The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1906-06-01
WILL SEND
BlLLsT0 CONFERENCE
Crunpacker Introduces Measure
Designed AS Substitute for
Beveridge Amendment. n:
Curious Story Of What ,,s.SI;Es
Happened at at White
House. SI|
(From our Regular Correspondent.)


learned tonight that the epublicansSof, 81
the. House Committee on Agriculture sS
have decided to reject the Beverdge Ssgs
amendment to the agricultural bill, res
lquiring government inspection Of pack. fas
ing house products This will have the s.Sssa,
committee. It is also learned that Repre-
sentative Wadswortll, hartman OF the Ssa
Agricultural Committee, af Is draf ting anYs
samendent which he will offer In confer
ence as substitute for the 4 Beverldg efs
amendment. 1t Is understood that this tss
amendment Will ne far more sat tisfac ctory5S9s
/ ftogt the packers than that proposed by Mr.
Beveridge and adopted ID by & the Senator
Mr. adsworth is looked upon as being
more favorablys inclined 3s to vi the Beef fi@s
Trust than are the majority Of member
( Of Congress- s9! t ;Sf5 83 tss
work OF preparing the amendment arefN
Represent Henry, Of Connecticut.;
and Representative Lorimer, II of Chicago.
1T hns always been nderstood that Mr.. Isl
h SLorlmer $represented the BeeftaT Trust Il In
Congress ~ sS sss;
Crumpacker Bill. Ii
RepresentatIv i've Crlii1i ker. Of Ind 81 E
introduced BILL to-day which IS issss dees.ssj
signed to be q substitute Y for the 3eY,#$sss
3erldge amendment. The Crumpac ckers bill ies3s
which was referred to the Com ttees or&s
Agriculture makes r r4unlawful q for Ianysss
person, firm or corporatio to- ship n orr
offer for shipment or for any fnterstate&s
commerce carrier to@transport any ca rs
scass or part OF any carcass that Is tnl-Ssss33
pure, unsound, bunwholeson or otherwise es
unfit for food. The bill provides for tlleesf
inspection OF carcasses by governmental as
inspector and the appropriate tagging and III
branding OF the same. The use of chen-NhSi
5icals and dyes in the preparation OF !sF
canned meats for market is prohibited sa.
Violation OF the law is made punishableS eSss
+ In the sum OF $4,000 5s#53s n sfs ass s5sss
The law is not to apply to animals "
slaughtered by farmers on their farms, S
and the Secretary of Agriculture may
permit the Strengthening Of animals with
out inspection In small eestablfshments,sN!
where the total number slaughtered does g
not exceed an average OF ten a day. NJ IS s.
The bill Is silentsa as to whether the cost n
of inspection is to- be borne by the pa ck.ssai
ers or by the government. This has ths v
effect of putting the cost on the govern
n,ent. The packers desire this, since at IN
Is never possible to induce Congress to 81
appropriate sufficient money to employ an
sufficiently large force Of inspectors to Il:
do the work required Of thcm. s,:
Attitude of Speaker.
Speaker Cannon Is In favor Of fixing q
the cost OF inspection ut five cents q aS
carcass, and putting the cost on the
packers He and Chairman wadsworths5
of the Agricultural Committee, saw the Il
President to-day and while each admit IL
ted they had discussed the Beyerdge N
amendment, they would give no lindlca-s
ton as to the nature of the conversation y
and the conclusions reached. 1t Is fun-sa
derstood the Speaker Is opposed to the Il
adoption of the resolution calling on the III
President to send to Congress all the in 3S
formation In his possession concerning #
the conditions which prevail in the pack-
ing houses. S
Mr.. Beveridge said to-day he thought II
the legislation finally, enacted would be s2s
along the lines indicated in his amend--SS4sSi
ment.
Careful inquiries MS to the sentiment OF III
Congress generally Indicate tho likelihood
that the inspection amendment will ba sss
adopted by the House,, and that the bill Ss
as thus amended will be passed, The ~
chief. uues tion as heretofore stated, ts Mi
as to whether tho cost OF inspection shall M
be borne out of the general treasury III
o, by the packers themselves. The latter,
estimate the cost OF governmental SUI
pervision of their Industry. in order to Fl
compel them to supply tho people OF I'll
the country With 8undecayed and mearss&
free from disease germs at &, ,Od0, ,O00,t There ss
Is great denl of gall required to enable
manufacturers to demand that tho Cow
ernment pay the cost of seeing that they ~
supply the public undseaseC articles or nv
food, but 1t seems that the beef trust
has us much OF that article rs is heces,
sary, II 35ss5
Flood of kilograms.
Despite the flood OF telegrams that Is 4:
coming to senators and members OF Con-,
eress from cattle-raisers OF the Western @
States asking fNem to have the cost OF Z
Inspection put upon the government and M
rot upon the packers, 1t is believed that "
Congress vii provide that the cost of RI
Inspection be borne from a general fund ~
by a tax of few cents levied sI
upon every carcass passed by the inspec-iM 4
tors or cOndemlledi 5 FL II iigSs n:
The following As "a typical telegram 70, ~
celvcd to-day byRepresentatiye John III. u
Garner Of Texas: ssgSi IeSsss
I'VE think BeYerldge bill should prn,
& vide that government pay inspection gS
fee; II not, 8producers and consumers N SgiS
must foot bilis and We ask that yol,
endeavor TO have a bill amended an d Id
above suggested Take up with Texas "
delegation. Have wired swo senators,
sJoHN r, 4I4YII1E2 KIT
Ar. Lytle Is secretary of the Tnnna III