Mr. MARSH. Yes. It has not been stressed in the newspapers, because the packers are not the only ones who know about the effectiveness of propaganda. One of the troubles has been, since the railroads went back to their owners, that it has been impossible for some people at some times to get cars when needed, and this has occurred more and more. The Farmers' National Council has asked the Interstate Commerce Commission to thoroughly investigate the matter of discrimination in service, and rebates granted, under private ownership of railroads. And I will say this very frankly, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, that none of the progressive farmers in America, so far as I know, think there is going to be any permanent solution of the present disaster until the railroads are returned to Government control and Wall Street is thrown out of control. Of course that meets the situation which you have raised as to acquisition of stockyards and refrigerator cars and other special equipment cars for the railroads. But we do not need to wait six months or a year until the railroads go back to Government control or ownership.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Would that be a solution of the meat packing industry trouble?

Mr. MARSH. Would what?

Mr. WILLIAMS. Government ownership or operation.

Mr. MARSH. No; there is a clear line of distinction which I will be glad to make between the two. Any enterprise which in order to be efficiently and economically and honestly administered must be a monopoly, like transportation, should be owned and operated by the Government. On the other hand, the Government should not break into private industry where competition is essential, in our judgment. I am speaking now of the Federal Government and not of State governments.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Do not the railroads do a competitive business? Mr. MARSH. They compete in looting the Treasury; that is about the only competition in which they are engaged under the CumminsEsch law.

Mr. JONES. Don't you think we had better service prior to either Government operation or since the Cummins-Esch law?

Mr. MARSH. I will tell you frankly that I think the figures show absolutely that under Federal control the situation was better.

Mr. ASWELL. You made the statement that that was the period of most economical handling that has ever occurred in our history. If that be true how did it happen that the Government had to pay such a large bonus, and why did freight and passenger rates increase so greatly, if there was so much economy in management? Mr. MARSH. During the war?

Mr. ASWELL. Yes. Why did the Government have to pay out so much money to keep the railroads on their feet instead of increasing freight and passenger rates?

Mr. MARSH. In the first place, the Government did not have to pay out so much money.

Mr. ASWELL. Well, that is a question of opinion about which men

differ.

Mr. MARSH. Well, it is a fact that rates did not increase very much during the war.

Mr. ASWELL. Oh, a great deal.

Mr. MARSH. Nothing like they have increased since.

Mr. CLAGUE. They were a great deal higher than they were before, and we had about one-half as good service as we had before.

Mr. MARSH. I can give you a number of figures on that subject, but it would take 15 minutes, if you want me to do so.

Mr. ASWELL. You raised an interesting question. Let us have an

answer.

The CHAIRMAN. The rates were materially increased and the deficit was paid out of the Federal Treasury.

Mr. MARSH. Mr. Chairman, will you tell me of a single industry of any size in America which did not increase its prices from two to five times as much as the freight rates were increased under Government operation of railroads? I do not know of one that did not. increase from one to six times. When I said they were not increased very much I meant that they were not increased relatively to the increase in other lines. Mind you, when the farmer's prices went down 50 per cent the freight rates went up 33 per cent.

Mr. ASWELL. If you take into consideration the increase in freight rates during the war, and add to that amount what the Government did pay to the railroads in addition to those increases, your statement falls.

Mr. MARSH. Well, I would be very glad to answer that in detail. I will simply say, however, at the present time that I think you are mistaken.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you want your question answered, Mr. Aswell? Mr. ASWELL. Never mind if he does not care to.

Mr. MARSH. All right.

The CHAIRMAN. There were increases all along the line. There were increases in railroad rates, and the deficit was met out of the Treasury, and we had the poorest and worst service we ever had. Mr. CLAGUE. Yes; that was true of our country.

Mr. CLARKE. And there was deterioration in rolling stock and deterioration in roadbed and deterioration in morale, and the whole business was bad.

The CHAIRMAN. While that may not have been entirely due to Government control, yet that was the fact.

