That was merely to compare experiences of all those packers under these questions submitted to him. It was not intended to conceal anything, but to see that their data, their experience, their statistics, corresponded in order that the Government could rely upon the truth of the facts that we were to give them. That is what they say about it. Mr. VOIGT. I do not think you have changed my mind about that. Mr. LIGHTFOOT. May be not, but I am not quite through with it yet. Mr. VOIGT. Each one of you was sent a questionnaire? Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Each one was sent a questionnaire which involved economic questions. I want to show you what they did. We would have had the right to sit in conference and to have discussed over the table all the things Mr. Veeder suggests in his letter, because we were called together jointly for that purpose. Mr. VOIGT. Right there: Was this questionnaire handed to you at this conference or sent to you by mail? Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Well, I was not present, and I do not know. Mr. CREIGH. At the conference it was agreed that the questions would be sent later by mail, which was done. Mr. LIGHTFOOT. I want to call attention to this fact, that the Federal Trade Commission in the summary of its report that you have there shows the fact that we met to answer these questions as a circumstance to prove a "combination" between these packers in violation of law. Mr. VOIGT. It does show that you were pretty closely allied when you get together to answer those questions. But what the Federal Trade Commission wanted when it sent out that questionnaire was the individual experience and observation and information from the people to whom the questionnaire was sent. And this letter states that the proposition was that you should all get together before you answered that questionnaire in order to remove anything that might be objectionable in any of your answers. Mr. CREIGH. On the other hand, the letter says get together after the answers were prepared and check them up. I will say that as far as the answer for Cudahy is concerned we had no help in getting it up. Before I got this paper printed which Gen. Lightfoot has in his hand I came down to the Federal Trade Commission and I said: The packers want to get publicity and have the people understand something about the business. This may be of some benefit. Do you mind our having it gotten out by the thousands and send it out for publicity. I am proud of that record. Mr. VEEDER. These questions asked for opinions on matters of political economy. The purpose of that was that we should discuss the various phases of the business and economic situation, and all that was meant to do was to point out economic conditions. There was a great chance for wide variance of opinion, and we wanted to have this understandable by and of benefit to the Federal Trade Commission. Mr. VOIGT. And that was just what the Federal Trade Commisison did not want; they wanted your individual opinions. Mr. VEEDER. I take it they wanted our best judgment. The lawyers thought we could get better results if we each wrote out our independent judgment, and from the judgment of the five take the best judgment as to the economic situation. We got together at the request of the secretary of the committee and we were working it out to the best advantage. Mr. KINCHELOE. Were your answers very much alike to those questions? Mr. VEEDER. They were quite similar. As a matter of fact, I do not think we ever got together and worked it out. After each wrote up his answer we exchanged them, but I do not think we ever changed them. Mr. KINCHELOE. They were sent in without being changed? Mr. LIGHTFOOT. The fourth question is: "What, if any, are the economic weaknesses of the existing system, and what remedies do you suggest for any existing evils?" I can not imagine how it would be evidence of a conspiracy in restraint of trade and a circumstance to prove a monopoly if all the packers met every day in the week to discuss that question and should come to the same conclusion on it. But the Federal Trade Commission said because we did do that, in response even to a movement initiated by the chairman of the commission himself, it was one circumstance relied upon to convict us of a monopoly. And that is why the Congress now is being called upon to legislate-because we are a monopoly, for the Federal Trade Commission says we are. And that is the only excuse for the legislation asked for. Senator Kenyon, one of the most active Senators who has been behind this thing, says that that is the only excuse for it. If there is no monopoly in this industry, then the whole reason for the law fails. Mr. TINCHER. You gentlemen have cooperated together leading up to this matter, and had fought hard a resolution that was offered in the Congress long before I came here the Borland resolution. You had kind of let the people of the country think by that fight-and I was nothing but a layman and I know what I thought and the correspondence that was subsequently published showed how you fought that investigation Mr. LIGHTFOOT (interposing). Do you know why that resolution was