Mr. ASWELL. You say it is for expanding the Foreign Service of the Department of Agriculture. They do not have any Foreign Service. How can you expand the thing that does not exist? I was over there last year and did not find any man from that department except one or two.

I

Mr. CLARKE. We have our experts over there.

Mr. ASWELL. How many?

Mr. KETCHAM. Well, this is to enable us to meet that situation. agree with you that there are not enough men.

Mr. ASWELL. What is the matter? Do they not have money enough?

Mr. KETCHAM. I think that is the reason.

Mr. ASWELL. I want to find out. Why is it that the Department of Commerce gets all the money they want, and the Department of Agriculture can not get any?

Mr. KETCHAM. I do not want to get into any conflict between the two departments.

Mr. ASWELL. Well, I would like to get at the facts as to that. (The bill H. R. 11074 was read by Mr. Ketcham.)

(Upon motion duly seconded, it was unanimously ordered that the bill be favorably reported.)

The CHAIRMAN. We will take up H. R. 484, a bill to amend section 10 of the plant quarantine act, approved August 20, 1912. We reported this out last year, and it came up in the House and somebody objected to it. Was that what happened to it?

Mr. PURNELL. We laid it aside. My reason for being interested in it is that the lack of this authority proves to be a great handicap to the Agriculture Department. Now, the department has the authority to examine commercial shipments, but they had no auauthority last summer to stop a movement of corn when it was in transit.

The CHAIRMAN. They did within the State, didn't they?

Mr. PURNELL. Yes; but they could not stop them on the road and suggest to them that if they did carry any corn which might be a

menace

The CHAIRMAN. Suppose you read the bill.

Mr. PURNELL. The bill provides:

That section 10 of the plant quarantine act, approved August 20, 1912 (Thirtyseventh Statutes at Large, page 315), as amended by the act of March 4, 1917 (Thirty-ninth Statutes at Large, page 1165), be, and the same is hereby, amended by adding at the end thereof the following:

That any employee of the Department of Agriculture, authorized by the Secretary of Agriculture to enforce the provisions of this act and furnished with and wearing a suitable badge for identification, who has probable cause to believe that any person coming into the United States, or any vehicle, receptacle, boat, ship, or vessel, coming from any country or countries or moving interstate, possesses, carries, or contains any nursery stock, plants, plant products, or other articles the entry or movement of which in interstate or foreign commerce is prohibited or restricted by the provisions of this act, or by any quarantine or order of the Secretary of Agriculture issued or promulgated pursuant thereto, shall have power to stop and, without warrant to inspect, search, and examine such person, vehicle, receptacle, boat, ship, or vessel, and to seize, destroy, or otherwise dispose of, such nursery stock, plants, plant products, or other articles found to be moving or to have been moved in interstate commerce or to have been brought into the United States in violation of this act or of such quarantine or order.

Mr. ASWELL. Mr. Purnell, in order to be effective, would not that have to require that there should be an agent on all incoming,boats and on the border; would it not require an elaborate force to make it effective?

Mr. PURNELL. It does not contemplate the employment of any additional officials.

Mr. JUMP. It is thought that we have the authority, but this legalizes it.

The CHAIRMAN. What will you do with the bill?

Mr. PURNELL. I move that we favorably report it.

(Seconded, put, and carried.)

Mr. ANDRESEN. I wish to return to House Joint Resolution 200, which amends the act establishing the upper Mississippi River wild life and fish refuge, and offer this amendment:

Provided further, That this provision shall not apply to any land or land and water heretofore acquired or contracted for under the provisions of this act. That is to clear up any land or land and water that has already been acquired or contracted for.

Mr. ASWELL. The simpler way would be to strike out, after the words "land and water".

Mr. ANDRESEN. No; but that refers particularly to the land that was acquired at that time, not to land heretofore purchased. The language in there is in accordance with the present law.

Mr. ASWELL. I do not care about it, but I thought it might be made simpler.

Mr. ANDRESEN. I offer that amendment.

(Seconded, put, and carried.)

Mr. ANDRESEN. I move that we favorably report the bill.

Mr. ASWELL. Before you vote on that, let me say this. I am very much interested in that preserve, and I have supported it all the time. I believe it is a great movement, and believe it will have good results. But I believe it would have a powerful effect if we turn this down and let those fellows sweat for a while.

Mr. KINCHELOE. Adopt a watchful-waiting policy?

