The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1906-06-15
Appointment Of $50 inspectors Regarded as
Flaw, and WadsWorth Is So .
Informed.
Speaker Cannon in Futile Effort to Gain Pres
ident Roosevelt's Support Of
Measure.
q bombsheu in the ranks Of the pack
ers representatives in congress.
r-Ez 81 pleo 10 with yri1aor

q bombsheU In the ranks OF the pack
ers representatives in congress.
Pleads with Wilson.
| to the capitol to make further pro-
test to Secretary of Agriculture Wilson
1 and Secretary Of WarSHaft.
! It i understood thatsihe voiced the
sentiment of the packers representa-
tives 4 n the house TO the effect that
the president has been gravely misin.
formed as to the effect Of the Bever-
4 idge bill and Of the substitute.
| Speaker Cannon is understood to
agree with Messrs. Lorimer and Wads-
worth that the substitute bill will ac-
complish the desired results On this
point all are at variance with the presi-
| dent. Secretary Wilson, Senator Bev-
eridge and all other advisers Of the
president. !, 80,
Opposes Spells System.
] One feature Of the substitute bill
| TO which the president has great OBJ
! lection has almost escaped criticism,
AS framed, the bill provides spoils-
men g grabbag by removing inspection
To-. one year from the operations of the
inspectors to be made under it, This
makes l50 new jobs FOR the Job graft
/ ers il they can pet away with It. It
1 IL morally certain, however, that the
tempt. It might lead R En- Z e veto vet the
The promised meeting Of the house
committee on agriculture to discuss the
president IS objections failed to mater
4 ia1ize this morning. Instead, Chair
man WadsWorth and Representatives.
Lorimer, Brooks and Burleson sat
around the table with their coats off
and exhibiting eevry Indication of
mental activity.
Will Not Make Changes.
i None would talk for publication. bnt
lit was asserted that the majority of
the committee has no disposition to
make changes in the substitute bill.
even if it could do SO.
One member declared the president
was either "hypocritical or misir,-.
formed. Another prominent. member
OF the house used unprintable language
4 yisers, and still another New York
friend Of the president 3 criticized bis
chief severely. All this tends to show
the mental anguish Of the opponents
Of the president.
i Minority Jubilant. 4
j On the other hand the trainers Of
the minority report, which If submitted
TO the house, will carry the names Of
three democratic members Of the com
mittee only, were jubilant and prom
ised a warm fight. on the DOR Of the
house when the bill comes up. It Is
expected that the minority report viii
The light on the bin viii have to bs
made wholly on the oor of the house
and 1t Is expected the test may be made
On motto INTO substitute the Beveridpe
Tor the Wadsworth-L orimer bill.
1 Might Use Veto.
What action the president would
finally take on the bill If the house
Rln should pass, is problematieal.
There is high authority For saying he
wall veto it and call special session
OF congress It necessary to consider the
question again
There is equally high authority. how.
ever. Tor saying he will sign the bill,
statement Of his objections to it. The
; erect OF such q procedure on the stock
ralsers who want the president,s full
approval Of any bill that is passed. and
upon consumers, both foreign and do
mestic, might make more trouble for all
calculated. W
!. Hitch on Court Review.
The beef packers care more for the
; ubroad-court review and who shall
pay the cost of inspection than they
90 for anything else that is in cues.
ton; and, conversely. the president and
his supporters have focused their oppo.
, sltion on these provisions in large part.
The broad-court review will make the
) court judges of questions of fact.
Minnesota will remember the troubles
the legislature there had session after
, session in the later eighties and early
! n1neties over the baking-powder aues-
. ttiOn. Expert witnesses by the score
!, appeared on each side of the case and
nobody could tell what was the real
: truth. So In this case.
Endless Confusion.
: Under the broad-court review the
. packers would take into court the ques.
: ton of whether their preservatives
were deleteriOus to health or not The
!, moment an inspector, acting under or.
y ders and regulations from the secretary
e Of agriculture, was to forbid the use
!. of certain preservatives, straight into
t court would the question be taken. The
Q packers would summon an army Of sci
entific experts to say that the ques,
q toned preservatives were not harmful
and the government would summon its
experts on the other side of the case.
: The resulting confusion would be %
great that the courts might frequently
It be compelled to give the packers the
e benefit Of the doubt.
II This is only one of the ways in which