this bill for the protection of housewives. They made the statement that some stores in New York were retailing out of the same bin tea at 35 cents per pound and tea at 70 cents per pound-the same tea taken from the same bin.

The CHAIRMAN. How many places sell tea out of bins?

Mr. KELLY. In the regions where that organization was working, coffee is also sold out of bins, and many other products.

The CHAIRMAN. Where was that?

Mr. KELLY. In New York City. It was one of the best things that could happen when they began to have identifying cartons for tea, coffee, and so forth, carrying particular brands. Of course, this bill does not apply to any product in bulk.

Mr. O'CONNOR. Practically everything is now sold in packages in the chain stores. That is one of the secrets of the great overhead in distribution.

Mr. KELLY. They sell some things in bulk, and some from bins.

simply want to ask this of the members of the committee: This bill has been here year after year, and we have had extensive hearings on it. There has been some misunderstanding of it, and there has been some controversy which was not justified. There is nothing revolutionary in this bill. It simply restores a right to the independent manufacturer that was taken away in 1911 by a decision of the Supreme Court. It is in line with the Sherman antitrust law. It is a protection for the little manufacturer, the little dealer, and the ultimate consumer. These independent manufacturers and dealers will be forced out of business if they can not secure this protection. They will be driven out and the chain store will take control. All that we ask is that you give us a chance once for all to decide this question on the floor of the House. It does not make any difference. whether you are in favor of the bill, or not-all that we ask is that you give us a chance to present it on the floor of the House, and see whether a majority will vote for or against it. Is it not fair to bring it out, and give us a chance to debate it, and take our chances on its passage? If it is voted down, then we will understand thoroughly that Congress is not interested in giving this protection. Mr. MICHENER. You feel that, since a careful and conservative committee like the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce has given years of study to this question, and has finally reached a conclusion, it is proper legislation, and that we should honor Mr. Parker's request, and let him present this matter to the House.

Mr. KELLY. If you had gone through what I have gone through before the Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee, you would understand that they are a very conservative crowd. Since they have brought the bill to the calendar, we think that we are entitled to a few hours debate on the bill and a vote on it.

Mr. BANKHEAD. Has the Senate ever acted on it?

Mr. KELLY. No; they have been awaiting action by the House. This bill has been introduced in the Senate by Senator Capper, and Senator Couzens, the chairman of the Commerce Committee, says that as soon as the bill is sent over there they will immediately hold hearings on it and take action. All that we ask is that you give us a chance, and that you give a chance to the 3,000,000 business men who think that this is their only protection.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any more people present who are in favor of this bill?

Mr. KELLY. I could have brought 50 members of the House before the committee to urge the passage of the bill.

Mr. PARKER. I wish to state that I did not canvass the House to have people appear in favor of the bill. I thought that Mr. Kelly could state the case fully.

STATEMENT OF HON. RUTH PRATT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

The CHAIRMAN. Mrs. Pratt, we will be glad to give you a hearin on this bill.

Mrs. PRATT. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee personally I am not opposed to this bill, but I do not come before you this morning to discuss the merits or demerits of it. So far as my district is concerned, I am between Scylla and Charybdis, because there are many large stores as well as a great number of small retail stores there. I am here at the request of some of the opponents to the bill who feel that the present bill has substantial changes in it from the bill that has been previously discussed before the Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee. They have saked me therefore to oppose the reporting out of a rule at this time, because they think they should have further hearings; also, they state that extensive studies of this subject have been made by the Federal Trade Commission; that only the first part of their report is in, and they expect to have the second part later. I think, from what we have heard to-day, that there are substantial changes in this bill from the bill that was before the committee in 1926. I have also received complaints that copies of the previous hearings can not be procured. I thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. We will be glad to hear you at this time, Mr. Chalmers.

STATEMENt of hon. W. W. CHALMERS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO

Mr. MICHENER. Mr. Chalmers, I have had some very strenuous expressions of opposition to this bill, or to its present consideration, from Toledo, Ohio.

Mr. CHALMERS. Yes; I have had those letters.

