MEAT PACKER. COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, The committee met at 10 o'clock a. m., Hon. Gilbert N. Haugen (chairman) presiding. There were present: Mr. Haugen, Mr. McLaughlin of Michigan, Mr. Purnell, Mr. Voigt, Mr. McLaughlin of Nebraska, Mr. Riddick, Mr. Tincher, Mr. Williams, Mr. Sinclair, Mr. Thompson, Mr. Clague, Mr. Jacoway, Mr. Aswell, Mr. Kincheloe, Mr. Jones, Mr. Ten Eyck. The CHAIRMAN. The committee has met this morning to give consideration to a number of suggestions and amendments that have been offered to the bill H. R. 6320, which is now under consideration by the House. Mr. ASWELL. I would like to ask for some information. I was informed yesterday that all of the farm organizations requested this hearing. I would like to know if all the farm organizations are represented here by individuals this morning; who are here to be heard? The CHAIRMAN. So far as I know, the only organization requesting this hearing was Mr. Marsh, of the Farmers' National Council. Mr. ASWELL. Who represents them here this morning? The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Lyman, Mr. Marsh, and Mr. Atkeson are here. The CHAIRMAN. With the permission of the committee, I would suggest that a communication which I have here be incorporated in this hearing; also a telegram. (The communications referred to are as follows:) Hon. GILBERT N. HAUGEN, WASHINGTON, D. C., May 25, 1921. Chairman Agriculture Committee, House of Representatives. DEAR SIR: We, the undersigned, as authorized representatives of national organizations of farmers, of consumers, and of labor, have carefully examined the provisions of the Haugen bill (H. R. 6320) to regulate the interstate and foreign commerce in live stock, packing-house products, dairy products, etc., and we urgently protest that this bill in its present form is inadequate and needs important revision before it can command our confidence or support. While we are in full sympathy with the object of the bill and recognize the earnest efforts that have been put into it by the committee, it as now reported falls seriously short of obtaining its objects for the reasons here set forth. 1. The most crying need of the live-stock producers and of the consumers of meats and other live-stock products is for authoritative current public information made possible, through the medium of uniform accounting systems, on the industry, on the state of the markets, on the costs and profits of the packers and other agencies operating between the producer and the consumer. We believe that, unless information of this character is specifically provided for, it will be impossible to secure that state of public confidence that is so sorely needed in this industry. This the Haugen bill does not do in its present form. 2. The bill inadvertently, we believe, but yet surely, takes the packers out from under the Sherman law and the antitrust acts, while leaving other industries still under the penalties of those laws. The packer legislation considered by the recent and present committees of Congress is in the nature of supervision of the industry. 543 It is frankly directed at some degree of administrative oversight of the business of the large packers, and it primarily relies on the supervision of these organizations rather than on the Sherman law. Nevertheless, it would be a sorry outcome of the investigation and of the consent decree to relieve these five great packing companies from the Sherman law. The new legislation, until its operation has been successfully tried out, should not be left to stand alone. The antitrust act should be retained in the background unimpaired. The Haugen bill appears to preserve the antitrust laws, but its phrasing is so defective as to really destroy those laws as far as the packers are concerned. Certain practices, conspiracies, agreements, etc., are made unlawful for packers by the Haugen bill and other practices are made unlawful by other bills. We believe that these enumerated practices in the different bills should be carefully correlated, the best provisions selected, and all of them tested as to the criterion of proof required, remembering that proof of intent is difficult. This makes it all the more necessary not to abandon the Sherman law until it is found how the courts will function on these new provisions. 3. The Federal Trade Commission performed the single service to the country, to producers and consumers, and to the packing industry itself in its investigation of the packers; and all of the organizations we represent have again and again indorsed the public service rendered by the commission and expressed their confidence in it. We, therefore, emphatically object to any curtailment or limitations of the powers of that body. Whatever active agency is provided for administering the proper legislation, we insist that the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Trade Commission act be retained unimpaired and ready for service at the call of the Fresident or either House of Congress should the emergency arise. Like the Sherman law it should stand in the background as a bulkwark until the new machinery has been tested and its efficiency and adequacy proven. If the bill is carefully drawn, this does not necessitate any duplication of effort or useless governmental expenditures. 4. The Haugen bill does not measure up to the needs of the times in that it does not provide for any constructive improvement in the system of marketing live stock and meat food products. Our system of marketing of commodities in general does not stand the test of efficiency and low cost. Whatever the efficiency of the meat packers, there is great need of improvement in lessening the outrageous spread in price between what the farmer receives for his stock and what the products cost at the consumers' table. We therefore urge two forward looking and constructive steps: (a) Adequate provision in the bill for farmers' cooperative live-stock commission firms operating in the stockyards under governmental supervision; (b) voluntary registration of stockyards, abbatoirs, and warehouses to secure all possible improvements in the marketing, slaughtering, processing, and storage systems, by means of nonfinancial Federal aid on the self-help principle. These are our principal reasons for asking that your committee give further consideration to the bill before pressing for its consideration on the floor of the House or its passage in its present form. We believe that the packers can not reasonably object to the provisions we have above urged, and that those provisions are necessary to make the legislation effective or worth passing. Respectfully submitted. George P. Hampton, managing director the Farmers' National Council; Edward F. McGrady, legislative representative the American Federation of Labor; Charles A. Lyman, secretary National Board of Farm Organizations; Benjamin C. Marsh, executive secretary People's Reconstruction League; Ed C. Lasater, member legislative committee for Live Stock; Mabel C. Costigan, National Consumers' League; T. C. Atkison, representative National Grange; H. E. Wills, assistant grand chief engineer and national legislative representative Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers; P. J. McNamara, vice president, national legislative representative Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Engine men; W. M. Clark, vice president and national legislative representative Order Railway Conductors; W. N. Doak, vice president, national representative Brotherhood of Railway Trainmen. Mrs. EDWARD P. COSTIGAN, Munsey Building, Washington, D. C.: NEW YORK, N. Y., May 27, Letter and inclosure received; please sign for National Consumers' League. 1921. FLORENCE KELLEY. (Referring to the statement presented to Chairman Haugen on May 26, 1921.) |