MINNEAPOLIS. MINN.. May 9, 1960 Mr. Al Laybourn c/o Al Oliver Grain & Feed Dealers National Ass'n. 400 Folger Building Washington, D. C. Dear Mr. Laybourn: We have been asked to provide you with ammunition which is to be used to help us get a favorable dicision as to what is fairly representative as it pertains to Section 13 (a) ii. We are afraid that exerted pressure on the part of Congress and G. A. O. could influence the C. C. C. 's decision as to what grain would be accepted on a loading order and what grain would be rejected. As the proposed agreement does not provide for offset of discounts on rejected cars it means that a warehouseman could be assessed a discount payable in cash together with the sale costs on cars which we feel to be fairly representative. Please refer to my testimony in the transcript of the Kansas City meeting starting on Page 404 in which I gave an extreme hardship case because of administrative decision. In the transcript, an error was made to the extent that where I stated ergot content of 30/100 of 1%, the transcript quotes 31/100 of 1%. My intent was not to limit my comments to rye but to set up an example as to what could happen on any grain which is rejected by the C. C. C. My particular example, which is documented with exhibits in the back of the testimony, did not mention that in addition to ergoty discounts there were also discounts for variety even though the identical grain received was shipped on the loading order. Again I point out that this was an extreme case to be used for illustrative purposes. Our files are full of examples on every kind of grain in which, under the old contract, we were able to avoid the assessment of cash discount because of existing premiums. There is not only the loss of the offset of premiums against discounts on rejected cars that concerns us but there is the possibility that with the continued pressure to reduce the storage inventories, the C. C. C. could reject all grains subject to discount and use this as a means of depleting the storage surpluses and at the cost of the warehouseman. This could ruin many warehousemen and we feel that it is grossly unfair. We hesitate in bringing up this last point for fear that the government may realize the important tool that the proposed new agreement would give them in the disposal of their stocks and at no cost to them. Therefore we recommend that this idea, even though it is of most serious consequence, should be handled very delicately so as not to encourage this type of action by the C. C. c. Yours very truly, MCCARTHY BROS. CO. COVERING THIRTY-SIX MEMBERS OF THE TERMINAL ELEVATOR GRAIN MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION FISCAL YEARS ENDING IN 1951 TO 1959, INCLUSIVE ARTHUR YOUNG & COMPANY 575 |