Mr. TINCHER. Mr. Chairman, I presume every one understands that the proponents of the different measures are to have to-day and to-morrow, and Friday afternoon, and the opponents are to have Wednesday and Thursday, and the morning of Friday.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. The secretary of the National Live Stock Exchange is also here. You will confer with him. If there is any disagreement among you

Mr. VEEDER. We will refer it to you to arbitrate.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will arbitrate for you.

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. We will try to accommodate anybody, so far as our time is concerned, who wants to appear in opposition to the bill, whether they are packers or commission men or whatever they may be. Mr. TINCHER. And the chairman will control the time of the proponents of the legislation.

Mr. KINCHELOE. Yes; and I think it is very necessary for these gentlemen to control the time of those who are in opposition to the bill so that the time is not only allotted but they can pick the personnel of those whom they want to appear before the committee.

The CHAIRMAN. Of course. If there is any member of the committee who desires to control the time in opposition to the bill, we will be glad to have him do so. I understand no member wants to control the time against or assume the responsibility.

Mr. KINCHELOE. I think the chairman ought to control the time of those in favor of the bill.

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Formerly, Mr. Chairman, the Congressmen who happened to represent the district in which these large interests are located

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Rainey and Mr. Anderson controlled the time last Congress.

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. The Congressman from that district is detained at home on account of very serious illness in his family, and we feel that unless there is some member of the committee who would like to control that time we will undertake to do it for ourselves.

The CHAIRMAN. Then, I think we are all agreed upon that.

The Chair lays before the committee the various packer bills introduced: H. R. 232, introduced by Mr. Anderson; H. R. 5034, introduced by Mr. McLaughlin, of Nebraska; and H. R. 14, introduced by Mr. Haugen.

I have introduced a bill, H. R. 14, but do not care to take up the time of the committee in a lengthy discussion of it now. We can discuss it later. It is the bill, practically, which was reported to the House by the last committee, and, if agreeable, I will only have my statement on the bill inserted in the record.

STATEMENT OF HON. GILBERT N. HAUGEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IOWA, AND CHAIRMAN HOUSE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE.

The CHAIRMAN. Bill H. R. 14, introduced by me, is practically identical with the substitute to the Senate bill (S. 3944) reported by the Committee on Agriculture last Congress. It is the product of that committee and the result of weeks and months of study and hard work by the Committee on Agriculture of the Sixty-sixth Congress. The committee gave 40 days' hearings, as is indicated in the 2,797 pages of

printed hearings. After the hearings were concluded the members of the committee met and decided upon the policy to be pursued and authorized the appointment of a subcommittee with instructions as follows: "That a subcommittee of five be appointed, including the chairman, to draft a bill for the regulation of packers. That a bill be drafted without providing for license system or a new commission, nor the provisions of section 14 of the Gronna bill (S. 3944). The subcommittee, consisting of Mr. McLaughlin of Michigan, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Rubey, Mr. Rainey, and myself, together with Mr. Beaman of the legislative drafting service of the House, proceeded in an honest endeavor to draft and report a bill in compliance with the instructions of the full committee, which resulted in reporting back to the full committee the bill now before you, H. R. 14, with the exception of giving the Federal Trade Commission control over the packers, which was changed to the Secretary of Agriculture by the full committee, as is provided in H. R. 14.

In reading the bill it will be noted that it has four titles: Title I deals with definitions, Title II with packers, Title III with stockyards, and Title IV with general provisions.

Section 1 provides a short title for the act.

Section 2 defines "person," "live stock," "live-stock products," "commerce," and provides that any transaction in respect to an article shall be considered to be in commerce if such article is part of that current of commerce usual in the live stock and meat packing industry, whereby live-stock products, dairy products, poultry products or eggs are sent from one State with the expectation that they will end their transit after purchase, in another. Articles normally in such current of commerce shall not be considered out of such current through resort being had to any means or device intended to remove transactions in respect thereto from the provisions of this act. As to the constitutionality of the above regulations I quote from the report, which is as follows:

It may be argued that the attempt to regulate transactions in stockyards is unconstitutional on the ground that these transactions take place after the live stock has ceased to move in interstate commerce, and reliance may be placed upon the case of Hopkins v. United States (171 U. S., 578), in which it was held that the Sherman Antitrust Act did not include the acts of a live-stock exchange composed of commission men doing business at a stockyard and selling on commission consignments of cattle from another State on the ground that this business was not interstate commerce. careful examination of the opinion, however, shows that the court was of the opinion that the acts of the defendants had only an incidental effect on interstate commerce in the absence of proof that the charges for the services were exorbitant, and the court clearly intimated that Congress would have authority to prohibit unreasonable charges and hence unfair practices.

