past week, that he has purchased some $2,000 worth of twine for one of his seine fishermen and, without a scrap of paper, felt perfectly comfortable about it and expected it to be repaid at the end of the season; that that was not an unusual circumstance that he had done so.

Mr. MOTT of Oregon. I would like to ask the witness how the proposal or scheme outlined in this bill would affect the salmon fisheries of the Columbia River. I live out there and am particularly interested in those fisheries.

The CHAIRMAN. I do not know whether you were in here when Mr. Stone read the telegram from Seattle asking him to represent them in support of this bill.

Mr. MOTT. I think he was reading the telegram just as I came in. Mr. STONE. I believe, sir, you are referring to the Astoria, Oreg., group?

Mr. MOTT. Yes; particularly.

Mr. STONE. I have had some correspondence with them. I believe the same benefits would be obtained if they qualified under the provisions of the bill, and their very definite feeling is the provisions of the bill would be helpful to them, from the personal correspondence which I have had with their secretary.

Mr. MOTT. Was that the secretary of the fishermen's union out in Astoria?

Mr. STONE. I believe so.

Mr. MOTT. Now we have only one cooperative fishing and canning association on the lower Columbia River and that is Union Fishermen's Cooperative Association. In that association, the fishermen are principally stockholders in the cannery, but all of the rest of our canneries are privately owned and the fishermen simply catch the fish and sell them to those canneries, and I would like to know whether your bill would help the fishermen who simply sell to the private canneries and who have nothing to do with the ownership or operation of the cannery?

Mr. STONE. I would not say it would, sir.

Mr. MOTT. The benefits of this bill, as I understand, go only to the cooperative associations?

Mr. STONE. Yes, sir; and the benefits would accrue only indirectly. And quite frequently, contrary to some general opinions, sound cooperative organizations do indirectly, and frequently directly, benefit the other organizations that are in the same field.

Mr. MOTT. I think that is true. The price paid the fishermen by the Union Fishermen's Cooperative Association affects, to some extent, the price paid by private canneries to their own fishermen; but I was wondering whether your bill would help the fisherman who did not belong to the Union Fishermen's Cooperative Association? Mr. STONE. I would not say so, other than indirectly.

Mr. MOTT. They cannot all belong to that association, you know. It takes money to buy that stock and become, in effect, a partner in the canning company.

Mr. STONE. Only to the degree, of course, in which fishing-boat owners and fishermen who have a situation in which are not actually and satisfactorily served can there be any occasion that I can see for the employment of a cooperative association.

Mr. MOTT. Now, the fishermen on the lower Columbia River, whether they sell to the Union Fishermen's Cooperative Association or not, belong to the union. Would this bill help them? They are catchers and sellers.

Mr. STONE. Not unless they qualified under the provisions of the bill. There may be others here who may take a different view on it. The CHAIRMAN. They may form a cooperative association to protect themselves from the low prices paid by the private canneries. Mr. STONE. Yes, sir; they could. That is what I mean by saying unless they qualified under the provisions of the bill for its benefits. The CHAIRMAN. Do you want to make a statement, Mr. Mott? Mr. MOTT. I believe not at this time. My purpose in coming here was to get what information I could.

STATEMENT OF ISIDOR MARGOLIS, ON BEHALF OF THE SOUTHERN NEW ENGLAND FISHERMEN'S ASSOCIATION

Mr. MARGOLIS. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I represent the Southern New England Fishermen's Association, having its office at Mystic, Conn. The association has from 500 to 600 members, producing some 35,000 or 37,000 barrels of fish yearly, of the approximate net value of $250,000. All of this fish is shipped to New York City for distribution.

The problems confronting our members can be well described as different aspects of the problem of marketing. With your permission, I will mention three of these that have direct connection with the legislation that is the subject of this hearing.

When the boat of one of our members has been well stocked with his catch, his worries have only begun, for fish on the boat is useless. It must be delivered at some point where it can be shipped to market. The question is, Where can the fish be docked?