fought? Do you know that that resolution was predicated upon the charge, or set forth the charge, that we were a trust, a monopoly? Therefore we were Mr. TINCHER (interposing). Why didn't you say you were not, but that you were willing to go in and be investigated? Mr. VEEDER. There was that resolution and there were several of them. Each one in turn charged that the packers, naming Armour & Co. and Swift & Co., and so on, were violating antitrust laws and the resolution was that they should be investigated. While this very resolution was pending in the Congress I went to Mr. Hurley and said to him: These resolutions are pending, and the possibility is that sooner or later your commission will be asked by the Congress to make an investigation. I want to say to you right now we are not objecting to any investigation by you, but we are objecting to being named in a resolution before the Congress before a word of evidence has been taken as being violators of the law. Mr. TINCHER. I have examined all the correspondence I can find about the fight on the Borland resolution. There is no reference in any letter that I can find of any objection to the language contained in the Borland resolution. Mr. VEEDER. I think there are some that are not in that printed book. We fought that resolution as hard as we could because we did not want a resolution passed charging us in advance with being criminals. But here is what we did. We invited the markets committee of the Texas Live Stock Association, which was back of this resolution, to meet us in Chicago. They met us in the office of Swift & Co. There was Mr. Lasater, and Mr. Heard, and Senator Kendrick, and Mr. Burke, and all of them. Then there was Mr. Borders, Mr. Wilson, Mr. Swift, and Mr. Walter Fisher, the attorney for the markets committee. We discussed this matter. We told them we had no objection. to an investigation, but we thought there ought to be an investigation which would take into consideration the animal from the producer to the consumer; that we would help them to put some such resolution through. They agreed, and they themselves drew the resolution to which we consented. That resolution was to be introduced into the Congress, providing for an economic investigation of the industry, with the understanding that if the evidence showed anybody had violated the law, such investigation would not be considered an immunity from prosecution. And the packers said they would expect to be prosecuted if it was found they had violated the law. It was agreed that the investigation should be made from beginning to end of the industry, and that Walter Fisher should draw the resolutiou. The very next day after making that agreement, which they themselves drew, they got together on the Borland resolution in Washington, in which it was charged that the packers, naming them, had violated the law. We did not oppose that resolution except for the reason that it charged us in advance of violating the law; and we had told them we would help them to get a resolution which did not contain such a charge but provided for an investigation of the subject from start to finish. Mr. VOIGT. Did you ever suggest to Mr. Borland that if he would 'change the form of his resolution you would favor it? · Mr. VEEDER. We told that here. Mr. VOIGT. Did you ever say it to Mr. Borland ? Mr. CREIGH. I said then, six or seven years ago, how I felt. Mr. VEEDER. Mr. Kendrick and Mr. Lasater, and Mr. Burke and Gov. Stubbs and no end of people were there, and Mr. Mercer was there. They know what we said. Mr. TINCHER. At that time I was living out in Kansas and I know the thoughts of the stockmen, and I know we thought it was awfully funny that you went to the extent you did against that resolution. Mr. VEEDER. Mr. Mercer has a copy of that agreement, because he showed it to me the last time I was here. Mr. TINCHER. Of course, you could not be convicted of any crime by congressional resolution. Mr. VEEDER. We were convicted before there was an investigation. We were so charged in the resolution. It is in your records, as I introduced it in the Senate hearings and you can find it there. Mr. VOIGT. On page 30 of summary and part 1 of the report of the Federal Trade Commission I find this In addition to the general "combing' of the companies' files in anticipation of the investigation, attempts were made on certain occasions to abstract important documents from the files under the eyes of our agents. G. S. Sheppard, vice president of the Cudahy Tacking Co., admitted that he had ordered his stenographer to make an incorrect copy of a letter which the commission's agent had requested and had himself destroyed the document. Mr. CREIGH. May I state the facts about that? Mr. VOIGT. Certainly, if you know. Mr. Creigh. I was there at the time. The examiner came and asked for the letter. In that letter there was something reflecting upon a man's personal character. I said That has nothing to do with the matter, and if you have no objection we will cut that out. He said that was all right to cut it out. Mr. TEN EYCK. I now wish to offer this motion: That the chairman call a representative of the Federal Trade Commission before this committee