Mr. KINCHELOE. Well, properly administered.

Mr. WILKINSON. The point I make is this, that when we find this condition, when we find that men are selected to administer the stock yards and control the stock yard proposition who have had no practical experience, whose horizon is bounded by the four walls of the Agricultural Department, we cannot expect an efficient administration under that system.

Mr. KINCHELOE. Did these gentlemen who were in authority undertake to consult the shippers and the representatives of your association during that 93 days?

Mr. WILKINSON. I will have to leave that to Mr. Wells. I can only state this, they had the same party superintending the weighing, and there were lots of times when you would go down there and you couldn't find him around the yard, but he would be in town. Mr. KINCHELOE. I understood the gentleman to say they did consult with the stockyards people and the packers during that 93 days. Mr. WILKINSON. I am not speaking of that with regard to the 93 days particularly, but they did. Now let me call your attention to.

another matter

Mr. RUBEY. Mr. Chairman, as it is necessary for us to be over in the House I would move you that we now adjourn until to-morrow morning at 9 o'clock.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection it is so ordered.

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, I think it proper that the Department of Agriculture should be notified to have someone here to answer these statements.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

(Whereupon, at 11 o'clock a. m., the committee adjourned until 9 o'clock to-morrow morning, February 29, 1924.

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE,

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Friday, February 29, 1924.

The committee met, pursuant to adjournment of yesterday, at 9 o'clock a. m., Hon. Gilbert N. Haugen (chairman) presiding.

Present: Representatives Haugen (chairman), Ward, Purnell, Voigt McLaughlin, Tincher, Williams, Sinclair, Thompson, Clague, Clarke, Ketcham, Aswell, Kincheloe, Jones, Swank, Fulmer, Rubey. Johnson, Doyle, and McSweeney.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will kindly come to order and we will hear Mr. Wilkinson further.

FURTHER STATEMENT OF MR. R. A. WILKINSON, OF MINNESOTA

Mr. WILKINSON. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, when we adjourned yesterday I was just about coming to the question of the opposition of the other side, you might say, and as to objections to State weighing advanced by the representatives of the Agricultural Department, when we held that informal meeting that I mentioned in South St. Paul. The point they made was that we were charging a specific rate for weighing cattle and that heretofore there had been no charges made for this service to the shippers and owners of live

stock. On that ground, I will tell you right now, we were given a very impatient hearing by the representative. We could not understand it at all, until we recognized the gentleman that was sitting with him and advising him, the first appointee of the Agricultural Department for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the packers and stockyards act, or a new appointee at any rate, for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the packers and stockyards act, whose name was Walter Williams, I think it was. He had been appointed by the Secretary first as supervisor in St. Louis, but finally was brought here to Washington to advise in the administration of the act, and he participated in that hearing.

Now, I said something with regard to the dissatisfaction of the shippers with regard to weighing before this time. I will tell you that Mr. Walter Williams had been in the employ of Swift & Co., the packers, the stockyards, and the livestock exchange generally, as a so-called publicity agent immediately before the time of his appointment by the department. I will further tell you a fact which can be proven here I understand some of them dispute some of my statements that during the time that marketing bill was being considered by the Legislature of the State of Minnesota, Mr. Walter Williams was the lobbyist, the agent, and representative against that bill in the legislature.

I am not going to say anything further about his appointment except that. That fact alone was like shaking a red rag before a bull so far as our people were concerned, that he had been selected as one of the special advisers for the purpose of administering this act. I might go on further with that, but I will not take the time, except to say this: That two officials of these yards have come, one from a livestock commission firm in Kansas City, and the other direct from the employment of Swift & Co. So you can see that our argument or our opposition to their taking over there had some ground.

Now, what are the facts with regard to the weighing? I want the committee to get this squarely before them. As I mentioned before, the railroad and warehouse commission at the time they wanted to increase the switching charges and double the unloading charge, which was paid over to the stockyards, it was natural that the revenue of the stockyards as well as the railroad company should be brought in, and they put in evidence themselves showing their earnings from these various sources, such as unloading charges, hay and feed charges, and other yardage charges. On the other hand, they put in their expenses for the work in the yards, and one of the items was the weighing of livestock. They had included it, had included a charge for weighing in their charges for yardage and feeding charges all the time, at the time they were claiming they were not making any charge for livestock weighing.