The fisherman has three choices, each of which really offers no choice, for each one of the three docks is privately owned, and although ostensibly the fisherman is given the privilege of landing his fish gratis, he really is paying quite dearly for this privilege, for in return for docking privileges he must buy all of his gear and tackle equipment from the owner of the dock, as well as the barrels in which he ships his fish to New York.

The CHAIRMAN. You do not have an auction block like they do in Boston?

Mr. MARGOLIS. No; no service is rendered to the fisherman that he could not well perform himself; yet he must pay the profit demanded on all these items. Further, he can ship his fish to New York only in the trucks that are permitted to come on the dock by the owner. The truckman pays for this privilege to the dock owner and adds this amount to his charge. Thus, at the very outset of the marketing operation, the fish is saddled with unnecessary costs.

How much cheaper could this be accomplished if our members had their own dock? This requires capital and, although we could raise a part of it, we cannot raise all of it. To apply to the banks for a loan for such a project would be useless. They would do nothing against the interests of their depositors, owners of the other docks. Here is one example where the contemplated Fishery Credit Corporation could be of great assistance.

Now, let us look at the next step in the process of marketing. All the fish is sent to New York City, some 4 hours ride. Here it becomes part of the great school of fish affecting the general price level and being affected by it. Then a good part of it is reshipped to parts of Connecticut. There is no good reason why the cost of shipment to New York City and back should be added to the price of fish that could be shipped directly to the nearby markets. Connecticut and other parts of New England offer excellent outlets for huge quantities of fish, and especially would this be so if the price of fish could be lowered by lopping off the unnecessary cost of shipment to and from New York City, and the fish could be gotten in better condition to the consumer. This could benefit both the consumer and the fisherman. The question then presents itself why is this not done.

This leads me to my third point, namely, the need for cooling and storage facilities. In order to develop the local markets of New England, we must have a place to keep the fish for a while. We must have a cooling plant where we can store our fish prior to "lotting" and shipping to the local markets. We would need such a plant to counteract the overabundant supply that sometimes meets a sluggish demand, as well as aid the bigger catch in hard seasons. The effect of steadying the supply and thus preventing great fluctuation in price would be to assure a greater and steadier demand.

Such a plant would best be built on the very dock. But here again some $6,000 or $8,000 would be necessary, only part of which our association could raise. Here, also, it would be useless to apply to a local bank for a loan, as the same influences would oppose it. Here, too, the proposed Fishery Credit Corporation could do excellent service in giving the fisherman a helping hand in his attempt to help himself.

I have tried to show some of the important problems confronting the fisherman that could be solved only by means of a set-up as contemplated by this bill. There are many others as well. It is for this reason that the Southern New England Fishermen's Association is unequivocally and whole-heartedly in favor of this bill, despite the obvious inadequacy of the sum appropriated.

We hope that this bill will receive your favorable recommendation and that the forgotten fishermen will also be remembered by this administration among the other forgotten men.

The CHAIRMAN. That is a very valuable contribution. Are there any questions?

Mr. OLIVER. Can you make any statement as to the range of prices that is in effect between the price that the fisherman actually gets for his fish and the retail price that is finally collected from the consumer?

Mr. MARGOLIS. Well, the range is quite a fluctuating one, depending on whether the supply is large or small.

Mr. OLIVER. Could you cite just a couple of instances that might serve as examples?

Mr. MARGOLIS. In some cases the difference is anywhere from 5 to 8 cents a pound.

Mr. OLIVER. You are speaking now of the actual whole fish that were brought into the dock and the price finally paid by the con

sumer.

Mr. MARGOLIS. That is right.

Mr. OLIVER. I had an idea it was a wider range than that.

Mr. MARGOLIS. It depends on the particular season. I am talking now of the last part of the season.

The CHAIRMAN. I call attention, Mr. Oliver, to a statement made in 1934 by Captain Proctor, president of the Master Mariners' Association, of Gloucester, Mass., I do not know whether the same condition exists now, or not

I was in Chicago this summer

That was in 1933

with Captain Pine, of the schooner Thebaud, and while there I saw mackerel sold for 35 cents a pound while our men were receiving 12 cents.

Mr. MARGOLIS. That is not exceptional.

