The semi-weekly messenger., 1906-06-22
Two Essential Points of Differ.
ence Brought to Light
One OF These is the Provision Requic-
ing the Date of Inspection Placed On
Cans and the Other Is the Cost of
Inspection Being Transferred 10 the
Government Beveridge, Proctor.
hedge and Others Take Part i'm the
Debate.

washington, June Ex-senator Proc
tor today called up in the senate the
agricultural appropriation bill, and
maze a statement concerning the house
substitute for the meat inspection pro-
vision, saying that there were two
essential points of difference between
the two houses. One or these, he said.
was the omission by the house of the
senate provision requiring that the date
or inspection be placed on cans con-
tanning meat and the other the trans
fer OF the cost Of inspection from the
packers to the national treasury.
Speaking of the latter change. he
said that it was radical and in
his opinion unwise, and advised
that the house amendment on
that point be not accented
The packers could, he declared afford
the expense as an advertisement, for.
looked at in that light, the government
certlhcate would be of immense bene-
MT. Mr.. Proctor also charged that the
numerous protests which have been
coming to the senate on this subject
nave common origin in Chicago, and
IN support of this statement read
number of the protests, to show the
language to be practically the same
Whereved they may be dated.
Senator Beveridge agreed with Mr..
Proctor as to the unwisdom of the
house changes in the matters of the
date of labels, and cost of inspection.
but expressed qualification that the
provision for night surveillance had
been retained. The two essential
changes he considered as most import
ant, declaring that if the date is not
to be used, it will be possible to pass
ON as fresh meat that which may have
! been inspected five years ago. He said
that the date is stamped on meat
shipped abroad and urged that the
same plan should be pursued with
| reference to meat consumed at home.
Why, he asked, should the people pay
for the packers inspection and not the
packers themselves and agreeing with
| Mr.. Proctor said the government stamp
would be worth eight or ten millions
for advertising purposes. Looking
| at the matter in that light the cost Of
inspection would not be burden be-
| cause the inspection would be a great
| benefit.
Senator Lodge also spoke for the
! senate provisions although he said it
| might be considered in view Of the an
nouncement that the house had per-
fected the measure and the president
| had accepted" He pleaded especially
| for the dating of labels because the
! public has the right TO know what it
| is buying.
Mr.. Lodge referred to recently pub
lished interview with Nelson Morris in
| which this great packer showed con-
| tempt for writer's of books, and the
| Massachusetts senator said the writing
of a book brought about the present
situation, and it may occur to the
/ packers that "the writing of books is
not so contemplate" The men respon-
| sible for the meat packing and Stand
| ard Gil monopolies, said Mr.. Lodge,
! have done more 10 advance socialism
anarchism, unrest and unwholesome
conditions in the United States than
all Of the socialists in the world.
| Senator Warren defended the stock
/ raisars and farmers, upon whom he
said tfe burden would fall if the in
| spection costs were imposed by the bill
upon the packers and denounced "a
simply monstrous'' the proposition of
Messrs Beveridge and Prostor that
they should be required 10 advertise
their business in prescribed way. He
also said that the legislation is aimed
at the farmers and stock growers and
contended that instead of taxing them
and the packers for the proposed in
spection the entire country should pay
the expense.