Jasper County Democrat, Volume 9, Number 10, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 9 June 1906 — WOE FOR THE PACKER [ARTICLE]

WOE FOR THE PACKER

Said To Be Done Up in a Report the President May Withhold. DEPENDS ON THE BIG BUTCHERS If They Defeat the Proposed Extra ’* Inspection, Publicity. If They Don’t, Then the PigeonholeCon ferrees on the Kate Bill Meet Senate's “Monumental Folly.” Washington, May 29.—An Important conference was held at the White House regarding the meat inspection amendment of Senator Beveridge, of Indiana, to the agricultural appropriation bill. The president discussed the question with Senator Carter, of Montana, and Professor Charles P. Neill, commissioner of labor, who investigated certain packing houses, and later talked over the matter with Beveridge. A part of the information, collated by Professor Neill and James B. Reynolds, of New York, who colaborated with Professor Neill, has been reduced to concrete form, but the Information in its entirety is not in the form of official reports. It is not the present Intention of President Roosevelt to make public this information. He does not regard it as official, in the same sense that term ordinarily is employed. Position of the President. At the conclusion of the conference Carter dictated the following statement bearing upon the president's attitude: “The meat inspection amendment placed on the agricultural bill has met with the opposition of the packers and their friends, who seem to be bending every effort to defeat it. The president says that if the amendment is enacted Into law he will be content to remedy the evils complained of there through the law. If, however, the amendment is defeated he will feet constrained in the discharge of his official dnty to the public to send to congress the reports in his possession relating to the abuses existing in the packing houses. Why He Opposes Publicitj* “He feels that it is better to refrain from making tlie reports public, not through any regard for the beef packers particularly, but because an official tatement of the facts would Injure the stock raisers of the country, thus making them innocent victims of a line of abuses for which they were not primarily in any sense responsible. The only answer.that can. be made to the consumers of our meats at home and abroad will be the enactment of a law through which an efficient and sufficient inspection shall be made.” Question of Who Shall Pay, Carter said that the packers have askeel for more time in which to consider the amendment. “One of the principal questions which they are considering.” he said, “is whether they or the government shall pay for the Inspection service. It seems a foregone conclusion that they will decide that Uncle Sam should pay for the work.” Beveridge believes it more practicable for the packers to pay the expenses of the inspection provided for In the amendment than for the government to pay them. He points out that the expense will not exceed 5 cents on a carcass of beef and 3 cents on a carcass of hog. While the aggregate of expense will probably be sl.500,000 a year, it will be so widely distributed that it will not fall as a burden on the CONFERREES GET TOGETHER Senator Calls the Pass Amendment “Monumental Folly.” Washington. May 29.—Ten minutes after the senate conferrees on the rate bill were appointed Chairman Elkins called a meeting of the joint conferrees and they assembled in Elkins' room. The meeting was only preliminary. though there was some discussion of the bill. The house conferrees were asked to present any objections they had to the “wisdom of the sen nate” in amending the hoqse bill. ‘'We commend to yon,’’ said one of the senators. “as a piece of our monumental folly the anti-pass amendment, but you may do as you will with it.” The reports of the Interstate commerce commission of its findings in connection with the recent hearings in Philadelphia, Washington and Cleveland Into the subjects of coal and oil will not be prepared for some time, and in the opinion of one of the commissioners they may not be ready in time for presentation to congress at its present session. The statement is made that only a part of the testimony has been beard, and that further hearings will be necessary before the commission will be in a position to prepare reports of Its conclusions. The times and places of such hearings will be announced as soon as. possible. SHERIFF SOMEWHAT DEFIANT Says the Supreme Court Is Responsible for a Lynching. Washington, May 29. —The government has taken steps to punish the jwrsons who were responsible for the lynching In Chattanooga, Teno., on March 19 last, of the negro Ed John-

son, who under .sentence of death for attacking a white woman had been allowed an appeal by the United States supreme court. In the supreme court Attorney General Moody filed an Information requesting that, in consideration of the acts committed by the twenty-seven men named, It Issue a rule upon each of them, to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt, of court. The rule was Issued as requested. Among the men named is the sheriff of the county. Now the sheriff has possibly laid himself liable to another charge of contempt. A telegram from Birmingham, Ala., says that “John F. Shipp, of Chattanooga, sheriff of Hamiltoncounty, Tenn., against whom steps have been taken by the federal government in connection with the lynching in that city in March, spent the day in Birmingham. Captain Shipp said he was not alarmed over the news from Washington and continued: “ ‘The supreme court of the United States was responsible for this lynching. I had given that negro every protection that I could. * * * In my opinion that act of the supreme court of the United States in not allowing the case to remain in our courts was the most unfortunate thing in the history of Tennessee. * ■ ♦ • The people of Hamilton comity were willing to let the law take its course until it became known that the case would probably not be disposed of for four or five years by the supreme court of the United States. The people would not submit to this and I do not wonder at it.’” Missouri Must “Pay the Freight.” Washington, May 29. —The supreme court has granted the motion of the state of Illinois for an order requiring the state of Missouri to pay the costs in the recent case between the states Involving the right of the Chicago sanitary canal to empty its waters in the .Mississippi river.