The CHAIRMAN (reading):

And they would have got down to a cent if it was not for themselves forming together and curtailing the production of fish and bringing in 20,000 pounds where they could bring in 80 or 90 thousand if they wanted to.

Then, there was some evidence at that time along the same line. You say that is an exception?

Mr. MARGOLIS. I say that is not exceptional.

The CHAIRMAN. It did not appear to be exceptional from the testimony that was brought out by us at that hearing.

Mr. OLIVER. That range of prices is due to some extent, possibly, to the lack of equipment of these fishermen themselves?

Mr. MARGOLIS. That is right.

Mr. OLIVER. For processing?

Mr. MARGOLIS. They cannot do any processing at all, because they have not the equipment. They know the art of processing and could do it if they had the equipment. That again depends on the possibility of getting a loan, which is not forthcoming from any bank.

The CHAIRMAN. They also have to have facilities, such as you suggested a while ago, for storage and things of that kind, to take care of the surplus?

Mr. MARGOLIS. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. In a period of glut?

Mr. MARGOLIS. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. In order that they might hold their fish off of the market, and so maintain the market.

Mr. MARGOLIS. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. There is also considerable question as to the method whereby the fish are transported to market, is there not, as, for instance, that they shall be transported in such a way that the consumer knows he is getting a good product?

Mr. MARGOLIS. That is right, and the proper icing facilities, and

so on.

Mr. OLIVER. Do you think, Mr. Margolis, that this bill would be of great value to small fishermen ?

Mr. MARGOLIS. I definitely think it would be of the greatest value to the small fisherman-the man who positively cannot get any help anywhere else. This is something he has been looking for and did not know where he could get it.

The CHAIRMAN. In the hearings in 1934, Dr. Sirovich asked the question of one of the witnesses:

Why should mackerel sell at 35 cents a pound, when they only paid 50 cents a hundred? Where does the profit go?

Mr. MacInnis answered:

That is what we have been unable to find out. That is where the distribution system does not seem to keep pace with the production system, and that is what the producing fishermen are complaining about.

Mr. MARGOLIS. That is true today, too.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further questions?

Mr. SEGER. You say your fishermen come from the southern part of New England. What does that embrace?

Mr. MARGOLIS. Mostly from Connecticut.

Mr. SEGER. Now, if you located a distribution plant or a cold-storage plant, have you any place in mind where you would go?

Mr. MARGOLIS. Well, we could locate it right in Mystic, Conn., where the headquarters of this organization are.

Mr. SEGER. Then you would not send your fish to the New York market at all?

Mr. MARGOLIS. There would be no need, probably, for sending any of the fish to the New York market.

Mr. SEGER. You would distribute them around Boston and New England?

Mr. MARGOLIS. Also in parts of Connecticut-Bridgeport and those cities.

Mr. SEGER. Is that a large enough market for them, to make it profitable?

Mr. MARGOLIS. I think they would take care of most of the fish. Mr. SEGER. Would you then, as cooperatives, control the market price? Would not the natural thing be for you to keep the price on a par with those who now buy fish from you and sell it? You would not undersell them to any great extent, would you?

Mr. MARGOLIS. No; certainly we would not undersell them to any great extent, because the practice has shown that cooperatives, if anything, tend to higher prices-to keep prices high, rather than to bring them down lower. As a matter of fact, as I understand, in other parts of the country where there are cooperatives, they are definitely keeping prices up so that those who are not in cooperatives will come around to paying higher prices.

Mr. SEGER. I meant by underselling, if they were selling fish for 30 cents a pound, which would be an enormous profit, you would not sell for 20 cents or 25 cents?

Mr. MARGOLIS. No; certainly we would not. The only thing is that extra profit would go back to the producers who are getting nothing

now.

Mr. SEGER. The consumer thereby would not be benefited?

Mr. MARGOLIS. Not unless everybody agreed to lower prices. There would not be such a thing as undercutting.

Mr. OLIVER. Do I understand you to say, Mr. Margolis, that the establishment of additional cooperatives in the fishing industry would tend to increase the price to the consumer?

Mr. MARGOLIS. No; I do not say that, but I say it would tend to give the fishermen a bigger return on the present price, as it is now.