Mr. ASWELL. I am not going to oppose it, but I think the committee would do wisely to oppose the whole thing and let them sweat for a while.

The CHAIRMAN. I think the department will use discretion in the matter, and there will be no holdup.

Mr. ANDRESEN. We have it practically assured in our State that there will be several donations of land.

Mr. JONES. I want to say that Minnesota is to be congratulated for the fine spirit she has shown in the matter.

Mr. ASWELL. Can you induce Iowa to do something like that?
The CHAIRMAN. The motion is to report the bill favorably.
(Seconded, put, and carried.)

Mr. KINCHELOE. I would like to return to H R. 10473 for a moment. I sent for Congressman Colton to come back, because I want to call your attention to a matter in connection with his bill in regard to the Bear River migratory bird refuge at Great Salt Lake, Utah. First, let me say that there is not a member of this committee more enthusiastic for this legislation than I am. I realize that unless these refuges or sanctuaries are provided it will be a question

of but a short time before the wild-fowl life of this country is going to be extinct, because these birds have to have a resting ground and a feeding ground. But here is the point I want to mention, Mr. Colton. I think that when we establish these asylums, they ought to be asylums. I think when the Federal Government goes out and buys these things and pays the taxpayers' money for them, for the purpose of protecting the wild fowl of this country, then I think they ought to be protected. I believe that when these asylums are established, there should never a gun be fired in them, except in the case of these birds that the department has been talking about—I forget the name that destroy other birds in there, then the Secretary of Agriculture should have the authority to go in there and destroy those birds, and then only. I believe you feel as I do, Mr. Colton, and as I say, I am talking as a friend of the bill, and am in favor of it—I am as much in favor of this character of legislation as anybody, but I believe that when you establish a sanctuary it should absolutely be a sanctuary.

Mr. COLTON. Mr. Chairman, I will just say in answer to that, that I want a refuge, I want a sanctuary for birds, and I believe the department is in full accord with the idea. The only hesitance I have is in tying the hands of the department so much, because there might come a time when it might be a handicap, for instance, just as there is in the Kaibab Forest in southern Utah and northern Arizona. There are more deer there than there is feed to supply them, and you remember the little trouble that occurred with the State of Arizona and the Forest Service with reference to the deer. The Forest Service were going to allow hunters to go in there and take so many of the male deer out of there, because the supply of feed would not keep up the band of deer that were in the forest. Now, I am wondering if those conditions might obtain where the feed would not be sufficient for the ducks.

Mr. KINCHELOE. Now, when Mr. Duck gets good and hungry, and there is not anything left in there, you need not be anxious, he is not going to stay there.

Mr. COLTON. It is my desire to establish a sanctuary.
Mr. ADKINS. Not a hunting ground?

Mr. COLTON. Not a hunting ground. It seems to me not unwise to leave this to the Secretary of Agriculture-that is, the Biological Survey, or whichever bureau of the department has control of it— with the understanding that it is to be a refuge and not a place to go and shoot birds. However there ought to be some opportunity for local people to shoot if it would not injure the purpose of the refuge. Mr. KINCHELOE. In answer to Mr. Colton's suggestion that they might get so many birds there that they could not all be fed, if it became necessary to make any change in this law, Congress will still be here. And by the way, while I think of it, I want to say that my objection to giving this authority to the Secretary of Agriculture is not at all personal, but I am speaking of any Secretary, whoever may be Secretary of Agriculture. I want to say further that this thing is not as innocent as it may look. We had the Anthony migratory bird law up here some years ago, and I voted against it three times, Mr. COLTON. So did I.

Mr. KINCHELOE. Well, I got the drafting service to draft an amendment to make this feeding ground a sanctuary, absolutely, and bless

your life, the big hunters of this country opposed it, and they would have dropped that bill like it was hot, if it had gone through that way. I know, and you know, that if the Secretary in his discretion should open these preserves at any time, these fellows would get in their pullmans and automobiles, and all the big hunters would get the benefit of it, and not the little fellows that live within 50 miles of the preserve.

Mr. COLTON. Of course, they can not go very far in these marshes with their automobiles.

