AMEND CERTAIN ACTS TO INCLUDE POULTRY WITHIN THEIR PROVISIONS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, The committee met at 10 o'clock a. m., Hon. Gilbert N. Haugen (chairman) presiding. (The committee then proceeded to the consideration of House Joint Resolution 85, which is as follows:) [House Joint Resolution 85, Seventieth Congress, first session] JOINT RESOLUTION To amend the act of May 29, 1884, as amended, the act of February 2, 1903, and the act of March 3, 1905, as amended Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the act of May 29, 1884 (Twenty-third Statutes at Large, page 31), as amended, the act of February 2, 1903 (Thirtysecond Statutes at Large, page 791), and the act of March 3, 1905 (Thirtythird Statutes at Large, page 1264), as amended, are hereby further amended to include within their terms live poultry, and wherever in the said acts the term "livestock" is used it shall be construed to include the term "live poultry." The CHAIRMAN. The committee has met this morning for the purpose, among other things, of giving consideration to House Joint Resolution 85, introduced by Mr. Lea, who is present, and I understand desires to make a few remarks concerning the bill. Mr. Lea. STATEMENT OF HON. CLARENCE F. LEA, REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Mr. LEA. I understood the committee desired me to get further information about the form of the proposed bill. Mr. Kincheloe raised the question as to the propriety of the blanket amendment proposed in this bill. The bill, in substance, gives a new definition of "livestock," so as to include poultry within the term "livestock." In other words, quoting the bill to include within their terms live poultry, and wherever in the said acts the terms livestock' is used it shall be construed to include the term 'live poultry."" I find in consulting with representatives of the drafting bureau that what we might call a "blanket" form of amendment has been used a good many times in the past proceedings of the House. One of the best examples of that is in the amendment of the compensation act. The compensation act provided for compensation for injuries suffered by Federal employees, and a blanket act was passed including "diseases" within the term "injury." That is just one example of the blanket form of amendment; there are a good many. In fact, the act referred to here has been once amended by blanket 1 amendment, transferring the exercise of its powers from the Secretary of the Treasury to the Secretary of Agriculture. So the question is not whether or not it is a blanket amendment; the simple question is whether or not it definitely describes what is desired to be done. If it does, it is all right. Mr. CLARKE. May I ask what the definition of "poultry" is and what its construction is, if there is any construction on it in any decision. Mr. LEA. I have not looked that up to give you any knowledge more than the average man has. Mr. CLARKE. That is the trouble. We are dealing in generalities. There is no way in which we could make a bigger fool of ourselves than to have some humorous writer in the paper have the news go out that one of the early bills introduced in the House was a "chicken bill" or something like that. Mr. HALL. Would you reckon a young man engaged in raising squabs was in the poultry business? 66 Mr. LEA. Yes. There is no doubt about what constitutes "poultry." The question is whether or not it is proper to bring the term poultry" within the term "livestock"; that would make an artificial definition. However, Congress has on many occasions adopted artificial definitions, and the drafting service advises me that this is a good form so far as form is concerned. It is very definite and is well established in the practice of Congress. If the committee desires to follow a suggestion that was made by a couple of Members at your last meeting and separate "poultry from that definition, then the department has submitted an amendment that would accomplish that purpose. Mr. Ketcham, I believe, and one of the other Members made that suggestion. The department suggests substitute language if you care to adopt it. [Reading:] To include within their terms "live poultry," and wherever in said acts the term "livestock " is used it should be followed by the words "and/or live poultry"; and all the penalties, terms, and provisions in said act as amended are hereby made applicable to live poultry." That language is satisfactory to the department if the committee would prefer it. The other method, though, is a perfectly good method of amendment and it is definite and certain. Mr. HALL. There is no more doubt about live poultry than there is livestock? · Mr. LEA. Oh, not a bit in the world. There is no trouble about that part of it. Mr. HOPE. May I inquire what the act is that you are amending? Mr. LEA. These are acts to prevent the shipment of diseased animals, and providing for the quarantine of diseased animals and giving the Secretary of Agriculture power to establish regulations concerning the shipment of diseased animals and quarantine against them. Mr. ASWELL. But the law does not seem to be broad enough to include quarantine against poultry? Mr. LEA. That is correct. Mr. HOPE. Has there been a ruling on it? Mr. LEA. Yes; there has been a ruling, and it was decided "poultry" was not included in "livestock." So, as it stands to-day, the AMEND CERTAIN ACTS TO INCLUDE POULTRY 3 Department of Agriculture is without power to quarantine against diseases of poultry. Mr. KETCHAM. It occurs to me the second suggestion offered is preferable to that, in view of the fact, as Mr. Andresen pointed out, that when contracts involve livestock and poultry that the phrase "and poultry" is included, and therefore it would seem to me to be the most reasonable and logical proceeding to have the amendment in the form suggested in the second place, because then that would bring it absolutely in line with all previous definitions and constructions. Mr. LEA. That amendment is entirely satisfactory to me, and there is no doubt about it being in accordance with the House practice. If the committee is satisfied about that, there is one other feature I would like to mention. Mr. KETCHAM. Do I understand that this phrase that you propose to include applies only to the quarantine act? Mr. LEA. And the shipment of diseased animals? Mr. KETCHAM. Yes. Mr. LEA. The first act of 1884 makes it a crime to ship diseased animals and the subsequent acts provided for quarantine and made it an offense to ship contrary to quarantine regulations. So that is what the acts are. I have checked this up pretty carefully, and I think it fits all right. Mr. ASWELL. How about Senator Copeland's bill? Mr. LEA. Senator Copeland introduced this same bill in the Senate, and I have here a letter from him in which he states [reading]: There is no conflict between House Joint Resolution 85 and my poultry relief bill. Indeed, I have introduced a duplicate of your resolution in the Senate and hope it may pass both Houses. This letter is signed by Senator Copeland. The other feature I want to call to your attention is the first sentence of the bill identifying the statutes to be amended. You will observe the language refers to those former acts by page and date of passage. It so happens that another act was passed on the same date and recorded in the same page and volume of the statutes. It would be better to follow the usual practice and cite these acts by the title of the acts instead of by the date and page. I have prepared an amendment to cover that. It accomplishes the same thing, but makes it more definite. Mr. ANDRESEN. Your district is one of the greatest poultry-producing districts in the country? Mr. LEA. Yes; at Petaluma we have the greatest amount of poultry concentrated in a small area of any place on earth. Mr. ANDRESEN. And large shipments of live poultry go all through the West and Middle West? Mr. LEA. Yes. We ship millions of baby chicks, some as far east as Denver and all through the western part of the country from Denver on. Mr. ASWELL. Is there anybody here who wishes to appear in opposition to this? (The committee thereupon proceeded temporarily to the consideration of other business, at the conclusion of which the following occurred :) |