Mr. MICHENER. I wanted you to know that.

Mr. CHALMERS. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I do not want to take up much of your time. I made quite an effort to be present at your committee meeting this morning to register my request that you give us an opportunity to bring this bill up, thresh it out, amend it, pass it, or kill it. I might say that I had a wire last night at New York notifying me of the holding of your meeting this morning, and I have just driven in from New York this morning, in order to be present before you adjourned. On yesterday, I drove 90 miles from beyond Boston, so you can see that I have been making every effort to come to this meeting to simply register my wishes in favor of giving us an opportunity to

either pass or end this bill that has been before some of us for three, four, or five years.

Mr. PURNELL. What do you think we should do, ultimately?

Mr. CHALMERS. I can not say at this time. I want to be present during its consideration, and then at the conclusion of that, I will make up my mind. I am here to ask for a rule so that we can bring this measure squarely before the House and let a majority deter-, mine whether or not it should be written into law.

(The following telegrams were submitted for the record by Hon. Robert Crosser, a Representative in Congress from the State of Ohio:) CLEVELAND, OHIO, May 20, 1930.

Congressman ROBERT CROSSER,

Washington, D. C.

May we register our protest against preferential consideration to Kelly price fixing bill and request that you appear before Rules Committee Wednesday morning opposing granting rule giving preferential consideration on House floor to this bill. We hope that you will see the justice of this request.

ROBERT CROSSER,

THE BING FURNITURE Co.

CLEVELAND, OHIO, May 20, 1930.

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.: Forty-three retail furniture dealers of Cleveland request that you appear before Rules Committee Wednesday morning, May 21, at 10 o'clock. Oppose granting rules giving preferential consideration on House floor to Kelly subject price fixing. Last hearing on this bill 1926. Since that date the bill has been substantially changed, personnel of House has changed, and to date Federal Trade Commission has only partially completed investigation on attitude of business and the public toward price maintenance and economic phases. JOHN L. YOUNG,

President Cleveland Retail Furniture Dealers Association.

Mr. PARKER. Mr. Chairman, there has been a great deal said here this morning about hearings on this bill, before our committee, but I think if you will take just a few of the hearings you have here, you will find that the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce has heard this question over and over again. While it is true that the phraseology of this bill is not exactly the same as that of the other, the principles involved are precisely the same.

The CHAIRMAN. How many members of your committee now were not on the committee at that time?

Mr. PARKER. Very few. I would say that all of them were, except four. I think there have been four changes in membership. Mr. SPROUL. Is it a 21-member committee?

Mr. PARKER. Yes.

Mr. SPROUL. And the vote was 11 to 10?

Mr. PARKER. Twelve to nine.

Mr. PURNELL. The Senate having taken no action on this bill, what would be accomplished by the passage of the bill through the House at this time?

Mr. PARKER. I will answer you by saying that I am here to ask for a rule to have this bill considered in the House, and I am here in good faith asking for it.

Mr. MICHENER. Does the opposition to the bill in your committee wish to be heard? Do I understand that those on the committee who are opposed to the bill do not desire to be heard?

Mr. PARKER. All of them knew that it would be taken up here this morning. Mr. Hoch is here to appear in the interest of the merchants and miners' bill.

Before I lose the floor, I wish you would set a date for a hearing on the other bill, or the so-called merchants and miners' bill. I hoped that you would bring it up this morning. That is a bill that has already passed the Senate. I am referring to the merchants and miners' bill, and it is a very intricate proposition.

The CHAIRMAN. We will give you a hearing.

Mr. PARKER. I was instructed to ask for a hearing on that bill. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will adjourn until to-morrow morning at 10.30 o'clock, to consider the Muscle Shoals proposition. Mr. SANDERS (chairman of the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads). I would like to make application for a hearing on our postal bill.

The CHAIRMAN. The application is received.

(Thereupon, at 12 o'clock, noon, the committee adjourned to meet to-morrow, Thursady, May 22, 1930, at 10.30 o'clock a. m.)