The National tribune., 1906-06-14
WHO SHALL BEx.. THE BuRDENs

| WHO SHALL BEAR THE DURDENS
that they must submit to a rigid in
spection law, and their main fight nov
| IS as to who shall pay the costs of tn,
inspection. AS this involves the sun
of s2.000,800 annually. it must be ex
| pected that the packers will resist t
| their income and seek to saddle tn,
| cost upon the taxpayers of the United
States. They are now moving ever,
| available influence to accomplish this
| There are the weightiest reasons why
| they should not succeed.
In the first place, it is contrary tc
common sense that they should no
bear the expense of watching that they
do not do wrong. The packers have
been convicted before the bar of pub
lie opinion of having grossly offended
the decency and health of the people
and it is only just that they should be
made to pay the expenses of the police
not repeat this offense. Every wrong
doer should be made to bear the cos.
of the watchers appointed for the pub
lie good.
Furthermore. 1t is not wise nor ex-
pedient to take the cost of this service
out of the Treasury Department, be-
cause that Immediately comes into con-
fict with the economic tendencies of
Congress, and it will be a very easy
thing after the present excitement SUBJ
sides TO reduce the appropriation for
meat inspection down to a point where
the whole system will be defeated.
The Secretary of Agriculture has had
the greatest difficulty in getting from
Congress sufficient appropriation to
maintain the inspection system for for
eign meats, and we can rest assured
that the Secretary will have more in
the future in getting enough money al
lowed to secure proper domestic service.
This matter is entirely too important to
be left to the vicissitudes of the Con-
gressionai mind and the assaults of rev
enue reformers.
The packers are relying strongly up
on the argument of the alleged hard
ship to the smaller packers. They say
that while it will be comparatively easy
for an establishment which slaughters.
say, $4,000 cattle annually to pay for
high-prced Inspectors, it will be a Sc
we're drain upon local establishments
which kill. say. 1000 cattle a year or
less.
70 tnT lit 4, 4
lily met by a progressive tax or a tax
per capita upon the animals slaughter
ed. The cost of inspection is put at
eight cents per beef carcass and from
three to five cents per sheep or hog
carcass. How would it do to have the
with little higher fee for the smaller
establishments and diminishing in pro-
portion as to the number slaughtered
annually? An establishment slaughter
ing $4,000 year might pay five cents
ner carcass, whereas one that slaugh-
tered only 1000 would pay 10 cents
The variation is so slight that it would
not make a great difference either way
in the cost of the meat to the con-
sumer, and the smaller establishments
would probably have advantages in the
way of freight rates that would COM
pensate for the slight increase of cost
of insnection.
Anyway. and all the time, the Gov
ernment should certainly not pay the
cost. The Treasury has entirely too
many demands upon 1t now, and the
of these should not be increas-
ed. Every dollar that comes into it is
rigidly scrutinized, and excites the ap-
petite of innumerable men who have
schemes to work the Treasury for their
own benefit. In order to get money
for themselves they are attacking and
to reduce all the other forms
ton would become a favorite point of
attack. We have seen how successfully
the workers of schemes against the
Treasury have resisted the payment of
the Governments debts to the veterans.
That they might secure money for
dinning clamor against the pension ex-
penditures, and poisoned the mind of
the whole people against those who are
receiving pensions. If the packers can
succeed in loading this new expense of
81 100000 upon the Treasury the next
ish the pension expenditures that much
in order to provide for the new burden
laid upon the Government.