Mr. MARSH. It was due to the fact that the Wall Street crowd was in control and doing its best to make Government operation a failure, so as to defeat Government ownership of railroads.

Mr. WILLIAMS. The railroads in Russia to-day are being operated by the government, aren't they, and how are they getting along? Mr. MARSH. They are probably getting along without as much graft as is the case in this country, probably not 1 per cent of it.

Mr. MCLAUGHLIN of Nebraska. Let us get back to the packing business. We are here holding a hearing in reference to these packer bills, and I think we are getting a long ways off from the subject. The CHAIRMAN. Yes; let us get on with this.

Mr. MARSH. I want this to go into the record. The deficit under Federal control was less than $40,000,000 a month, if my memory is correct, about $40,000,000 a month, and has been about $102,000,000 or $103,000,000 a month under the Cummins-Esch law. We are raising the question as to what the relative deficit was. But my

46985-21-7

point is this, further, which is of great importance, not only are freight rates of importance to the independent packer, and to the farmer, and everybody else, but equality of service is of equal importance. You will agree to that, won't you, Mr. Chairman?

The CHAIRMAN. But, Mr. Marsh, if this bill is to be of any value at all it is simply to encourage the independent packer, and it is to do away with the waste you refer to of 5 per cent to 10 per cent in shrinkage.

Mr. MARSH. Yes; in the long hauls.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is, What do the independent packers want? I have conferred with a number of independent packers. There are two of them within 30 miles of my home. They say they are not interested in these privately owned cars, that they do not concern them. Mr. Hormel is here. His plant is within 30 miles of my home. I take it he will handle that proposition when he appears before the committee.

Mr. MARSH. There may be a difference of opinion.

The CHAIRMAN. I want to get at just why the railroads should acquire all the refrigerator cars. You have gone into that. Let us proceed with the hearing.

Mr. MARSH. Those are our chief suggestions, plus this one, and then I want to conclude. I want to present a brief statement as to this principle which we think ought to be taken into consideration in connection with this great food industry. There ought not to be a subsidy or any subvention out of the Public Treasury, but this legislation should provide that whoever is in charge of the supervision of the meat-packing industry should

(1) Furnish to registrants reports embodying existing knowledge concerning satisfactory and economical appliances and methods of food preservation by cold storage, freezing, cooking, dehydration, or otherwise, and of all improvements in the art, and to detail persons experienced in such art to consult and advise with registrants.

(2) Cooperate with registrants in procuring for them adequate services by common carriers, by rail or otherwise, including provision for special cars needed in the proper transportation of live stock, live-stock products, or perishable foodstuffs.

(3) Furnish to registrants all available information as to supplies of foodstuffs handled by such registrants and the location and movement and transportation costs of such foodstuffs.

(4) As far as practicable, when requested by any such registrant, provide for the inspection by agents of the commission of the live stock, live-stock products, or perishable foodstuffs received or distributed by such registrant, to determine the quality, quantity, or condition thereof, and for the issuance by such agents of certificates showing the result of such inspection; and in the conduct of such inspections to cooperate with duly authorized local authorities. Such certificates shall be accepted in the courts of the United States and of the States as prima facie evidence of the quality, quantity, or condition at the time and place of inspection of the live stock, live-stock products, or perishable foodstuffs covered thereby.

A question was raised this morning by Congressman Ten Eyck, and I believe he is not here, as to the marketing end of this matter. We think that this foodstuff or live stock commission should

concern itself in trying to encourage cooperative marketing, independent slaughterhouses municipal, cooperative, or other governmental agencies. And they have got to have help, because the big packers, despite their assertions to the contrary, and some of you gentlemen who were here last year will remember, I think, quite a discussion over that subject; I say they naturally do not encourage independent slaughterhouses and packing plants because it is not good business to do so. We believe the Government should assist

them.

These are our chief recommendations. I will conclude unless there are some questions that you wish to ask. And I am going to ask that the representatives of the four railroad brotherhoods may be allowed to appear and make a brief statement in behalf of this legislation. I would like to have Mr. W. M. Clark, vice president of the Order of Railroad Conductors, make a statement.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will be glad to hear Mr. Clark.

