The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1906-06-16
he OWNS UP
President Roosevelt AcknOwI-
edges His Error
In Regard to One Feature of
WadsWorth Substitute.
THE COURT PROVISION
Is the One to Which He Chiefly
Objects.
Makes Public His Reply TO
Chairman of Committee.
THE COURT PROVISION


to the literature Of the meat inspec-
ton controversy. 1t was not through
any desire of his that the correspond
ence between himself and Represents
tive Wadsworth, chairman of the
published in its entirety. In as much,
however. as Chairman Wadsworth
deemed It desirable that the letters
should be published and gave them to
the public, the president regards 1t as
proper to complete the correspond
ence thus far exchanged by the pub
LEGATION of his reply 70 Mr.. Wads-
WOrth's letter.
In his letter the president while ad-
hitting his error in stating that the
house substitute contained no provi-
sion for the making of inspections of
packing houses at all hours of the day
or night, says the substitute still is
inadequate to meet the requirements
of the situation. The president says
that after a conference with Represen-
tative Adams (Wis.) }, a member of the
agriculture committee, he is con-
WINGED Mr.. Adams will accept the sug-
gestions made to him regarding the
bill. He says Tat Mr.. Adams in each
case Stated that he personally would
accept the alterations proposed.
These changes include the elimination
of the court review proposition and a
dozen other alterations In the opinion
of the president, the suggested changes
would make the house committee sub
stftute las good as the Beveridge
amendment" The president adds
that he is not concerned about the
language OF tn amendment, but with
the accomplishment Of the object in
view, "a thorough and rigid and not
sham inspection.
Following is the text of the presi-
7orfsc letter n Chairman NEadEWvOTtn.
The Letter.
"The White House,
'sWashin gton, D. c., June Is, 1906
''Afy Dear Mr.. Wadsworth:
I'm the first place, I wish promptly
to acknowledge the one portion Of
your letter in which you are in the
main right. 1 was in error in the
statement which I accepted from SEN
ator Beveridge that there was no pro-
vision for making the places accessible
at all hours to the inspectors. The
provision was put in another place;
but it is not as good as the original
provision. The court provision is the
one to which I most object; although
by no means the only one to which I
object 1t IS one of many AS re-
CARDS this I wish to repeat that II
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 1t
is absurd to assert that any such pro-
vision is needed Why have you not
put such a provision in the poStoff1ce
law as it affects fraud orders; in the
law as it affects fraudulent entries OF
homesteads, etc.
Congress can not take away the con-
stitutional right of the packers or or
any one else to the protection of the
courts. But such a provision as that
under consideration does not represent
a desire to secure the constitutional
rights of any man. 1t represents DOUBT
less, in some cases, an honest, thor
oughly mistaken conviction; in other
cases it represents a deliberate purpose
to interfere with effective administra-
ton 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. If the bill
as~you reported it from the committee
were enacted into law you would nave
the functions of the secretary of agrt-
culture narrowly limited so as to be
purely ministerial; and when he de-
clared a given slaughter house unsani-
tary, or a given product unWholesome,
acting on the judgment Of the govern
ment experts you would put on the
Judge who had no knowledge what
ever 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 choose. to designate and not
/ the experts of the department Of agri-
culture the man to decide on any ques-
/ ton of any kind which the packers
4 thought is worth while to dispute 1Ou
NAV possibly remember the recent ju-
! dicfal decisions in Chicago in which the
/ packers were concerned). I wish to
repeat that this provision is. in my
Judgment one which if enacted into
! law. will nullify the major part of the
good which can be expected from the
i enactment of this law You assert that
the packers insist upon having rigid
1 inspectfon law passed. IF they sincere
| " desire rigid inspection law they
will insist upon this provision being
! taken out. Leaving 1t in is incompati-
BILE with securing properly efficient
Law.
Of my having made innuendos about q
| committee of the house or of your
knowledge of the English language, etc.
/ it is not necessary to make any answer.
point out specifically wherein the bill
fails to accomplish my purpose, it will
be promptly remedied.'
II am happy to tell you that I have
today seen q. member Of your commit
tee. Mr.. Adams seeing him by request
Of the speaker and went over with him
together with Mr.. MeCabe and Mr.. Rey-
/ nolds, the various points in which the
| bill as you have reported it fails to ac-
complish our purpose and made the
specific recommendation necessary IT
each case to remedy the failure, and II
/ each case Mr. Adams stated that hs
personally would accept the alterations
We proposed. He agrees with me thai
the court review proposition should bs
excluded. He agrees as to the dozer
other changes which we think SHOULD
be made. If these changes which Mr.
4 Adams says he thinks should be adopt
ed are adopted your amendment will be
come as good as the Reveridge amend
81 ment-fn Mr.. McCabe's opinion, some
what better than the Beverage amend