A

Furthermore, the force of the decision, even if adverse, is greatly lessened by subsequent decisions of the court. In Field v. Barber Asphalt Co. (194 U. S., 623) it seems apparent that the Hopkins case is construed by the Supreme Court to hold that for the purposes only of the antitrust act commission merchants are not engaged in interstate commerce, the case being cited in support of the proposition "that the antitrust act is not intended to affect contracts which have a remote and indirect bearing on commerce between the States." In Loewe v. Lawlor (208 U. S., 297) the court says that it does not "pause to comment on cases such as" the Hopkins case, "in which the facts show that the purpose of the agreement was not to obstruct or restrain interstate commerce. The object and intention of the combination determines its legality."

In Title II, which deals with packers, section 201 defines the term "packer."

Section 202 defines the term "secretary."

Section 203 makes certain acts unlawful for packers, that is to Engage in or use any unfair, unjustly discriminatory, or deceptive practice or device in commerce;

Make or give, in commerce, any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person or locality;

To sell or otherwise transfer to or for any other person, or to buy, or otherwise receive from or for any other person, any articles for the purpose or with the effect of apportioning the supply in commerce between any such packers;

With the effect of manipulating or controlling prices in commerce, or of creating a monopoly in the acquisition of, buying, selling, or dealing in, any article in commerce, or of restraining commerce;

Engage in any course of business or do any act for the purpose or with the effect of manipulating or controlling prices in commerce, or of creating a monopoly in the acquisition of, buying, selling, or dealing in, any article in commerce, or of restraining commerce;

Conspire, combine, agree, or arrange with any other person to apportion territory for carrying on business in commerce, or to apportion purchases or sales of any article in commerce, or to manipulate or control prices in commerce; or to

Conspire, combine, agree, or arrange with any other person to do, or aid or abet the doing of, any act made unlawful.

The acts made unlawful are among those alleged to exist by the witnesses appearing before the committee and referred to by the Federal Trade Commission in its reports.

Section 204 provides the procedure, which is that whenever the Secretary has reason to believe that a packer has violated these provisions he shall cause a complaint to be served on the packer. After a full hearing, if the Secretary finds that the law has been violated, he may issue an order, from which an appeal may be taken to the circuit court of appeals. The court may modify or set aside the order, but the Secretary's findings of fact, if supported by evidence, are

conclusive.

Section 206 also deals with the procedure and provides a fine of $10,000 for failure to comply with an order sustained by the court. Section 207 provides that every packer shall keep such accounts, records and memorandums as fully and correctly disclose all transactions involved in his business including the true ownership of such business by stockholding or otherwise. Whenever the Secretary finds that any packer does not fully and correctly disclose all transactions, the Secretary may prescribe the manner and form in which such accounts, etc., shall be kept.

Section 208 provides that section 6, 8, 9, and 10 of the Federal Trade Commission act be made applicable. These sections of the Federal Trade Commission act do the following:

Section 6 authorizes the commission to make investigations and require reports.

Section 8 requires Government departments to furnish information to the commission.

Section 9 relates to subpoenas, testimony, and immunity from prosecution.

Section 10 provides penalties for refusing to testify, for false reports, for failure to make reports and for giving out information by employees of the commission.

Title III of the bill deals with stockyards.

Section 301 defines stockyards, stockyard owner, market agency and dealer.

Section 302 defines "commission" as the Interstate Commerce Commission and "stockyards" as a place where 150,000 or more head of cattle, or 500,000 or more head of hogs are handled. The commission shall ascertain the stockyards which come within the definition and shall give notice.

Section 303 provides that 30 days after commission has given public notice, no person shall carry on business of a market agency or dealer unless he has registered.

Section 304 provides that it shall be the duty of a stockyard owner or market agency to furnish, upon request, reasonable stockyard services without discrimination.

