The National tribune., 1906-06-21
THE MEAT PACKERS WAR.

been most unnecessary heat and dis
turbanceS from the. very beginning oi
the trouble over the meat-packing in
dustry.
| In the first place, the packers, IL they
had any common sense, must havi
known that rigid. inspection of thci;
establishments and methods was inevis-
able and liable to be brought about 1ny
day. Ordina. ;ly foresighted men " ou'd
have autio : lated this, prepared for it
and indeed insisted upon it. 1t wa
only a question of time when some OF
| the millions of the users of their prod
purity and cleanliness and insist upon
investigation. The great wonder is that
this did not come long ago. The still
greater wonder is that the sensation
loving yellow papers. especially of Chi
cago, did not raise hue-and-cry years
ago about the condition of things in the
The utter uselessness of thnse profess
sional horror-mongers comes over one
at the memory of the many baseless
sensations with which they have regaled
their readers, when such palpable and
real horrors existed under their very
eyes unnoted and unspoken of.
The packers must have known that
when such an inevitable exposure came
it must hurt them incalculably, and
prudent business men would have fore
stalled it by having their houses in Or
der and an inspection system in exist
ence. They should have expected that
the people would be nervously sensitive
as to the cleanliness and healthfulness
of what they eat, and as substantially
every man and woman in the United
form of canned goods, storm could
easily be raised which no power could
quiet.
The packers had plenty of warning
of what was coming. 1t was in the air
long before the storm broke. They
should have shrewdly anticipated it by
insisting upon an inspection which
would give the public confidence in
their products. The brewers are much
smarter in this way The brewers are
deluging the country and running the
peoples health by vile, death-bringing
slops, but they never cease to prate of
the purity of their products
Undoubtedly the President made a
mistake in announcing at the outset
that he had discovered unmentionable
but would not make them public unless
the packers resisted the Inspection bill
which he had just had rushed through
the Senate. This method of going after
legislation with a club is peculiarly
Rooseyeltian. Lincoln, Grant, Hayes
and particularly Mckinley would have
secured the passage of quite as effective
an Inspection bill without any such
smell of blood. AT first the packers were
dazed and frightened, but then their
dander and their selfishness rose, and
they began savage fight. 1t was ex-
ceedingly foolish in them, because an
Inspection bill is inevitable, and it will
have to be so stringent as to satisfy the
people. 1t would have been good policy
for the packers to have helped on such
a bill instead of fighting it. This, how
ever, can be passed over, as they are
being terribly punished for their folly.
Only it passes comprehension that such
successful business men should show
themselves SO stupid.
The next firebrand to unnecessarily
heat up the situation was the following
letter from the President to the Chair
man of the House Agricultural Commit
tee:
"The White House, Washington, June
IA, 1906.
My Dear Mr.. Wadsworth: 1 have
gone over your bill very carefully, and
not only obtained a report from Mr..
McCabe, as 1 told you 1 would. but also
obtained report from Mr.. Reynolds on
it. 1 am sorry to say the more closely
Investigate your proposed substitute the
worse find it. Almost every change is
one for the worse: so that it hardly
seems necessary for me to enumerate
them. Perhaps the amendment as you
have now drafted 1t is not quite as bad
as it was when you submitted 1t to me
in the first instance; but it is very, very
bad. There seems to be one point IN
which 1t is possible that the amendment
is even worse than the original amend
ment, If, as seems likely, there Is no
provision for making plants accessible
at all hours to the Inspectors. In any
event, i am sorry to have to say that
this strikes me as an amendment which,
no matter how unintentionally, is franz
ed so as to minimize the chance of root
ing out the evil in the packing business.
Doubtless it suits the packers. who OBJ
ject to a thoroughgoing inspection.
much better than the Senate amend
ment, and have no doubt thai not only
the packers, but their allies in business
and those stock-growers who are infiu-
enced by them, would prefer ii. But
am convinced ii would in the long run
be heavy blow to the honest stock
raiser and the honest packer to adopt
these provisions rather than the far bet
ter ones contained in the Senate amend
ment; for, as compared with the Senate
amendment, this proposed amendment,
which you tell me is that of the majority
of the House Committee, would hamper
in the most grossly improper fashion
the Secretary of Agriculture in doing
the work which you have appointed
him to do, and will prevent even so
much OF this work as can be done at all
from being well and thoroughly done
III the bill should go through in the form