STATEMENT OF MR. WILLIAM M. CLARK, VICE PRESIDENT AND NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE ORDER OF RAILROAD CONDUCTORS, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Mr. CLARK. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, in appearing before you to-day I do so in behalf of the men in engine, train, and yard service represented by the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen, Order of Railway Conductors, and Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, comprising approximately 600,000 men. The railroad employees are materially and vitally interested in a proper solution of the question of control or supervision of the packing industry of the country in order that we, the consumers, may have meat products at the lowest possible reasonable cost, and at the same time we are interested in seeing that the producers, who are the farmers, are treated fairly and receive reasonable prices for their commodities and for the labor in producing such commodities. We realize as do all who are trying to contribute our part to the solution of the present problems the dangers of combinations which may eventually control and manipulate the necessities of life to the detriment of the producers and consumers of our country, and we believe that there is a possibility that unrestrained and unrestricted manipulation on the part of a few men may result in great injury to the American public. There, at least, may be an opportunity, by and through the means of consolidated interests, afforded for unrestricted control of the meat-packing industry of this country to such an extent that it would work an injustice and hardship to the people.

After sober and thoughtful consideration of this vital question, these four organizations have decided to favor proper and reasonable control or regulation of the packing industry; but being unfamiliar with many of the details incident to the shaping of proper legislation, we have decided to cooperate with the progressive farmers, who are thoroughly familiar with this question, and to render such assistance to them as is possible in their efforts toward control or regulation of the packing industry. We accordingly desire to place the organizations on record as favoring reasonable packer control or regulation,

and to indorse the position taken by the progressive farmer organizations in this connection, leaving the details to be worked out by the members of this committee and the gentlemen representing the farmers' organizations.

This statement is concurred in by Mr. H. E. Wills, assistant grand chief engineer and national legislative representative of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers; Mr. P. J. McNamara, vice president and national legislative representative of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen; and Mr. W. N. Doak, vice president and national legislative representative of the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen.

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I thank you for this opportunity to give expression to our views on the subject. The CHAIRMAN. The committee is very glad to have heard you. If there are no questions the committee will now hear Mr. Campbell. OF MR. VERNON CAMPBELL, OF SAN JOSE,

STATEMENT

CALIF.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I represent a group of farmers in California owning their own canneries, an organization known as the California Cooperative Canners.

We are interested in this bill, of course, not from the standpoint of stock growers, but from the fact that we have been selling quite a considerable portion of our pack of all kinds of fruit grown in California through the packers.

Mr. CLARKE. Did you say "to" the packers or "through" the packers?

Mr. CAMPBELL. Through the packers. We are interested particularly in the Haugen bill, which I take it interests this committee more than the other bills. As far as the other bills are concerned I do not know about that. We are not partiuclarly interested in the stock growing business, as I have said, and I will not attempt to discuss that matter. But I would say if I were allowed to settle the meat growing business I think I could settle it for all time to come by my conduct at home. Neither myself nor any member of my family eats any meat, and if others followed our example there would be no packer problem at all before you.

Mr. ASWELL. You seem to be quite a healthy specimen, too?

Mr. CAMPBELL. We have had about as healthy a family as you ever saw, and they have never eaten any meat and I have not done so in 30

years.

Mr. GERNERD. Are you a disciple of Dr. Kellogg ?

Mr. CAMPBELL. No, sir. I was born in Iowa.

Mr. TINCHER. The chairman eats meat.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Well, he does not look at all fierce.

The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed with your statement.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Section 403 of the Haugen bill begins:

Nothing contained in this act, except as otherwise provided herein, shall be construed

* *

*

And then if you will turn to subdivision (b), it states:

(b) To alter, modify, or repeal such acts or any part or parts thereof, or

(c) To prevent or interfere with any investigation, proceeding, or prosecution begun and pending at the time this act becomes effective, or