The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1906-06-17
LETTER in REPLY
TO WADSWOkTH5
4 Want Thorough Inspection and
not Sham President Says ri ri
Significantly. gsHI
MU BITTERNESS IN
FEELING at CAP lTOL

Man on Subject State
ment Issued BY 2sIs|
Beveridge. Ss5|
5 6 (Fron Our Regular Correspon ondent t.) Sssss
4sNVASHINGTON,9D d. c., j une 49, III Il
gplanSto-day that sentiment iii the House
is setting lii 4 strong y Il t oWards support
of the mnority&o ofathe: Committee on51
4Agriculture and the President, III II thelrsI
to the agricultural bill. ReprescntatiYaI
Lamb, who is one of the leaders of Dem-y
Socratic sentiment In the House, hicht1
\ Isl supporting the minority view, said Il to-
3daySlIe no longer; had serious doubt the
sdefeat Is OF the substitute reported & BY thd
ma jortyS Of the committee. In ever ythtn1AI
B except the provision hat the .ost shan
4 be borne blythe government. 8 He belle eyeds
the broad court review pro vision &8vodl0
90 and that lin all other respect
and except the provist lon as 10 8Lhe
Of inspection the minorit tys Of the COM
&mittee would ~ win. 3. ss38 5ssz. .s.SSI
a T,he &presi dents second let ttsr to $s Nj
adsworth. I. made public to day st TENED
Sthe backs Of those among the Re
who "a re strug Iine to have the cosI os
inspection borne by the packers ana ana
ma v ha We couraged the Demo crals
Who ara on that side, 3 howe YER nucn
/ they deprecatc I,xecuti I've inter- nceg1n IN
slcssation. II II Is admi tied on al sldeAs
#thnt no member Cons ress has las aeYsEEaS|
written such g Tea Tless y,
dent III tho United 81 tes, md not
recalled that a Preside lent has eve sem,
ia Fl a member Of either branch of EonsSl
##eress lSletterss III Which the resen tay5l
tive wa $3.50 ip1ainly accuse ot# rylnE slOc lOc
secure a law which Woul d be Incl nee cttYst|
THE several all usions Wt,ich The
dent makes in his letter to ME-. w aassSl
worth to the appe rance Of ne n DIE s
having been drawn In & the Interest .o g
sthe ma ckcrs. ara garded By. those no
know all tl1a acts as being very 81 snlilA.
cant ,s s 5 sSSj
Influence of# Packers ss5,|
Z ri develops TO- day that the bill which
the majority OF the mnittee portedds|
as the substitute for the III BevsrldSes vsrlS
amendment was drawn. in enc CID J,
the packers themselves.
The substitute was drafted In a room AZ
the New Willard Hotel, In thlss city, on
last Sunday afternoon, i Is. underst tood'
There were present In the roo fcr
hours drawing the bill and suggezttnk
changes and nd ditlons, two members ~
the COMMITTEES on Agriculture the Fcours..
4 sell for the cattle-growers, and three REPS
$resentatives OF the pa ckers. Il The substl.s
Stute reported was the measure Nv hich Srs.
suited from their work.
or course, t, would not be strictly true
to say the bil8wasy drawn by the packers
but the members of the committee pres.s
4ent have Indicated In many ways thelr
8frlendlness to the packing Interests, and
the three packers and the counsel for tha i
growers were united In wanting the gov-s|
Sernment to pay the cost OF inspect ion. 5
d Presid dent,S Letter 3tl
President Roosevelt's letter to Mr..
is as olloWs: ssB Y yis
I35 Il The White House.
45ta Washington. June Is. 1905, HsS
MY Dear Mr.. Wadsworth:
&sF In the first place I wish promptly 8ss|
Il E to acknowledge the one portion OF KS
your letter In which you are In the
II main right. II
Sssa5 I was In error III tho statement. I.
which Ii. accepted from d Senator
"A. Beveridge, that there was no provi-
sion for making the plants accesslt bic
5a at all hours to the inspectors. The pro-. "a
Vision was put in In another place Z but 81
s53 1t is not ms good as the original pro-
Vision. The court provision is the one
3 to which ! most object; although T by
no means the only one to which u oh.
ject;it la one Of many. & Il
Az regards this ! wish to repeat i that Is
II deliberately designed to prevent the NJ
remedying OF the evils complained of. 81
this Is the exact provision which the SS
friends of the packers and the pack
ers themselves would have provided.
Absurd Argument.
Tits absurd to assert that any such
provision Is needed. Why have you NJ
not put such a provision ii, tiia post sss3 II
office law as 1t affects fraud ordela ss5gsl
$8 In the law. as It affects fraudulent on
tries OF hon,esteads. etc, etc,2 Cons
gress cannot take away the constltu. Sss
tional right OF the packers. or OF any sysss
4 one else to the protection OF 81 the II
courts. "A. 3aass4 ssii
But such n provision as that undsr
( consideration dees not represent q de-
Y sire to secure the constitutional tights $
Of any man. IT represents donbtles1. "
in some cases, an honest, though II
wholly mistaken, conviction; In othsr
cases 1t represents deliberate pur- IN
pose to interfere With efreetiv admin. ssSs
istration by trying to provide that 3SI
the courts shall In realty do admin
trative work which they would be "A he 81
first 10 assert their Inability to per-
form. 55 # .f;S ~ 4. ~ NJ III
lss II the blu as you reported ~ from SSf
\ the conmlttea were enacted Into slaNy
you would have tha functions OF th6
Secretary OF Agriculture narrowly s:SSl
limited so rs TO Ebe purely ministerial
and when he declared a given slauSh SSjI
81 house unsanitary. o. q given pro- ssa]
duct unWholesonle, \ ae ting on the tudgs
ment OF the government experts, y0Ns III
would put on the Judge. who Nd ID
+ y