The evening times. [volume] (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1906-1914, 1906-06-19
.vERb|AGE Of BILL
ON INSPECTION
OF MEAT

VI lnl
Seems to be Something of a
"Stickler"- Inside History
Of Proposed Measure.
BY p. c. Snyder.
Washington, D. c., June 19.-It was
two weeks ago last Saturday that the
senate added the "Beveridge Amend
ment" so called, to the agricultural
appropriation bill. A few days later
the president sent to the house the
report of Messrs. Reynolds and Neill,
which was the out come of their brief
investigation into packing house con-
ditiOns in Chicago. Within an hour of
the first publication of that report
there was demand from every city in
the country for the immediate passage
OF the bill containing the Beveridge
Amendment. 1t was freely asserted
that the president insisted on the
concurrence of the house without any
change whatever. and that he declared
that nothing else would satisfy him.
In the meantime Senator Proctor,
chairman of the committee on agri-
culture in the Senate said that he had
no knowledge whatever of the mean
Ing of the amendment which he ad-
mitted was rushed through without
the slightest consideration by the
senate itself. II felt" said the senator.
in explaining the action of the senate.
that it was desirable to act promptly
and to leave the question as to the
ultimate form that the amendment
should assume to the consideration of
the conferees who would finally de-
eide upon the verbiage of the para
graph"
Notwithstanding the admission of
Senator Proctor that this, the most
important and far reaching clause of
the whole bill had never been con-
stdered, at all,its passage was demand
ed without any more consideration in
the house committee than it had re-
ceived by the corresponding COM
mittee of the senate. Not only did
sensational papers all over the country
Immediately start a campaign of abuse
of members of the house who favored
careful inquiry into the meaning and
probable effect of the we'll meant but
hastily drawn measure but members of
the agricultural committee have been
receiving, in nearly every mail, all
sorts of denunciatory, abusive and
threatening epistles. But worst of all
some of the best and most carefully
edited newspapers in the country have
been inveigled, or mislead, through
lack of knowledge of the facts into
a policy of condemnation of the men,
bers of the house who have dared to
refuse to vote for a legislative act
without knowing of its contents. In
other words the editors of these news
papers evidently think it safer to trust
an uninspected law rather to can of
uninspected beef These newspapers
which have been most insistent in de-
handing the passage of the "Beveridge
Bill', as they call it, are simply trying
to place law on the statute books
with constitutional holes in it enough
to accommodate enough posts to fence
In the entire District of Columbia.
Even a casual reading of the bill as
1t came from the senate will convince
one of the truths of this assertion.
1t provides for confiscation of private
property without compensation and it
gives the federal government power to
usurp the functions of the state and
municipal governments in every COM
munity in the country.
Such lawyers as Senator Spooner of
Wisconsin and Bailey of Texas have
openly asserted that the constitution
atty of the "Beveridge Bill" could be
and would be easily attacked and the
whole measure declared unconstitu-
tional by score of different interests.
And yet every man who tried to cor
rect its flaws has been denounced as
a CRATER and tool of the beef trust.
Yet in spite of all the abuse, the
committee has held constant sessions
with the determined purpose to perfect
bill that should protect all inter-
ests. 1t Is doubtful If there was ever
q committee of congress which gave
more careful and painstaking attention
to measure than the agricultural
committee has given to the so-called
Beveridge amendment. There are 10
voting members and one delegate on
the agricultural committee and the
average attendance each day since
this particular problem came up has
been seventeen. In other words every
member now in the city has attended
the committee sessions every day and
these sessions lasted from 1880 in the
morning until s or every afternoon
with only 30 or 40 minutes for recess
for lunch. And even the absent mem
Der took the pains to ask that his name
be recorded ON the roll, that the gov
eminent should pay the cost of in
spection.
This question of the cost of payment
OF the cost of inspection has been the
one bone Of contention. The president
has frequently said in conversation
with members of the committee that
he deemed 1t advisable the government
should pay this inspection charge pro-
vided assurances be given that the
necessary fund would be always avail
able. N hi
The secretary of agriculture and
chief Of the bureau of animal industry
have estimated that this additional ex-
pense created by establishing q
thorough inspection service in every
packing house and slaughtering house
In the country engaged In Interstate
commerce would be about $500 900
per annum. In order to avoid any DOS
stbiltty of shortage In the available
cash for this important work the com
mittee adopted clause to the bill as
1t was reported which provides for an
appropriation of $4,000, 900 per annum
and makes that q permanent appropri-
alton, that is to say, should congress
fall to pass any bill for the agricultural
department next year or the wear fnl.