Watertown weekly leader. [volume] (Watertown, Jefferson County, Wis.) 1906-1908, 1906-06-22

Wadsworth letter attacking him for
trouncing the opp osition, Mr.. Adams an
nounced that the President has suggest
ed that the court review provision
will be omitted from che bill
The cost OF meat inspection is to
tary of agriculture, it will be provided,
can levy an assessment on the cattle
killed by inspectors to pay the expenses
exceeding the appropriation. The pro-
vision waving civil service is to be elm
mated.
The plan now is to bring the inspec-
ton bill into the House Tuesday.
President Answers Wadsworth
President Roosevelt had added another
chapter to the literature of the meat
inspection controversy. AS the CORE
spOndence between himself and Repre-
sentative Wadsworth, chairman of the
House committee on agriculture, was
published, the President regards it as
proper to complete the correspondence
thus far exchanged by the publication
OF his reply to Mr.. WadSworth's letter.
In his letter the President, while ad-
hitting his error in stating that the
House substitute contained no provision
| for the making of inspections of pack
ing houses at all hours of the day or
night, says the substitute still is made
quate to meet the requirements of the
situation.
Gully" Adams Will Accept.
The President says that, after a con-
ference with Representative Adams of
| Wisconsin, a member of the agriculture
committee, he is convinced Mr.. Adams
! Will accept the suggestions made to him
! regarding the bill. He says that MI
Adams, in each case STATED that he
personally. would accept the alterations
proposed" These changes include the
elimination Of the court review PROPOSE
ton and a dozen other alterations. In
the opinion of the President, the sug-
gested changes would make the House
committee substitute 'as good as the
Beyeridge amendment" The President
adds that he is not concerned about the
| language of the amendment, but with the
accomplishment Of the object in view
"a thorough and rigid, and not a sham,
inspection"
Text of Presidents Letter.
Following is the text of the Presidents
letter: ."~. ses@:5s1 3 g.: Z. ?
In the first place, wish promptly to &c.
knowledge the one portion of your letter
IN which you are in the main right. l was
in error in the statement, which l accepted
from Senator Beveridge that there was no
at all hours to the inspectors. The pro-
vision was put in in another place: but it
IS not as good as the original provision
The court provision is the one to which |
most object; although by no means the
only one to which | object: it is one of
many. As regards this l wish to repeat
that if deliberately designed to prevent the
remedying of the. evils complained of. this
is the exact provision which the friends of
the packers and the packers themselves
would have provided.
Provision Not Needed
1t is absurd to assert that any such pro-
vision is needed. Why have you not put
such provision in the postofice law as it
affects fraud orders: in the law as it affects
fraudulent entries of homesteads? Congress
cannot take away the constitutional right
of the packers or of anyone else TO the
protection of the courts. But such q pro
vision as that under consideration does not
represent Il desire to secure the conStitu-
tional rights of any man. 1t represents,
doubtless. in some cases, an honest though
wholly mistaken conviction: in other cases
1t represents a deliberate purpose to inter
fere with effective administration by trying
TO provide that the courts shall in reality do
administrative work which they would be
the first TO assert their inability to per-
form.
Burden On Judiciary.
If the bill as you reported it from the
committee were enacted into law. You
would have the functions of the secretary
of agriculture narrowly limited so as to
be purely ministerial and when declared a
given slaughter house unsanitary, or a
given product unwholesome. acting on the
judgment OF the government experts,
would put on the Judge, who had no knowl-
edge whatever of the conditions. the burden
of stating whether or not the secretary was
right. In Chicago. for instance, you would
make any Judge whom the packers chose to
designate and not the experts of the de-
partment Of agriculture. the man to decide
on any question Of any kind which the
packers thought it worth while to dispute
Would Nullify Law.
You may possibly remember the recent
judicial decision in Chicago In which the
packers were concerned. 1 wish to repeat
that this provision Is. in my Judgment one
major part of the good which can be el.
pected from the enactment of this law