraudulent entries OF home
steadS, etc?
PACKERS RIGHTS GUARDED.
Congress eannet take away the con-
stitutional right OF the packers or Of
any one else TO the protection Of the
on q = kaF
under consideration does not represent
a desare TO secure the constitutional
rights of any man. 1t represents. doubt
less, in some cases, an honest though
wholly mistaken convictions: in other
cases II represents deliberate purpose
70 interfere with effective administra-
ton by trying TO provide that the
courts shall. in reality. do administra-
i've wsrk which they would be the frsG
the bill as you reported 1t from the
COMMITTEES were enacted into law you
would nave the functions OF the Secre-
tary Of Agriculture narrowly limited 80
as 70 be purely ministerial. and when
. ne declared given slaughter house un-
sanitary or a given product unwhole-
some. acting on the Judgment of the
lGovernment experts. you would put on
WSats yne Judge, Tso ,s .ss,, haa no IS IkSnoWledgs
OF stating whsther or not the Secre-
tary was right In CAicago. for in
whom the packers chose to dssisnafe'
and not the experts Of the Department
OF agriculture, the man to decide on
any. question OF any kind which the
packers thought 1t worth while to dis
pute- tYou may possibly remember the
recent judicial decision in Chicago in
wish TO repeat that this provision Is. in
my judgment. one which. II enacted into
EUoa aw VIII Which ahps oas s ss S. @sss part o 0f ss ts
enactment OF this law. You assert that
the packers insist upon having a rigid
ly. desire a rigid inspection law they
viii insist upon this provision being
taken ,Ss Out, Leaving It in is incomDatibls
AGREE TO CHANGES.
To so much of your letter as speaks
OF my having made innuendos about
some OF the houses or OF your knowl-
edge Of the English iangusge: i is not
out specifically wherein the bill fails 20
promptly remedied. 1 am happy to tell
yeu that have today seen a member OF
your committee Mr.. Adams: seeing him
by request OF the Speaker. and I went
over with him, together with Mr.. Nc
Cabe and Mr.. Reynolds. the various
points in which the bin as you have re-
ported It fails 20 accomplish our pur-
: pose, and made the specific recommen-
dation necessary in each case 70 remedy
the fallure, and IA each case Mr. Adams
stated that he personally would accept
the alterations we proposed. He agrees
with me that the court review PROPOSE
with me as to the dozen otfrer Changes
which We think should be made IL
these changes. which Mr.. Adams SAYS
he thinks should be adopted. are adopt
ed. your amendment will become as
, good as the Beveridge amendment-in
Mr.. McCabe's opinion. somewhat better
than the Beveridge amendment IL un-
changed I care not whit for the Ian
: guage of the amendment What I am
concerned about Is TO have il accom-
pliSh the object have in view. namely
thorough going and rigid, not sham,
inspection In my Judgment the amend
ment as reported by you fails TO accom-
pliSh this object. whereas the BeVer-
idge amendment and the House amend
ment, with the changes which Mr.
Adams has stated he VIII gladly accept
both substantially accomplish the pur-
pose l have in view / will accordingly
gladly accept either or accept any al
teration of either or of both which will
accomplish this end Yours truly.
(Signed)