Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1906-06-28
SENATOR PROCTOR ON MEAT IN
SPECTION.

In the Senate on Wednesday Senator
Proctor in support Of the Senate amend
men in regard to meat inspection and in
opposition TO the House substitute spoke
in part as follows
In regard TO the cost of inspection, it
seems TO be n radical departure and n
very unwisc one for the government to
defray this expense. | do not look upon
1t as a tax that can be put on the cattle
grower or upon the consumer. 1t is a
very small one at the most | look upon
it rs "A proper expense of advertising that
should be charged to the account These
packers do large amount of advertis-
ing and certainly they do none that will
yield such a tremendous return as this
one of having the Government stamp on
their products.
I might cite the oleomargarinc law as
an illustration. There is tax of One
quarter OF cent upon renovated butter
The result Of that very small tax has
been that tho production of that article
has increased largely think nearly
double-and that it has yielded an income
to the Government of about double the
expense Of administering il.
There has been good deal Of pressure
brought to hear regarding this expense
and multitudes of kilograms have been
received. 1t is plain. in looking them over,
to see that they cmanat" from Chicago,
and they are sent to different sections
of the country to II" forwarded to Con-
gress Many Of them are in almost iden-
teal language Several Of them have n
mistake in grammar, which is repeated
q Il ,,fvr D ms
is a package of them. in which the SEN
tfar asks ''propmt action in passing meat
inspection bill providing for rigid inspec-
ton at Government expense" That idcn-
teal expression occurs in large num-
hcr Of the kilograms, and, in fact, in
nearly all Of them that have been recelv-
ed. Here is another with the same OK
preston. rigid inspection at Govern
ment expense" The same language oc-
ours in this entire package, rigid in
Spoction at Government expense" Hero
is another form. perhaps gotten out by
one of the other packers. They seem to
be adroit packers. not only Of meat pro-
ducts. but of men as we'll They know
how to bring their constituencies into
line to have their views represented.
The cost is so inconsiderabl that il
S'fHlS W nlf entirety llDpOSSlOlt tnAt Inc
ackers. If they wish. could make any
excuse for charging this upon the cat
tie grower or upon the consumer. I am
confident that a charge of cents for cat
tie and cents for sheep. swine. goats.
and calves would cover all the expense.
| do not believe in the principle Of col
Letting fees or a tax to he deposited in
tn" treasury and to be drawn upon n
defray the expense, hut It seems to me
perfectly proper, as in the case Of oleo-
margarine and renovated butter. that
the tax or fee should be collected and de
posted in the treasury as other moneys
are and that We should appropriate for
this inspection entirely independent OF
whatever proceeds Of such tax or fee
may be in the treasury. That is the
way II is in the oleomargarine law to
which I have referred.
The fees probably might safely be re
duced TO : cents for cattle and cents
for smaller animals. but of this tho sccre-
tarY Of agriculture would be the Judge
This, as | have said. seems to me the
greatest piece Of advertising that any in
dus'ry could possibly have There are
other lines of business In this country
which will be sure TO ask for the same
provision and with Just claim. The but
ter ana cheese producers. the maple
sugar manufacturers will want it. and
many others. Az we have already adopt
ed in other measures the principle of a
small tax or fee, it seems to me wise 10
| follow in that line. look upon the
House proposition as very dangerous
precedent.
| Following Mr.. Proctor on the same line
Senator Beveridge Of Indiana said:
| ] have been impressed by the convincing
argument advanced by the senior sena
! tor from Vermont, who said that the
| packing establishments might well pay
for this inspection and charge it to adj
Vertising account Why. Mr.. President
| ii would be worth to the packers no,
ST. 10000, not si,0p), 600, not 5000. 06O but
| considering the extent of their business
eight or ten million dollars as a mere ad
ver'ising proposition, TO be able to pu
! upon all Of their food products the stamI
of the Governments approval. So tn,
argument advanced by me senator from
| Vermont il strikes me, original anc
| novel. is also conclusive