The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1906-06-17
PRESIDENT ADMITS MS Enron
HGvFRgggg WIsesD RGaeV Wgte
NsefeelON HggI.

w~leWnposua, sune Ia -The President
was wYena Had No hss psosapely sod ftaHhly
admittel Nhas ~ was IN error, Ne accsViet
M advice u senstsr ~hsveFtaae, aunaecs
hsveridss vas mistaken very, very mach
mMtehas, itg told she pfeahisnt that me
pfUvlsloa fog algh. mapeslOn IN NE wadss
| worth mbesltuts foF the mest inspection
aHendment ~ the Agricultural AppF0pFia-
tloa hil " not adequate, and 70 was Upon
his statement that che pfushiant dashed ~
hls arss iattsr 10 olalgmAa WadawoFtb Do
aounoina the sibstisute foe Ne failure 20
maiss thp pschiag establishments eoOsss
sIbls aepNb Zines 10 fh6 tnapSctors.
Tho prusidautj h0wgvsss etln has objeo.
lions to the substituta, and thsss ho has re-
farred TO 10 o second istssr which he has
wTittsn To Mr.. wadsWoFtts whioh was
made public to-day. H0now bases his op-
position chiefly upon ehe court review
provision; but there ere stifl other features
which arc not to his hiking. Tho second
letter from ehe Psesldentto MNWadswosth
follower
THB WHITE H0UBH,
WARRINGTON. SfDo %, iooA
MI DBhR nfn. wADswoRFHi In the frst
place ] wish promptly to ~acknOwledgo the
ono portion Of FOUR letter In which you are
In the main right. ! was In error In the
statement, which ! accepted from Senator
Beveridge, that there was no provision for
making tho plants accessible at ali hours
to the inspectors. The provision was put
in In another place: but 1t 10 not an good AZ
the original provision.
The court provision 10 the one to which
I most object. although by no means the
only one TO which I object. It 10 one OF
many. As regards this I wish 70 repeat
that II deliberately designed to prevent the
remedying Of the evils complained OF, this
10 the exact provision which the friends Of
the packers and the packers themselves
would have provided. 1t is absurd to assert
that any such provision lie needed. Why
have you not put such a pro vision In the
Post ONCE law as It affects fraud orders.
in the law as 1t affects fraudulent entries Of
homesteads. &c, &c.2
Congress cannot take away the consti-
tutional right Of the packers. or Of any
one else, to the protection Of the courts.
But such a provision as that under con-
slderation does not represent a desire to
secure the constitutional rights OF any man.
1t represents. doubtless. in some cases. an
honest thou Oh wholly mistaken conviction:
in other cases II represents a deliberate
purpose to interfere with effective adminl-
stratlon by trying to provide that the courts
shall In reality do administrative work which
they would be the first to assert their inability
to perform.
II the bill as you reported IL from the
committee were enacted into law you would
have the functions Of the Secretary of Agri-
culture narrowly limited 80 as to be purely
ministerial: and when he declared a given
Il. hA,.-A .-.. -lNA.r 1t--.
product unwholesome. acting on the judg-
ment Of the Government experts. you would
put on the judge. who had no knowledge
whatever Of the conditions. the burden Of
stating whether or not the Secretary was
right. In Chicago. for instance. you would
make eny Judge whom the packers chose
to designate, and not the experts OF the
Depa rtment of Agriculture, the man to
decide on a question Of any kind which
the packers thou ght 1t worth while to dis
pute. tYou may possibly remember the
recent judicial decision in Chicago In which
the packers were concerned.)
/ wish to repeat that this provision is. In
my judgment, one which II enacted into law
will nullify the major part OF the good which
can be expected from the enactment Of this
law. You assert that the packers insist Upon
having a rigid inspection law passed, n
they sincerely desire a rigid inspection la
they will insist upon this provision being taken
out. Leaving IL in Is incompatible with secur-
ing a properly efficient law.
To so much of your letter as speaks OF my
having made innuendoes about a committee
Of the House, or OF your knowledge of the
English language. &c. II il not necessary to
make any answer. You state that II | or
my advisers will point out specifically wherein
the bill fails to accomplish my purpose Il
will he promptly remedied. ! am happy to ,
tell you that / have to-day seen a member Of
- ILL., -
request OF the Speaker. and ] went over with
him. together with MIR. McCabe and Mr..
Reynolds, the various points In which the bill
as you have reported 1t fails to accomplish
our purpose. and made the specific recorn-
mendation necessary In each case to remedy
the failure, and in each case Mr.. Adams
stated that he personally would accept the
alterations we proposed. He agrees with me
that the court review proposition should be
excluded. He agrees as TO the dozen other
changes which we think should be made.
II these chan ges, which Mr.. Adams says he
thinks should be adopted. are adopted your
amendment will become as good as the Bever-
idge amendment-in McCabe's opinion, some
what better than the Beveridge amendment
Is II unchanged.
care not a whit for the language Of the
amendment. What l am concerned with is to
have ii accomplish the object l have In view
namely, a thorough and rigid. and not a sham,
inspection. In ny Judgment the amendment
as reported by you fails to accomplish this
object: whereas the Beveridge amendment
and the House amendment with the chan ees
which Mr.. Adams has stated ne will gladly
accept both substantially accomplish the
purpose l have In view. 1 will accordingly
gladly accept either. or accept any alteration
OF either or both which will accomplish this
end, Yours truly.
THEODORE ROOSEVELT.
Hon. James ". Wadsworth.
Chairman Committee on Agriculture.
The latest contribution to the literature
on the subject Of meat inspection has had
the effect Of clarifying the slaughterhouse
atmosphere to some extent. The situation
Is not 80 tense as It was yesterday. Men,
bers Of the House Committee on Agriculture
Who have been struggling with the problem
for the past ten days assert that they know
q little better what the Presidents views
are now They insist, however, upon
emphasizing the present tense in that een-
tence. They thought they knew what the
Presidents views were, but In this they
confess that they themselves were mis-
t~aken-very, very much mistaken. They
believed thew wore preparinp a n,aaarra