extended to it, but the producers' association, on the other hand, have not applied to have the service extended to it. They prefer to have the Government dockers do the work. Mr. SYKES. Yes; we prefer to have them under Government supervision. The CHAIRMAN. They are under Government supervision now. The CHAIRMAN. Aren't they under Government supervision? The CHAIRMAN. Well? Mr. SYKES. That is why they don't dock our hogs, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. That is what I was asking; why couldn't that be provided for? Mr. MORRILL. That question is at issue at the present time and has been presented to the Attorney General for decision, as to whether the Chicago Livestock Exchange, with respect to the dockers it employs as a market agency, being a market agency, whether it is compelled to extend the service upon the request of Mr. Watts of the Farmers' Union. The CHAIRMAN. There shouldn't be any question about it; here is the act which defines stockyard services: "The term 'stockyard services' means services or facilities furnished at a stockyard in connection with the receiving, buying, or selling on a commission basis or otherwise, marketing, feeding, watering, holding, delivery, shipment, weighing, or handling, in commerce, of livestock." Mr. MORRILL. If the Attorney General should hold that the Chicago Livestock Exchange is a market agency and required to extend the services, we will immediately carry that into effect, as to Mr. Watts. But, as to the Producers' Association, they inform us that that is not what they want. Mr. WATTS. I would like to put you right, so far as the Farmers' Union is concerned. I have made application for the services of the docker under the theory that he was a public service, that he was paid by the producers of the country, and I asked for that service until such time as the Department of Agriculture could get this law interpreted and decide if they have supervision over this docker and could compel him to dock hogs for everybody in the yard. It was just an emergency proposition until such time as the legal department of the Department of Agriculture could decide on the proposition, which has been up 11 months now. If Mr. RUBEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to ask Mr. Morrill a question. you were called upon to put into service-for instance, if this bill went into effect and it became necessary for the department to put men into the stockyards and exercise supervision over them under the policy pursued by the Secretary, in selecting the men wouldn't you have to go into the stockyards and get the men who had been in the service, who are doing these things, and who are able to do these specified duties? You couldn't bring them in from the outside, could you? Mr. MORRILL. In all cases we brought in men who had had some type of experience whereby they would know how to deal with matters occurring in the stockyards. There were various types of Some had been in business in the stockyards; some had been men. shippers and producers and had business relations with the stockyards. Mr. RUBEY. What I was getting to is this. If we passed a law requiring you to put into the stockyards all over the country weighers and dockers, wouldn't you have to select the men, practically, that are doing that work now? Mr. MORRILL. In all probability, speaking broadly, we would select just the same men who are doing it right now. Mr. RUBEY. You couldn't put a civil-service man in from Washington to do the weighing and docking? Mr. MORRILL. It would be impracticable, undesirable, and inefficient. Mr. SYKES. And the producers wouldn't stand for it. Mr. RUBEY. As a matter of fact the people who are now doing the docking and weighing would be employed, and the only exception would be where there was some complaint against a particular individual or something of that sort. The point I want to bring out is this: This morning a gentleman testified and said that when the noon hour came, if they had some men there from Washington, or some appointee of the Secretary, that he would want to quit at 12 o'clock and stay off a half hour or an hour, and tie up the business. Is that true? Mr. MORRILL. He wouldn't do it if I had anything to do with it. Mr. RUBEY. I didn't think so, and I just wanted to bring that point out. Mr. E. C. BROWN. How about the labor union? Mr. RUBEY. They are not in this. We are talking about the Secretary of Agriculture. Mr. MORRILL. I think such a thing would be very unreasonable and it would be highly improper. We all recognize that here is a business that must go on. It can not stop at 12 o'clock just because a man wants to eat his lunch. As a matter of fact the men who weigh do eat their lunches. They don't starve, but arrangements are made by which the weighing goes right on. The committee should not get the inference that the people in the stockyards don't eat. They do eat, and so will the Governinent employees eat, but arrangements will be made by which the work would go on whether they eat or not. I