Mr. KINCHELOE. But they can get in there from other directions. Now, in section 5 it says that no person shall do certain things, take any bird, injure any improvement, enter the refuge, etc., "except in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Agriculture." I think that ought to be knocked out entirely, and then put in:

Provided, however, That whenever it appears to the Secretary of Agriculture that these destroying birds are destroying these ducks to such an extent that they menace the wild fowl in the preserve, then the Secretary of Agriculture, in his discretion, can go in there and have them destroyed.

Mr. COLTON. Mr. Chairman, I might just make this suggestion. This comes up just on the impulse of the moment. I would be very glad to meet with Mr. Kincheloe and see if we could not work out an amendment that would meet his objection, and submit it later to the committee.

Mr. KINCHELOE. That might be worked out.

The CHAIRMAN. Will the committee leave it to the judgment of these two gentlemen to determine the question?

Mr. KINCHELOE. No, no; I do not want to take that responsibility. No, Mr. Chairman. I move to reconsider the vote by which we favorably reported H. R. 10473.

Mr. COLTON. Don't do that now.

Mr. KINCHELOE. Well, I am going to let it pend until to-morrow. I would like for that motion to pend until to-morrow.

Mr. COLTON. Not put the question now?

Mr. KINCHELOE. No.

Mr. ADKINS. That is all right.

Mr. KINCHELOE. Let the record show that the motion to reconsider was made, and just let it pend.

Mr. COLE. Some of my constituents are interested in the packers' bill and they are coming to Washington to appear before the Senate committee, which meets on the 29th. While they are here I would like to have them appear before your committe also. I spoke to your chairman about it some time ago and I suggested that the hearings be held concurrently, so that the witnesses could get through in one single trip to Washington. I hate to ask these people to come here for the Senate hearings and then later come back for the House hearings.

Mr. CLARK. What bill is that?

Mr. COLE. The packers' bill, the stockyards bill.
Mr. CLARK. Is that the McSweeney bill?

94351-28-SER K

Mr. ASWELL. Is that the one about which Swift & Co. have sent each Member at least 50 letters, from every subagent in the United States, and they are against it? If that is a fact, I would be rather for it because of foolish propaganda.

Mr. CLARK. You mean for the bill?

Mr. COLE. On the merits of the bill, so far as Chicago, Kansas City, and such places are concerned, I think it is all right to be against it. Mr. ASWELL. Why is Swift so against it?

Mr. COLE. The packers in my home town-there are 12 such plants in Iowa-buy direct from the farmers, because that is the only way they can buy. They have no stockyards, and therefore they ought not to be subject to the provisions of this bill.

The CHAIRMAN. If it could be arranged to hear them both at the same time, it would be a nice thing to do. Mr. Cole and Mr. McSweeney might get together on it.

Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, if this bill covers the small packers all over the country and makes them come within its provisions, and affects private selling, I am not going to agree to anything that will further the bill.

Mr. KINCHELOE. I want to add one more class of people in there. If this interferes with these independent little stock buyers throughout the country, that go out and buy a hog from this one and a hog from that one, and assemble them at the depot and send them to the packing yard, I am not for the bill, either.

Mr. JONES. That is what I had in mind.

Mr. HOPE. I took the matter up with Mr. McSweeney this morning; he was out of town Saturday and Sunday; and he tells me that he has witnesses here and more coming in, about 30 witnesses, I think. We ought to give them a hearing at that time.

Mr. COLE. I have no objection to having the hearing at that time. I would like very much to accommodate any witnesses that may come. There are a good many witnesses who wanted to come, a whole troop of them, but I wrote to them not to do t that way; I told them to send only one man, and let that man make the statement for all.

Mr. KINCHELOE. Do they want to make a statement for the bill? Mr. COLE. No; they are against it.

Mr. JONES. The Texas Livestock Association has come out in opposition to the bill and they want to be heard. They feel as Mr. Kincheloe does, in what he was saying a moment ago, that they do not want t to interfere with direct sales.

Mr. HOPE. I would like to make one statement in regard to this bill, in view of what has been said by Mr. Jones and Mr. Kincheloe. I will introduce another bill to-day on this subject, which I intend to take the place of H. R. 9288 which has been introduced, and in which I want to meet the objections that have been made as to the effect on the small packer and the independent buyer. I would like to have the committee look into that bill, and I am sure it will meet the objections that have been raised.

Mr. CLARK. I do not see what we can do, unless Mr. Hope and Mr. McSweeney can get together on the time.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. McSweeney is very anxious to be heard.
Mr. HOPE. He was asking for an immediate hearing.