Twice-a-week plain dealer. (Cresco, Howard County, Iowa) 1895-1913, 1906-06-22
PRESIDENT admits
HE WAS IN WRONG
SENDS LETTER TO wADswoRTH
ACKNOWLEDGING ERROR ON
NIGHT INSPECTION.
ANOTHER CHAPTER IN
MEAT BILL DISPUTE
Chief Executive Insists Substitute
Measure Is Bad-Declares Court
Review Provision Would Defeat
Purpose Of Amendment.

Washington, June 18-Prssident
Roosevelt has been adding another
chapter to the literature of the mea,
Inspection controversy. 1t was mo-
through any desire Of his, he says, tina,
the correspondence between himself
and Representative Wadsworth, chair.
man of the house committee on agri.
culture. was published In its entirety
lnasnluch, however, as Chairman
Wadsworth deemed 1t desirable tina,
the letters should be published, and
gave them to the public, the presiden,
regards it az proper to complete the
correspondence thus far exchanged BY
the publication of his reply TO Mr..
,Wadswo4th's letter.
admitting his error in stating that the
house substitute contained no proyi-
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.
Wants Changes in Bill.
The president says that, after con-
terence with Representative Adams, OF
Wisconsin. a member of the agriculture
committee. he Is convinced Mr.. Adams
will accept. the suggestions made to
him regarding the bill. He says that
Mr.. Adams, in each case. Stated that
he personally would accept the alter
ations proposed"
These changes include the elimina-
ton Of the court review proposition
and dozen other alterations. In the
opinion Of the president, the suggest
ed changes would make the house COM
mittee substitute "as good as the Bev-
eridge amendment"
The president adds that he Is not
concerned about the language of the
amendment. but with the accomplish
ment CT the object in view, "a thor
ough and rigid, and not sham, In
spectioE"
Text Of Presidents Letter.
Following is the text of the presi-
dents letter to Chairman Wadsworth:
my Dear Mr.. Wadsworth: In the
first place, wish promptly to ac-
knowledge the one portion of your let
ter in which you are in the main,
right. was in error in the state
ment, which l accepted from Senator
Beveridge, that there was no proyi-
sion Tor making the plants accessible
at all hours to the inspectors. The
provision was put in In another place;
hit 81 &c
inal provision.
The court provision ia the one to
which most object; although by no
means the only one to which I OBJ
ject. i. is one of many.
las regards this. wish to repeat
that # deliberately designed to pre-
vent the remedying of the evils COM
planned Of, this Is the exact provision
which the friends Of the packers and
the packers themselves have pro-
ytded.
| Calls Provision Absurd.
ut Is absurd to assert that any such
provision is needed. Why have you
not put such provision ip tho pcs,
office law as It affects fraud orders;
In the law as 1t affects fraudulent en-.
tries OF homesteads, etc.!
Congress cannot take away the
constitutional rights of the packers
or Of anyone else, to the protection Of
the courts. But such a provision as
that under consideration does not rep.
resent desire to secure the const1.
tutional rights OF any man.
ut represents, doubtless. in some
cases, an honest though wholly mis-,
taken conviction: in other cases !,
represents a deliberate purpose to In.
! terfere with effective administrator
by trying to provide that the courts
shall in reality be administrative work
which they would be the first to assert
their inability to perform.
| Would Limit Executive Powers.
IF the bill as you reported 1t from
the committee were enacted into law
you would have the functions Of the
secretary Of agriculture narrowly
limited so as to be purely ministerial
When he declared given slaughter
house insanitary. or given product
unwholesome, acting on the Judgment
of the government experts. you wault
put on the Judge. who had no knowl.
edge Whatever OF the conditions, tn,
burden Of stating whether or not tn,
secretary WAS right,
"In Chicago. for instance, you would
make any Judge whom the packers
i chose to designate. and not the ex
perts Of the department of agricul.
| ture. the man to decide on any ques
ton Of any kind which the packers
thought It worth while to dispute
| (You may possibly remember the re-
cent judicial decision in Chicago, II
which the packers were concerned.)
Would Nullify the Good.
II wish to repeat that this provi
sion is, in my judgment, one which
II enacted into law. will nullify the
major part Of the good which can be
expected from the enactment Of this
law.
You assert that the packers insist
upon having rigid inspection Ian
! passed. If they sincerely desire {
rigid inspection law, they will lnsis
upon this provision being taken out
Leaving it in is incompatible with Sc
curing properly efficient law.
ITO 80 much Of your. letter a
speaks of my having made innuendo
about q committee Of the house. or q
your knowledge Of the English lar
guage, etc., 1t Is not necessary t
lJn