New-York tribune., 1906-06-16
rHE COST OF THE INSPECTION.

nv, ,ro tho House Committees draft OF a
! -. ;v,s,,oo+,on bill is examined the less aue
| ouo,a some of its provisions appear TO pe Nv
measure will be satisfactory Which an'N
canned goods to be labelled without ule gu
pervision of an inspector Inc po"e -,
clude from interstate commerce eoou' ~
are prenared under unsanltary cohoiuoh' ~
be granted otherwise the buruen vi pio''P
+ba absolute unwholesomeness of every piece OF
meat excluded from shipment Will De uro"n
upon the government its ability to correct pau
methods in the packing houses destroyed ana
the inspection rendered generally inefectlVe
These and other emasculating features or the
new bill which are easily observed make ciear
the need of the strctest scrutiny or the Whoie
measure and show that it must be strengthened
In several respects before it can be accepted as
q Satisfactor solution of the problem.
As to the cost of inspection much can DE
said for each view II will be borne by the
people whether an appropriation is made by
Congress or the packers are left to reimburse
themselves from the producer or consumer, or
both. Perhaps the cheapest inspection Woulu
be secured under appropriation, not only
because the amount expended would thus be
strictly limited, but also because the packers
could probably make the inspection charges con
venient excuse for paying enough less for animals
TO meet the charges and exacting enough for beet
also. much may be said in favor of making the
inspection at the governments expense. Sound
principles would seem to require the people as
a whole to pay for work done in the interests
of the people instead of saddling it on some
particular business affected. Just why the rail
roads in this state should pay the expenses of
the Railroad Commission is not clear, for the
commission exists not to benefit the railroads.
but to regulate them in the public interest
,1y- inH1 1frnH In Il
conceal from the taxpayers government expendi
lures which they nevertheless, bear indirectly
and they are likely to make government ma
chnery more Serviceable TO the apparent pay
master than to the people On the other hand,
as matter of practical craftsmanship it is
often difficult in any other way to get work
done which must be done for the common wei
fare Of the people as a whole and Of the par
ticular business concerned. If the taxpayers
resent large appropriation for such work, those
who appreciate its necessity are driven to indi-
rect expedients.
It is obvious in this case that the public and
the packers both need the inspection, and that
ii must be thorough to command confidence
Perhaps the packers will be the chief sufferers
If law Is not passed which will allay popular
feeling in the fullest degree and carry conviction
that the rigidity of inspection will not be re-
laxed. From that point of view 1t seems not
upon the business which is TO be benefited by
supervision. The packers are not like the rail-
roads. which have nothing to gain from state
oversight 1t must be remembered that the
inspection tag is a business asset of the pack
ers. Without it they cannot send a pound OF
meat abroad, and without ii they may soon
be unable TO sell pound of meat at home If
they thus want and absolutely require a govern
ment certificate for their own purposes, why
should they not pay for 1t they would pay
for a notary publc's certificate? The fee sys-
TEN would allow the inspecting force to in
crease automatically with the development Of
business, while fixed appropriation is likely
TO prove inadequate in a few years, even if
a wave of economy does not cut down the al
lowance when public sensitivenesS on the sub
ject has subsided. The House bill provides in a
measure against this by making a permanent
appropriation such as is made for regularly re-
curing government expenses like that for col
lecting customs. but it is possible at any time
for Congress to repeal this grant
1t may be that appropriation of 50 600 900
would secure an inspection which would be and
continue to be adequate. That is the prime con-
sideration, and there are precedents to Justify
whichever plan seems most practicable. In
spite Of theories to the contrary, the weight of
the argument on grounds Of expediency favors
the Senate bill, and its plan should not be aban-
doned without good reasons. 1t is, however
less important TO preserve that feature IN the
Senate bill than to prevent any weakening Of
the essential provisions of the measure The
inspectors must have the right to go every
where in the packing houses, day and night, TO
oversee the sanitary conditions of packing as
we'll as TO condemn particular articles which
can be afirmatively proved unsound, and there
must be left no loOpholes by which the pack
ers can use the government label as an adver-
tisement or guarantee of any quality the MAIN
tenance Of which the inspectors have not COM
plete authority to exact at every stage from
the hoof TO the can.