The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1910-01-11
Suggestion Made TO Repeal
Appropriation 10 En-
force Statute.
LIVELY CONTEST
DRAWING NEAR
Claim Made That Proposition
Would Cripple InspecdOn-In-
dependents Would Suffer.

Another effort is Oh foot 80 cripple
the meat inspection law Il Jed 10 a
lively row at the meeting or the
House Committee on Agriculture this
week
Representative MCDermOtr OF Chi
Csgo brought forward a proposition
10 repeal the law which provides for q
100000 annual and permanent apPro-
priatiOn for the purpose OF administer
ing the meat inspection statutes Mr.
McOermc+t is from Chicago. and his
district lies in the center OF the pack
ing house industry there
IN presenting the proposition for the
repeal OF the permanent annual APP
preparation. he IS regarded as running
parallel with the wishes Of The big
meat packers Of Chicago Representa-
tive HaUEeu OF Iowa. who Is friend
Of the meat inspection law and Of Sec
rotary Wilson, opposed NcDermott' S
proposition in warm terms and there
was an Interchange Of views for a
half hour or Whereabouts which was
both sharp and highly entertaining Rep
FeSenjaIye EauEen denOunce1 bitterly
the attempt to do what he considered
would emascUlate the meat inspection
law.
No Action Taken
The upshot Of che matter was that
the committee took no action for The
repeal of the permanent annual appTo-
pristion- AIr. Haugeu does not believe
It likely the appropriation can be- re-
pealed, though he fears further efforts
viii he made 10 do f.
In the speech he made 20 the commit
tee attacking the efforts % repeal the
permanent annual appropriation Rep
TeSenrauEe HauEtu declared that II the
permanent annual appropriation were
repealed the independent packers would
he put absolutely at the mercy OF the
Beef trust. He said there were sew
e-aE such Independent packing esla .
IiShueuts in his own district and that
they were SDr-uElLE up IN many places
He held they had been fCsreTed by the
meat inspection law He took the
ground hat no packer could exist ana
do any considerable business without
the Government inspection II The per
Tusuent annual appropriations were
Knocked ont. then, said Mr. HaUEenr
rhp big packers alone would set lnSpec-
t5on and the small concerns which are
Independent Of The Beef. trust would 80
II wzS pointed out by Mr- Haugen.
who is an iusurEeut, tEat II the per
rDaueu- appropriation were gone tnel
the amount Of money allowed tpr meal
inspection annually would be dependent
on the House Committee on AgriCul-
r-1-e. which i'm turn would be made Up
by the Speaker
Powers of Speaker
Thus the Speaker, at present Mr. Can
non. would have the say as 70 how
r-urh money should be used each year
20 carry out the meat inspection law
The independent packers IN other
words, s.s Mr.. HauEeu pointed out
would be practically in the hands OF
Uncle joe For his part. he did not
propose 10 see anything OF this kind
bauuen How the Speaker would use
this power might he judged from the
fact that he lrad depoSed all but two
members of the Committee on AgrleGl-
7-I-e last spring because they were not
10 his liking
Mr. HaUgen also went back 10 The
time when former Representative " ads
worth of New York was chairman Of
the Committee on Agriculture, and when
ne had successfully used his efforts 10
have $1,000 diverted from meat iuspec-
ton appropriation purposes TO the For
esrry Bureau He pointed TO this as au
T-ustra ton Of the hostility 10 the meat
inspection law which had prevailed iu
the Committee on Agriculture and ne
made II plain that he did not want the
appropriation for its enforcement made
the football Of one adverse influence or
the other. He recalled that one Of the
things Roosevelt insisted on in COnueC-
ton with this law was a permanent ap-
preparation large enough 10 insure its
ADEQUATE enforcement