Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1906-11-14
CHA|RMEN Of TWO
COMMITTEES OUT
Among the Unexpected Results
OF the Recent
Election.
BABC0CK AND WADSWORTH.
fractional Fights In Home State and
Antagonlsm TO senator iaFollette
said 10 be One Cause.
Special Correspondence.

Special Correspondence.
Washington, d. c., Nov. l0.-Among
| the unexpected results OF the election
was the defeat OF the chairmen OF two
| of the most important committees OF
the house of representatives, Messrs.
Babcock OF Wisconsin and Wadsworth
| OF New York. The former has been at
| the head OF the committee on the Dis
trict Of Columbia for many years, and
was also chairman OF the Republican
congressional committee until tho close
Of the last campaign, when he was sue
ceeded by Mr.. James 5. Sherman of
New York.
Mr.. Babcock's defeat was due 20 tho
factional hgnts in his home state and
10 the antalionismo OF Senator Lar oIetre,
who, having failed TO defeat BaDcock
| Tor denomination, Is reported TO have
used all his influence TO defeat him at
the polls.
The elimination OF James W. Wads-
worth AS a factor In national legisia-
tive AFFAIRS IL sincerely regretted py
every man In Congress who has been
heard from TO date. Mr.. Wadswortn
has been at the head OF the committee
on agriculture for the past 10 years,
and It Is due very largely to his intel
ligent knowledge OF the agricultural
AFFAIRS OF the country that the depart
ment has grown 10 be the important
division OF the federal administration
which 1t is today. Ten years ago the
budget provided less than three mil
lion dollars for the expenses of the
department The appropriations this
year are approximately nine millions,
or three times as much. Mr. Wads-
worth made close study OF the work
or every bureau OF the department and
he made personal examinations OF the
accounts OF tho different bureaus each
year. The biennial Hearings" upon
the Appropriation bill are telling Wit
nesses to the knowledge possessed by
the chairman, for they show on each
page, through the questions which he
submitted to the various bureau and
division chiefs, that he always kept
himself fully Informed as 90 the work
and accomplishments of each.
DETAILS OF WORK.
1t was because Of his insistent en-
quirles into The most minute details OF
the work Of the department that he
was not cordially loved by some of tho
scientists. Each of these gentlemen
naturally believes his particular work
to be the most important in connection
with the department and naturally
each desires 10 extend the scope of the
work upon which he was engaged. But
MIR. Wadsworth, while always willing
to aid In extending useful work, was
never disposed TO waste the public
funds and he frequently had to cut
down the estimates IN order TO avoid
extravaganza. The outcome of this
policy was the quiet antagonlsm of
some OF these chiefs OF bureaus. Sew
eral of them contributed TO the columns
Of the agricultural press and aided in
poisoning the minds Of the editors of
those journals against Wadsworth.
oLEoMARGARINE NIGHT,
In 1900. during the fight over the pro.
position to increase the tax on oleo-
margarine to a prohibitve figure, Mr..
Wadsworth, although a large owner In
several creameries. declined TO be par
" 10 the movement. He held that II
people wanted oleomargerine they
have right 10 buy 1t without paying
an exorhitant tax and he proposed
a substitute which would, II adopted,
protect the consumer and the maker
OF butter absolutely, without destroy
ing a legitimate industry. There is
reason 10 believe that the Wadsworth
substitute or something very similar TO
IL. will be adopted by Congress this
winter. But Mr.. Wadsworth's position
In 1900 and his attitude towards the
meat inspection bill last May was used
as q club TO drive voters away from
him by the thousands. The district was
literally flooded with circulars and
newspapers picturing him as a friend OF
the packers, an enemy Of the farmers
and an antagonist Of the president.
Mr.. Wadsworth was urged to appeal
to the president TO refute the latter
charge. but he declined to do SO. There
are several facts connected with the
meat inspection legislation which ara
not generally known. In the first place
Mr. Wadsworth has urged for 10 years
that the cost OF inspection ought to be
paid by the packers 80 long as inspec-
ton was not compulsory. But the comp
troller of the treasury decided that UNI
der the section Of the revised statutes
which prohibits the acceptance OF vol
untary service by the government. II
was not competent for the agricultural
department to appoint inspectors TO he
paid by the packers. When inspection
for all meat food products TO be used
In Interstate commerce was made COM
pulsory In the Interest of public health,
Mr.. Wadsworth held, and Congress
stood by him, that the cost OF such In
s1ection was a just and righteous
charge against the public revenues.
Further than this the president himself
declared that he opposed the policy
OF public payment of inspection only
because time might come when the
appropriations would become inadequate
and inspection might fail. But this
contingency was met by the increase Of
the appropriation for inspection from