The Minneapolis journal., 1906-06-16

t1On Legislation. This 1S the prospect
unless the house should conclude to
yield. ~
ADAMS GIVES HOPE
Committee Member Admits President
| is Right ia .-..1-..,
Washington, June 16. - President
Roosevelt has added another chapter
controversy. It was not thru any de-
sire Of his that the correspondence be
tween himself and Representative
Wadsworth, chairman Of the house com
mittee on agriculture, was published in
Its entirety. 1nasmuch, however, as
Chairman Wadsworth deemed it desira-
bic, that the letters should be published
| ident regards it proper to complete the
correspondence thus far presented by
the publication Of his reply to Mr..
| Wadsworth' g letter. -@s.S - ,&1,.sI r
In his letter the president, while
mitting his error in stating that
house substitute contained no provision
for the making Of the inspections Of
or night, says the substitute still is
inadequate to meet the requirements Of
the situation. The president says that
after conference with Representative
Adams Of Wisconsin, member Of the
agricultural committee, he is convinced
Mr.. Adams will accept the suggestions
made to him regarding the blu. He
says that Mr.; Adams, in each case,
"stated that he personally should ac-
cept the alterations proposed.O
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 substitute 90 as good as
The president adds he is not con-
cerned about the language Of : the
amendment but with the accomplish
ment of the object In view, ga thoro
and rigid and not a sham inspection.'
Presidents Letter.
Following is the text Of the presi.
dent 8 letter to Chairman Wadsworth:
1.-THE White House, Washington, D.
"My Dear Mr.. Wadsworth:
"In the first place I wish promptly
your letter in which you are in the
main right. was in error in the state.
ment which I accepted from Senator
Beveridge that there was no provision
for making the plants accessible at all
uouiS W Cuo 1uSpectO1s. 1ue plOVAoAOn
was put ). IN at another place; but ii
ion;
1.-THE court provision is the one tc
which most object, altho by no means
the only one to which l object; it is
, one Of many. AS regards this I wish
to repeat that, if deliberately de-
signed to prevent the remedying of the
evils fomplaiHsd Of this Is the exact
packers and the packers themselves
would have provided. It is absurd tc
assert that any such provision il
needed. Why have you not put such
proposition in the postoffice law as il
affects fraud orders9
Congress cannot take away the con
stitutional right of the packers or Of
: 1!courts.q But such a;provision {. as tina:
under consideration does not represen
a desire to secure the constitutions
rights Of any man. It represents, doubt
less, in some cases an honest, tn,
wholly mistaken, convictions; in othe
cases, it represents a deliberate purpos
to interfere with effective administra
r courts shall in reality do administra
tive work which they would be first t.
assert their inability to perform.
Consequences Pointed Out.
3 eff the bill as you reported it from
? the committee were enacted into Law
4 you would have the functions Of tn
/ secretary Of agriculture narrowly lin
8 tied SO as to be purely ministerial; an
: when declared a given slaughterhous
unsanitary, or a given product ur
t wholesome, acting on the Judgment o
: the government experts, you would pu
b on the judge, who had no knowiedg
s whatever Of the conditions, the burde
OF stating whether or not the secretar
r I'm Chicago, for instance, you woul
chose to and p not 'tS the eseaei eSper1
7 OF the department of agriculture, th
q man to decide on any question of an
y kind which the packers thought
8 worth while to dispute (You possib]
y remember the recent judicial decisio
- - In Chicago in which the packers wei
y concerned.)
10 ."I wish to repeat that this prov
o sion is in my Judgment, one which, :
h enacted into law, will nullify tt
o major part Of the good which can /
law. You assert that the packers i
sist upon having rigid inspection la
passed. IF they sincerely desire rig
inspection law, they will insist upc
this provision 8 being taken out. Lea
At ing it in is incompatible with securir
N a properly efficient law. -.
"To SO much of your letter as spea]
Of my having made innuendos about
20 committee Of the house or Of 70,
d knowledge Of the English 1anguag
n etc., it is not, necessary to make al
Il, answer. You. state that if I or my a
u visers will point out specifically wher
J. in the bill fails to accomplish my pu
"a pose, 1T will be promptly remediedy.
[e "1 am happy to tell you that + ha,
today seen a member Of your comm,
- tee, Mr.. Adams, seeing him by reuue
Of the speaker, and I went over wi
n, him, together with Mr. McCabe a,
. Mr.. Reynolds, the various points
IN which the bill, as you have reported
fails to accomplish our purpose, al
~ made the specific recommendati
i necessary In each case to remedy t
failure; and in each case Mr.. Ada1
E stated that he personally would acce
the alterations we proposed. He agre
with me that the court review propo
tion should be excluded. He agrees
en- to the dozen other changes which 7,
"a. think should be made. If these chang,
~ which Mr.. Adams says he thinks shou
on on be adopted, are adopted, your amen
ment will become as good as the Be
de eridge amendment-in Mr.. McCabe
Is: | oninion somewhat bettar a. than ~