Mr. NASH. I am talking about the total business.

Mr. VOIGT. The fact that a butcher in a small country town buys a hog and butchers that hog does not have any immediate effect on interstate commerce.

Mr. NASH. But there are plenty of other men who do not kill one hog but hundreds of hogs a week.

Mr. VOIGT. What I am trying to get at is, if you small packers only control 14 per cent of the interstate business, how are you going to absorb this vast quantity of material that comes on the market. You can not do it.

Mr. NASH. Well, the independent buyers are quite a factor in the markets from day to day. I do not want you to think that they are not, and if there is any point in this country where the hog producer or the cattle producer is being robbed there are plenty of independent packers ready to jump in and equalize the market in any market in this country. There is nobody getting away with any low stuff in any quantity.

Mr. VOIGT. Why, my dear sir, if you handle only 14 per cent of that business, it is impossible for you to absorb the other 86 per cent.

Mr. NASH. Yes; but it is not fair to take the interstate business and leave out all the intrastate business. That is not a fair comparison. Of the total business of the country according to the figures I have seen many times the independent packers have pretty nearly 50 per cent of the total pork business in the United States. The percentage of the big packers in the beef business is around 70 per cent. But in pork the independent packers do about 50 per cent of the total business.

Mr. PURNELL. That is intrastate and interstate?

Mr. NASH. Of all business.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection we will have these tables printed in the record.

Estimated number and percentage of meat animals by kinds in principal producing States and in the United States, Jan. 1, 1918.

[Supplied by the Bureau of Crop Estimates, Department of Agriculture.]

(Thereupon, at 12 o'clock and 55 minutes p. m., the committee recessed until 2.15 o'clock p. m.)

AFTER RECESS.

The committee reconvened at 2.15 o'clock p. m., pursuant to recess, Hon. Gilbert N. Haugen (chairman) presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. Are you ready to go on, Mr. Lightfoot?

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Yes, sir. I have several witnesses here. I will ask you to first hear Mr. Smith.

The CHAIRMAN. Has the witness that was on the stand this morning when we adjourned completed his statement?

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. We will hear from you, Mr. Smith.

STATEMENT OF HOWARD R. SMITH, OF THE JONES & LAMB CO., BALTIMORE, MD.

The CHAIRMAN. Will you kindly give your name.

Mr. SMITH. Howard R. Smith.

The CHAIRMAN. And what is your connection?

Mr. SMITH. Why, I am one of the largest stockholders in the Jones & Lamb Co. I was president of that company up to the 15th of March this year. I am not now actively connected with the company. The CHAIRMAN. And where is it located?

Mr. SMITH. Baltimore, Md.

The CHAIRMAN. Proceed, Mr. Smith.

Mr. SMITH. Gentlemen, I just want to state, as an independent packer, that we are bitterly opposed to any legislation whatever regarding the handling of the packing business. Now most of this artillery seems to be fired at the big packer, and I don't think it is out of order for me to just state briefly my experience in the meat business. I have been in the meat packing business 31 years. The first two years I was there I was connected with a local firm, in Baltimore, and from all reports I had heard, all the money in the world was connected with the big packers, so I thought it was a good idea to get tied up with one of them, and I did, so I was then associated with Morris & Co. for 13 years. I saw that I had considerably better opportunities with a smaller concern than with a big concern, and I couldn't see where they in any sense of the word were monopolizing the industry.

In 1906 I formed the Jones & Lamb Co., in Baltimore. I started it with practically a shoe-string, and we got along very successfully, doing a business of about from $8,000,000 to $10,000,000 a year. Now there was a great deal of talk here this morning about the competition in buying and selling. I just want to state that we have no trouble in buying all the stock we want, and we can buy just as cheap as the large or the small packers, and I might say the same thing applies to the selling.

And as far as the selling part goes, I would like to further state that, as far as the larger packer is concerned, for the same quality goods we can sell them to a better profit than the large packer.

So it

doesn't look to me that bug-a-boo of the packing industry-which is the large packers-is putting anybody out of business.

Now, as regards the selling of the product. This is a rather unusual business. The cost of it-and it may sound singular to the people who are not in the business-but the cost of it doesn't have anything to do with the selling price. In other words, you pay so much for the live animal, and in plain words, you sell it for what you can get for it. There is no relative cost which you can put on any cut of meat and say that you are going to get that for it, because you can not.

Now, the question came up during the investigation this morning about refrigerator cars. I would like to state that we don't own any refrigerator cars. We have, of course, not an extensive business, but we have called on the railroads for as many as four or five in one day. I don't know of any time where we failed to get them. So I don't see where the big packer has so much on us in that respect.

Another objection I have to a commission regulating the packing industry is this: It refers in this bill to their having the power to cause us to keep our accounts and records in such and such a way, and I want to say this, that in a business of our size-in fact with most of the small packers-it is not necessary to have the detailed reports and the amount of details that, for instance, a firm like Armour & Co. have. It is not necessary. They would crowd a whole lot of stuff on us of that nature, and it would absolutely swamp us with details.

Another thing about a commission of this character is this: When the Federal Trade Commission was investigating the packing industry they came to our place in Baltimore; two very nice affable gentlemen came to our place from the Federal Trade Commission. They there about three weeks. They really turned our office upside down. I didn't know whether they were hunting for mice or not; they got into so many things in our old records, but I know it detained us in getting out our yearly statement for about five weeks. So, remembering things of that character, I don't care about any more commissions calling on us if we can help it.

So far as we are concerned, we see no use for a commission of this kind and, furthermore, I think it would be very harmful to the smaller packer, at least.

Of course I am not here defending the large packer. I am speaking for the smaller packers, of which I am one.

Mr. JONES. Well, Mr. Smith, you would not object to any official seeing your books at any time, would you?

Mr. SMITH. Well, I would in this sense that I wouldn't want them to come in there like this commission did; they came in there and tied up our office for three or four weeks, and put us back five weeks in getting out our yearly statement.

Mr. JONES. Of course you would object to that, but you understand the national banks are operated on a system of periodical inspection.

Mr. SMITH. Exactly. But I don't think the banks and industries like the packers are on the same basis. I don't believe you can compare the two. An industry like the packing industry is quite

different from a national bank.

Mr. JONES. There are a great many details connected with the banking business, and yet the periodical inspection does not seem to interfere with their business.