Section 305 provides that all rates and charges shall be just and reasonable and nondiscriminatory.

Section 306 provides that stockyard owners and market agencies shall file with the commission, open to public investigation at the stockyard, schedules showing all rates and charges. Such schedule shall state rates and charges in such detail as the commission may require, also any rules and regulations. The commission may determine and prescribe such schedules. No changes shall be made in the rates or charges, except after ten days' notice. The commission may reject and refuse to file schedules as tendered. Whenever there is filed with the commission any schedule stating a new rate or charge or a new regulation or practice effecting any regular charge the commission may either upon complaint or upon its own initiative enter upon hearings concerning the lawfulness of such rate. After 60 days no person shall carry on the business of a stockyard owner or market agency unless the rates and charges for the stockyard services furnished have been filed and published, nor charge, demand, or collect a greater or less or different amount for such services. The penalty is not more than $500 for each offense and not more than $25 for each day. Whoever willfully fails to comply with the provisions, fine not more than $1,000.

Section 307 makes it the duty of stockyard owners to observe and enforce just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory regulations and practices in respect to furnishing stockyard services.

Section 308 provides that if any stockyard owner, market agency, or dealer violates sections 304, 305, 306, or 307 or any order of the court he shall be liable to the person injured thereby for the full amount of damages sustained.

Section 309 provides that complaints may be made to the commission by petition and that if the defendant does not satisfy the complaint within the time specified it shall be the duty of the commission to investigate; further, that the commission may at any time institute an inquiry on its own motion; and the commission may order defendant to pay. If not complied with within one year, defendant may file a petition in the District Court of the United States for the district. Findings and orders of the commission shall be prima facie evidence. If the petitioner finally prevails he shall be allowed a reasonable attorney's fee.

Section 310 provides that if the commission is of the opinion that any rate, charge, regulation, or practice of a stockyard owner or

market agency is unjust, unreasonable, or discriminatory, the commission may determine or prescribe what will be just. Also the maximum or minimum to be charged.

The commission may make an order that such owner or operator shall cease and desist and shall not thereafter publish, demand, or collect any rate or charge other than the rate or charge so prescribed, or in excess of the maximum or less than the minimum.

Section 311 is modeled after section 13 of the interstate commerce act in respect to conflict between State and Federal regulations.

Section 312 provides that the commission may order stockyard owners, market agencies, and dealers to cease, desist from unfair, unjust, discriminatory, or deceptive practice or device.

Section 313 provides that certain orders of the commission shall take effect within not less than five days.

Sections 314 and 315: Dealer's forfeiture makes it the duty of the district attorneys to prosecute.

Section 316 provides that the provisions of sections 12, 14, 16a, 17, and 19 and the first 10 paragraphs of section 20 of the interstate commerce act as amended and of all laws relating to the compelling of testimony before a commission and the immunity of witnesses in connection therewith, or to the suspending or restraining the enforcement, operation, or execution of, or the setting aside in whole or in part the order of the commission, which are made applicable to the jurisdiction, powers, and duties of the commission in enforcing the provisions of this title, and to any person subject to the provisions of this title, except that the commission shall have no authority to prescribe the form of accounts, records, and memoranda of a dealer, unless it finds that the accounts, records, and memoranda kept by such dealer do not fully and correctly disclose all transactions involved in his business, including the true ownership of such business by stock holding or otherwise.

Of the sections of the interstate commerce act referred to above: Section 12 authorizes the commission to make investigations and take testimony.

Section 14 requires the commission to make reports of its investigations.

Section 16a provides for rehearings.

Section 17 authorizes the commission to make rules for its procedure and to carry on its work by divisions.

Section 19 authorizes the commission to sit and prosecute inquiries at any place.

Section 20, paragraphs 1 to 7, authorizes the commission to require reports and accounts.

Section 20, paragraph 8, prohibits the giving out of information by the employees of the commission.

Section 20, paragraph 9, relates to mandamus to enforce the commission's orders.

Section 20, paragraph 10, authorizes the employment of special examiners to take testimony.

Title IV deals with the ordinary clauses and is of a general nature. The bill is designed to eliminate evils which are alleged to exist in respect to unreasonable practices resulting in heavy burdens upon the purchasers and consumers. The testimony before the committee in the Sixty-sixth Congress and the reports of the Federal