before closing the hearings, to advise whether or not they sent their report of the so-called packers' investigation through the Secretary of State or otherwise to foreign countries; and, if so, to advise the reason for so doing. Mr. CLARKE. I second that motion. Mr. TINCHER. Well, now, let us not confine it to that request. Let us have a representative of the Federal Trade Commission come down here to answer all the questions we may want to ask him. Mr. TEN EYCK. That is all right. But we want him to come down here to answer about this particular thing. Mr. GERNERD. I join you in that. The CHAIRMAN. It will be for the commission to determine who they will send. Mr. TEN EYCK. We want a member of the commission who was there at the time and who can tell us the facts about it. The CHAIRMAN. Is that an invitation or a summons? Mr. TEN EYCK. It can be taken as an invitation, but we mean it to have the strength of a summons. We expect a man to come here who can tell us about this. Mr. MCLAUGHLIN of Nebraska. Of course, the Federal Trade Commission will be heard as they were before. I have been going through about 200 pages of Mr. Colver's testimony, and if the new members of this committee will take the pains to read that it will be seen that these very questions were asked Mr. Colver in the former hearings, and he has some statements in there about it. Before we pass a specific request of that kind I think we better go through the former report and see what he says. Mr. TEN EYCK. I do not want somebody to say what somebody else has said. Let us hear him now. Mr. JONES. Might they not think it was some other report. Hadn't you better make your motion a little more specific? Mr. TEN EYCK. Mr. Lightfoot, how should it be specified? Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Ask them to bring a copy of a letter which they wrote to the Secretary of State of the United States, asking him to transmit to the King of Belgium, and the Queen of Holland and the King of England and the President of Switzerland, and the President of Argentine, and so on, this report. Mr. TEN EYCK. I want to find out where that report was sent. If they asked the Secretary of State to send it and it was not sent I would like to know that fact. Mr. JONES. I would like to know about that letter, too. Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Suppose you ask him to bring a copy of the form letter that they inclosed with the report to the Secretary of State. Mr. TINCHER. Can we hear them to-morrow afternoon? The CHAIRMAN. We will have to hear them whenever they can come. Mr. TINCHER. Oh, no. We want to close these hearings as per our schedule. The CHAIRMAN. Are you ready for the question? [The question was called for and unanimously carried.] Mr. Rogers, after this brief interruption, you may continue. Mr. ROGERS. I want to apologize for taking up so much of your time with irrelevant matters. I believe I have nothing further to say unless you have some questions to ask. Mr. CREIGH. Will you hear Mr. Mayer? The CHAIRMAN. We will hear Mr. Mayer next. STATEMENT OF MR. OSCAR G. MAYER, SECRETARY AND GENERAL MANAGER OF OSCAR MAYER & CO., CHICAGO, ILL. Mr. MAYER. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I am secretary and general manager of Oscar Mayer & Co., a comparatively small packing concern with plants located at Chicago, Ill., and Madison, Wis. Our business was founded about 36 years ago by my father, who is still active in the business, and was founded primarily as a distributing business supplying the smaller retail merchants and delicatessen concerns in and about Chicago with their meat products. We give them a very close business service. Our plant is not located in the stockyards there but on the north side of the city, and our hogs are slaughtered for us in the stockyards by a company in which we have an interest. Up to about two years ago we had only the Chicago plant. But at that time we purchased this plant at Madison, from a defunct cooperative concern, and have been operating it since on a more or less independent basis. That is, we try to market as much of the products of that plant directly out of Madison as we can, and maintain our source of supply in Chicago as it has been. Our business amounts to between $10,000,000 and $12,000,000 a year, and of course as you can see is distinctly smaller than that of Mr. Hormel's or Mr. Taliaferro's who testified here on yesterday. We gather our hogs for the Madison plant from the surrounding territory, and only at times when we see a shortage do we go to outside markets, in which case we generally go to Sioux City or to St. Paul. We have not had to do that very much. We also lease a few refrigerator cars, only 10. We have found those 10 to be mightly valuable to us. I know our business, distributing and general packing business as we conduct it, and feel that I know it fairly and thoroughly. I also feel that through 12 years' experience and having been associated with the business since childhood, I have acquired a general knowledge of the business, and it is in that sense that I am here and trying to tell you the lines along which I think the packing business should be conducted. |