The National tribune. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1877-1917, 1906-06-21


been Z most unnecessary heat and dis
turbances- from the very beginning o
the trouble oyer the meat-packing in
dustry.
In the first place. the packers, II the,
had any common sense, must hav,
known that a rigid inspection of thci
establishments and methods was newt
able and liable to be brought about an,
day. Ordina ;ly foresighted men YOU'D
have antie lated this, prepared for 1t
and indeed insisted upon it. 1t wa
| only a question Of time when some o.
the millions of the users of their prod
acts would become suspicious Of theiI
purity and cleanliness and insist upor
investigation. The great wonder is tina
this did not come long ago. The sti!
greater wonder Is that the sensation.
| loving yellow papers. especially of Chi
cago, did not raise hue-and-cry year.
ago about the condition Of things in tn.
packing-houses. A sense of disgust al
the utter uselessness of thcse profess
siOnal horror-mongers comes over one
sensations with which they have RECALLED
| their readers, when such palpable and
real horrors existed under their very
eyes unnoted and unspoken Of
The packers must have known that
when such an inevitable exposure came
it must hurt them intellectually, and
prudent business men would have fore
stalled 1T by having their houses in or
der and an inspection system in exist
ence. They should have expected that
the people would be nervously sensitive
as to the cleanliness and healthfulness
of what they eat, and as substantially
every man and woman in the United
States now eats more or less Of some
form of canned goods, a storm could
easily be raised which no power could
quiet
The packers had plenty Of warning
of what was coming. 1t was in the air
long before the storm broke. They
should have shrewdly anticipated it by
insisting upon an inspection which
would give the public confidence in
their products. The brewers are much
smarter in this way. The brewers are
deluging the country and running the
peoples health by vile, death-bringing
slops. but they never cease to pirate OF
the purity Of their products.
Undoubtedly the President made a
mistake in announcing at the outset
that he had discovered uncomfortable
horrors in the Chicago packing houses,
but would not make them public unless
the packers resisted the Inspection bill
which he had Just had rushed through
the Senate. This method Of going after
legislation with club is peculiarly
Rooseveltian. Lincoln, Grant, Hayes
and particularly Mckinley would have
secured the passage OF quite as effective
an Inspection bill without any such
smell Of blood. At first the packers were
dazed and frightened. but then their
dander and their selfishness rose, and
they began a savage fight. It was ex-
ceedingIy foolish In them. because an
Inspection bill is inevitable. and 1t will
have to be SO stringent as to satisfy the
people. It would have been good policy
for the packers to have helped on such
a bill instead Of fighting 1t. This, how
ever, can be passed over, as they are
being terribly punished for their folly.
Only 1t passes comprehension that such
themselves SO stupid.
The next firebrand to unnecessarily
heat up the situation was the following
letter from the President to the Chair
man Of the House Agricultural Commit
tee:
1.-THE White House. Washington, June
IA. 1906.
My Dear Mr.. Wadsworth: I have
gone over your bill very carefully, and
not only obtained report from Mr..
McCabe, as / told you would. but also
obtained report from Mr.. Reynolds on
1t. / am sorry to say the more closely I
Il
worse | find 1t. Almost every change Is
one for the worse: so that it hardly
seems necessary for me to enumerate
them. Perhaps the amendment as you
have now drafted It Is not quite as bad
as 1t was when you submitted 1t to me
in the first instance: but 1t is very, very
bad. There seems to be one point IN
which 1t Is possible that the amendment
Is even worse than the original amend
ment, IL, as seems likely, there Is no
provision for making plants accessible
at all hours to the Inspectors. In any
event. ! am sorry to have to say that
this strikes me as an amendment which,
no matter how unintentionally, is franz
ed so as to minimize the chance Of root
ing out the evil In the packing business.
Doubtless 1t suits the packers. who OBJ
ject to a thOroughgoing inspection.
much better than the Senate amend
ment, and have no doubt that not only
the packers, but their allies in business
| and those stock-growers who are infiu-
enced by them. would prefer it, But
am convinced it would in the long run
be heavy blow to the honest stock
raiser and the honest packer to adopt
these provisions rather than the far bet
ter ones contained In the Senate amend
ment; for. as compared with the Senate
amendment, this proposed amendment