New-York tribune., 1906-06-09
POWER OF CONGRESS.
Mr. Crumpacker Argues 1t Cannot
Inspect Packing Plants.

vr-.sb,,s4on rune s-Representative Crumpacker.
Of Indiana appeared to-day before the House CON-
nittee on Agriculture. which Is considering the
T3evertdge amendment TO the Agricultural Appro-
Driation bill and asserted that the amendment
unouestionably was invalid and had already been
declared so by decisions OF the courts he reIerred
70 the case of the United States agr. Boyer. IN
which the defendant In 1885 was charged with hav-
ing tried TO bribe federal inspector al Kansas
C.ity TO pass bad meat. The opinion OF Justice
Phillips said MI CTumpacker, was 10 the erect
that the government had no TEht 10 inspect Inc
packing plants and that it's province was eonfined
TO the inspection Of meat for interstate business
Mr. Crllnpacker said that the inspection, to be
effective must be put legal basis states must
do the inspecting OF meats in preparation for com
unerce ne said for the government could exercise
ne Jurisdiction over the work unless 1t was for
interstate commerce. There was no question but
that the packers could drive federal inspector
out of their plants II they desired
..If had the time could convince every men,
Der of the COMMITTEES OF this. and my argument
would be based UP court decision, ne said
Take the time" was the reply OF several neul-
bers Of the COMMITTEES in unison To give him
chance 10 prepare himself the COMMITTEES look a
recess until 250 o'clock
At that time Crumpacker, from behind barri-
eaae of law books. resumed his argument He said
the question before Congress was when il had
authority 10 take control of product intended for
Interstate commerce. He said the intention OF the
packer was OF no consequence. even II ne ADMITTED
that the product could be interfered with BY
the federal authorities until II actually offered
for interstate transportation
His deductions, after reading numerous opinions.
were that the federal government could have moth
ing 10 do with the manufacture OF a commodity as
Congress is limited 10 commerce. and eonrnerce
succeeds manufacture Until a commodity entered
the channels of commerce. he said. Congress could
exercise no supervision whatever Several MEN,
hers OF the committee asked why the packers had
not objected the inspection in the last fourteen
years
Because" said Mr. Crumpacker. ''the law
made for the packers. They wanted IL. and per-
haps the country wanted it. but they could obey
such portions they wanted to and ignore the
balance"
When the states have established thorough
inspection service Of packing houses and Gamers
and within their boundaries for the protection OF
their own people," he said the question will have
been solved. for then the whole people will have
been protected"
Taking UP the Beveridge amendment. Mr.. Crarn-
packer said IL would put OF business all OF the
butchers of Indiana. Iowa. Michigan and Wiscon-
sell their product 10 commission merchants
OF Chicago the government could not give them
surrounding any Of the great markets OF the Cour-
try. There about $50 inspectors in Chicago,
he went on. and either the condition in the packing
houses had been wofully exaggerated. these
tions so horrible without one word Of protest He
this statement, he said. in furtherance OF his
contention that the federal government could
hope insure satisfactory inspection.