think that is something that is aside from the real issue involved. The CHAIRMAN. You would not have any trouble in finding weighers and dockers, would you? Mr. MORRILL. No, sir. The CHAIRMAN. It doesn't require much skill, does it? Mr. MORRITL. Oh, yes; it does. Mr. SYKES. Yes, sir; it does. The CHAIRMAN. A man if he can't dock a piggy sow or stag he should not be in the stockyards. Mr. SYKES. You have the men already, but we want to put them under Government supervision, unless they show themselves unfit-The CHAIRMAN. I understood you to say that they are put under proper supervision you would be satisfied. Mr. SYKES. Yes, sir; we are not kicking against the dockers. The CHAIRMAN. It is just a question of whether you do the weighing or whether you insist on the secretary doing the weighing? Mr. SYKES. Of course, as I said, I have always advocated that the weighing should be done at these great terminal markets by some government official. The CHAIRMAN. If you could have supervision and inspection of weighing you would be satisfied? Mr. SYKES. The facts are that I never knew the Government was supervising them as closely as it is at the present time, until these men testified this morning. Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, in view of the turn that has been taken in the presentation of the department's position in connection with the bill 6424, I should like to be heard, if there is any intention on the part of the committee to consider the passage of that bill in its pres ent form. The CHAIRMAN. Of course, I can not speak for the committee. Mr. BOYD. In view of the fact that it has taken that turn, I would like to ask to be heard fully in regard to it, because it is a very serious matter. Mr. WILLIAMS. Is your objection limited to the provision for suspension without a hearing? Mr. BOYD. We have that objection and two other objections. Mr. RUBEY. What are the other two objections! Mr. BOYD. In connection with section 5 it is proposed that the cease and desist order served upon an agency at Jacksonville, Fla., will have the same force and effect as if served upon an agency at Portland, Oreg. Mr. CLARKE. I didn't so understand it. The intention is to serve the orders by registered mail or in person in all instances. Mr. BOYD. I understand, but when you serve that man he will not have a copy of the complaint. He will have no notice as to what transpired at the hearings, and will have no comprehension of the matter until the cease and desist order has been served on him. The practices with respect to livestock are different in different sections of the country. If it applies to a particular market we have no objection to it whatever. A man in a particular market where there is a hearing is able to step in and intervene if his interests are in jeopardy, but a man in Jacksonville ought not to have to go to Portland, Oreg., to preserve his rights. Now, in connection with section 2 of the bill, we object to the language with regard to making rules and regulations. We think the language should say that where there has been a failure on the part of an agency to provide proper rules and regulations that the Secretary may prescribe those rules, leaving it up to the agency in the first place. We have filed rules and regulations, and so far as I know they are satisfactory to the department. Then there is a provision made for the appointment of a committee, and in our judgment that language should be that the committee shall have the right to settle differences between groups in the market, but so far as our committees are concerned, and we have to carry the heavy end of this business, we want our committees free to exercise the duties that we feel they must be free to exercise in order to keep the market running in the shape in which it should be run. I do not think there is any intention on the part of the department to interfere with that, but we would like to have the language clear enought to indicate that that is the purpose of it. Mr. RUBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that the gentlemen who has just spoken prepare his objections and file them in the record in order that the committee might have them. The CHAIRMAN. Will that be satisfactory, Mr. Boyd? Mr. BOYD. I take it that will be satisfactory. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, it is so ordered. The statement will be incorporated in these hearings. The CHAIRMAN. Then that concludes the hearing, and without objection, the committee will stand adjourned until 10 o'clock Monday morning. Mr. JOHN BROWN, FARMERS UNION LIVESTOCK COMMISSION, Union Stockyards, Chicago, Monday, March 3, 1924. Care Harrington Hotel, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. BROWN: I hope you will record the following into the record as my statement on the proposition of Government weighing and docking. As long as these two services are recognized as a public service they should be performed by a public servant, paid, hired, and fired by the Government or the Department of Agriculture. There can never be any satisfactory settlement so long as this public service is performed by those who are subject to dismissal by private interests, for supervision under these conditions will always be more or less a farce. It is vitally important to the livestock producers that at the terminal markets where the value of their stock is determined and where they can not be personally; that they have some one disinterested and uninfluenced in any way by private interests. In common fairness to the producers the department should perform this service. Yours very truly, MILO RENO. (Whereupon, at 12 o'clock noon, the committee adjourned until Monday, March 19, 1924, at 10 o'clock a. m.) COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, The committee met, pursuant to adjournment of Saturday, March 8, 1924, at 10 o'clock a. m., Hon. Gilbert N. Haugen (chairman) presiding. Present: Representatives Haugen (chairman), Purnell, Voigt, McLaughlin, Williams, Sinclair, Thompson, Clague, Clarke, Ketcham, Aswell, Kincheloe, Jones, Swank, Rubey, Johnson, Doyle, and McSweeney. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will kindly come to order. Mr. WILLIAMS. Before proceeding, Mr. Chairman, I have a unanimous-consent request to make. It is almost necessary for me to be away for the next week or possibly 10 days on matters that I have pending, and I want to ask unanimous consent of the committee that in the consideration of the Haugen-McNary bill I be accorded the privilege of voting with the chairman on such amendments to his bill as he desires, and if the matter comes up of reporting the bill out favorably I want to be recorded as voting in favor of reporting the bill out of committee. I know this is a rather unusual request, but, as you all know, I have been diligent in attendance. and it is very necessary for me to go home for a few days. The CHAIRMAN. Is there any objection? Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. WILLIAMS. Now, with regard to House bill 5944, which I introduced, and on which we have had a hearing, I want to make a motion that that bill lie on the table. Mr. CLARKE. That is the packers and stockyards amendment? Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes; No. 5944. As I stated at the time, I introduced it merely to give opportunity for hearing; we have had the hearing, and I do not think it impresses anyone as desirable to go any further with the bill. Mr. SYKES. Mr. Chairman, I am the president of the Producers' Cooperative Commission Association, and may I just say a word? The CHAIRMAN. Yes, Mr. Sykes. Mr. SYKES. I do not know whether I made my position on this bill clear on Saturday or not. Mr. Watts has stated his position only as to the last four lines of the bill. We are absolutely opposed to the first section of the bill, which would require a cooperative selling agency to secure the consent of its members and get them to sign a contract binding themselves to be responsible and all that. The CHAIRMAN. You have no objection to our disposing of it by laying it on the table? That settles the bill. Mr. SYKES. No; Mr. Chairman. I simply wanted to state my position on it. The CHAIRMAN. You have heard the motion. Are there any questions? (The motion, having been duly seconded, was unanimously carried.) The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further requests? I have here a letter and telegram which I desire to incorporate in the hearing. G. N. HAUGEN, MASON CITY, Iowa, March 10, 1924. House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.: Referring to my letter to you dated March 4, reference to Capper bill, S. 2809, please have same made a part of the record of the hearings held in connection with such proposed legislation. JAY E. DECKER, President Jacob E. Decker & Sons. Mr. G. N. HAUGEN, MASON CITY, Iowa, March 4, 1924. House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. HAUGEN: I am in receipt of yours of the 27th with inclosures. I have read all of the material which you sent me in connection with hearings on the Mistletoe yards, also Department of Justice opinion on the Mistletoe yards proposition. As I see it, every packer not located on a public market is conducting his hog buying on practically the same basis as the Fowler Packing Co. at Kansas City is doing, with the possible exception that most of the Iowa packers have the greater part of their hogs bought before they are received. However, we always buy some hogs on what we call the open market, and if this bill should become a law I can see nothing that would prevent the establishing of public markets near every packing house in Iowa, which would force the Iowa packers to buy their hogs in these public markets, and instead of eliminating the middle man and the expense incident thereto, our livestock would have to be purchased through commission men, who exact a commission from the shipper or producer, also make him pay yardage, feed bills, and other charges incident to marketing livestock in the public market. |