The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1906-06-09
SHARP ATTACK ON
BEVERIDGE PLAN
Friends of Packers Cite Case to
Show Inspection Is Un-
constitutional.
Cattle Industry's Alleged Danger
Used to Brighten Friends OF
Beef Inspection.
Hy w, w. Jermane.

Washington, June 9.-After hearing
the statement Of ]. B. Reynolds yester-
day. the house committee on agricul-
ture spent several hours listening. to
men who argued against the constitu-
~tionality Of the Beveridge meat,lnspec-
ton amendment. Prior to that, now
ever, Chairman Wadsworth, 50 biting
Raging tactics Of the day before with
Commissioner Neill, felt called upon
to offer a defense Of his position.
crumpacker Talks.
Judge Crumpacker represents in con.
press a northern Indiana district, local
to Chicago, and he argued yesterday
fast and furiously against the constitu-
tionality Of the Beveridge proposition
er stp district Judge IN 1893 sitting at
Kansas City. This is known as the
Nslaughter house, case, and the Judge
deciding it held that the general gov
ernment had no right to inspect meat
products in the packing houses, even
tho those products were intended for
interstate commerce; This decision,
familiar with the case, is not regarded
as good law by the Kansas City bar.
The government in that case, as in the
case decided by Judge Humphrey at
Chicago, had no appeal. ,
While arguing the constitutional
question, Judge Crumpacker said that
the federal inspection law now in force,
which gave the American packers their
market in Europe, was clearly unc0n-
stitutional, but that the packers, oy
common consent, had submitted to 1T,
knowing that otherwise they would lose
q large part of their business. .
Bever1dge Feels Safe.
Senator Beveridge told me q week
ago, when the constitutional question
was firs& raised, that he had run across
the Boyer decision before making the
first draft of his amendment. He had
studied the decision carefully, in the
light of as much outside information. as
he could secure, and had made up his
mind that the decision was not good
law and would not stand the test OF the
United States supreme court. he ar
pued that the supreme court would be
Compelled to take judicial notice OF the
physical fact hat the size of the pack,
presupposed Interstate Commerce. NO
dispute could be raised to the propo-
sition that the packing business was al.
most entirely interstate; the packers
themselves would admit it. He was
sure that his bill would stand the test
of the supreme court, and so were emil
nent lawyers whom ne had consulted.
The committee yesterday. pursued MI
REYNOLDS, but not quite in the severe
manner that characterized their nagging
of Commissioner Neill the day before,
He stood it pretty well. The softening
on the part Of the cattlemen on the
committee came as the result OF the
criticism which the onslaught on Neil]
had raised in congress.
Report to Come Soon.
After the hearings close, the commit
tee will hold executive sessions to dis,
cuss the character Of it's report. just
what the report will be cannot yet be
said. The only bone Of real conten
ton is, who shall pay the cost of in
spection, the government or the pack
ers, and now that the cattle raisers Of
the west have been aroused, and hav'
ton, it may be that the majority of thu
committee will recommend that the gov
eminent pay it. But as has been pre-
viouslv stated in this correspondence
there will be a majority and minorit.
report from the committee, and tn
question will be decided on the foo
Iof the house, so far as that body i
concerned. A majority report from tn
committee in favor Of the government
having the cost will not settle the ques
ton. And after the house has acted
there will be the senate to deal with
For the time being, this meat-inspec
ton matter has taken the front Of tn
stage in congress. Other importan
questions of legislation have for tn
moment been almost lost sight Of.