The Washington times., 1906-06-09
Agitation Has Already
Seriously Affected the
Price, of Stock.
FEARFUL OF PACKERS
4 Government Asked By
Texans to Bear Cost of
inspection.

The House Committee on Azricul-
ture, which has been believed to
favor u meat inspection law miIder
than the, Beveridge bill, was told to-
day by Judge S. II. Cowan, repre-
senting the Texas Cattle Raisers'
Association, that the cattle raisers
OF the country want vigorous in
sPection law even if they should
have to bear the additional expense
Of the inspection fees provided for
in the Beveridge measure.
Judge Cowan argued strongly
against the Senate proposition TO
put the inspection fees on the pack
ers' shoulders intsead of on the
national treasury.
He claimed that If the packers were
charged with the fees they would get
l their money back at the expense OF the
cattle raisers. for the simple reason that
! the packers Can. practically compel the
] raisers TO sell their cattle at the prices
I fixed BY the packers.
I However" he declared, with en-
( Phasis, we don't want this objection 20
/ defeat the law We want a law and
we want It quickly. The cost Is a sec
/ ondary matter. even II we have % stand
/ for it,
/ Judge Cowan's address was considered
I a strong support Of the Administrations
demand for n rigorous inspection law
Tor the meat business. He recommend
! ed, however. in order 70 make the new
law constitutional. certain changes In
the wording % the Beveri5ge bill that
VIII give the Secretary OF Agriculture
l absolute discretion in the matter OF the
| use OF preservatives IN meats and IN
| framing sanitary regulations for the
| packing establishments.
/ representative Garner Of Texas argued
| briefly against placing the cost OF IN
/ spection on the packers.
Stock Raisers Fear Packers.
| Mr.. Garner said the Texas people he
1 ieve that. If the Government puts the
! cost Of inspection on the packers the
/ packers viii get that money back from
the stock raisers. who sell 70 the pack
I ers- He said Il stands TO reason that
| the packers Will shove this inspection
cost on somebody who cannot help such
/ an imposition.
7 have no defense to make OF the
packers he said 7 am merely stating
/ the facts
| He said Texas people want inspection
! ana want II quickly. They want the
| committee to act soon. so as to do away
| V-ch the present uncertainty in the
| cattle market.
| Representative Davis Of Minnesota
| here interpolated his opinion that the
| stock men will have 70 bear the burden
OF inspection costs intended 10 be put on
| the shoulders OF the packers.
Judge S. II. Cowan. Of Fort Worth,
Tex, representing as attorney the Texas
Cattle Raisers' Association, then ad-
dressed the committee, saying he repre-
sented particularly Texas. Arizona, Ok
lahoma and Indian Territory, q district
which provides a very large proportion
Of the stock used by the packers for
canning. There are. he declared, between
100000 and 100000 head Of cattle in
! Texas.
- am not here to defend the packers
he also declared, "but do say their in
terests and the stock mems are identi-
cal You can't injure the buyer without
injuring- the seller Of cattle
You can put this IN your pipe and
smoke II: The man who can name the
price Of an article can get out OF the
Z
that may be levied in connection with
that article Il may be hard 10 tell now
who will bear the real expense or Is's
inspection. but the stock men, not the
packers. will probably have il 10 do At
any rate, the stock men think So
Meat Market Affected
Judge Cowan then read teIegrams to
show that the present agitation about
meat has already upset the meat market
nd MT If or, Oyvuvya rd slant
Questioned by the committee, *he wit
ness repeated his assertion that the
packers regulate the prices they shall
pay for cattle, and, therefore. are in a
position 20 get out OF the stock raiserS
the inspection fees.
7 don't mean" he said, that the
hackers get together and plan the thing
out, but they have a a E1de bs edge ; on the
Judge said Representative LOrimer,
'ft has beer estimated that This inspec-
ton would cost less than S cents a head
Do yOu claim this would GemONSn the
cattle business2'
mo. sir.
Then, what's your obJgcdon2"
'NVhy sir answered the judge, with
Southern candOr, we don't want 10 pay
IL That's our objection It's good
one think" "
CaJuemen want a vigorous inspection
law, even II they have 70 bear the ad-
ditiOnal expense They think the cost
a secondary matter. At all events. they
want the law
Referring 20 the Beveeridge bill. he
said he would like to see stricken from
II all reference TO sae prohibition Of the
use Of preserVatives in meats This, he
thought. could be safely left to the dis
creticn OF the Secretary Of Agriculture
IL would limit our foreign market IL
the statute should prohibit the use OF
harmless preservatives when, by the d.
use OF such preservstiyeS. South Amer