Now, I claim that that is conclusive proof that they had been charging for weighing.

I have a letter here, if I recollect correctly-I would not have brought that out, but when I make these statements and say I have proof of them, there are parties around here who say I am misstating and have not the facts to bear me out.

Now, during the time that this agreement prevailed, the arrangement was that the stockyards pay the salaries of the weighers. A

protest was made against the feed charges and the bedding charge, and the Secretary of Agriculture replied to that protest, and I will just read one paragraph of that letter:

Concerning the price of corn, the revenue from those sources are combined with the funds received from yardage and other charges, the total being the sum necessary to cover the operating expense and reasonable profits for the owners of the yards. We are inquiring into this whole matter, but it involves audits and the investigation will take time. In the mean time it will be well to remember that while yardage and feeding charges have not been reduced at St. Paul, the weighing charges at the cost of the shippers in the neighborhood of $75,000 per annum has been discontinued and in the neighborhood of $50,000 has been added to the expense of the stockyards campaign.

The arithmetic is very good there. It cost the shippers $75,000 and at the same time when it was put over to them it only cost $50,000, when the weighing charges were no more, the wages were no more, and there you are.

The CHAIRMAN. Are you reading from a letter from the stockyards company or from whom?

Mr. WILKINSON. I am reading from a letter signed by Henry C. Wallace. So that the department knew that the weighing charges were included in the other charges. Now, the difference between the State and that system is this: That we propose to put every branch of that work on its own bottom. Our people wanted to know what they were paying for weighing charges. They were already paying them and they wanted to know whether they were paying a reasonable price for hay, feed, and grain. The object of the scale of prices, feeding prices, hay prices, and so on, fixed by the commission, was to cut them down and equalize them so that, as they were not paying the expense of the weighing, that they should be cut down. We protested that proposition and that idea is being promulgated, or they were trying to promulgate it among the shippers in our country, and we have positive proof that it has been carried on all the time. Whether it is the department or somebody else that is doing it we can only infer.

However, I want to call your attention to some letters that were put into the record here at the hearing on the bill about two years ago. A letter was received by the Secretary of Agriculture, which does not appear to have any date. It is from Rice Lake, Wis. That letter reads as follows:

Hon. HENRY C. WALLACE,

Secretary of Agriculture. Washington, D. C.

DEAR SIR: On January 1, 1920, the Railroad and Warehouse Commission of the State of Minnesota assumed control of the weighing of livestock at the South St. Paul market under a certain State law passed by the Minnesota Legislature in December, 1919, and up to March 28, 1922, it has cost the livestock shippers and producers of the State of Wisconsin the enormous sum of $13,203.37, placing this additional burden on the livestock producers of our State on interstate shipments, whereas no such charge is made on livestock shipped to the Chicago market or any other market in the United States. Prior to the enactment of this Minnesota State law the weighing service was performed free by the St. Paul Union Stock Yards Co. at South St. Paul, Minn., in a very satisfactory manner. This places an additional burden on the livestock producers and shippers in the territory tributary to the South St. Paul market without any additional benefits and with no more accurate weights than those furnished by the stockyards company.

I understand that the rules and regulations promulgated by your department under the authority vested in you by the packers act provides that the weighing of livestock at South St. Paul be performed by the St. Paul Union

Stock Yards Co., free of charge, and I am satisfied that this service performed by the stockyards company under your jurisdiction will be just as satisfactory if not more so than the service now being performed by the State of Minnesota.

I have conferred with a large number of shippers from our State and they are all extremely anxious to be relieved of this extra burden. We therefore urge that your regulations under the packer act be put into effect at once.

Yours very respectfully,

HERMAN FRIESS.

That letter came from Rice Lake without date, but the Secretary answered the letter very courteously, saying that he was very glad to get the evidence on April 14, so it was prior to that time. Mr. FULMERS Who signed that letter?

Mr. WILKINSON: This letter was signed by Herman Friess. I happen to know him.

Here is another letter from Nelson, Wis. They are not adjoining towns, or anything of that kind, but it is dated April 1, about the same time, and addressed to Mr. Wallace.

Hon. HENRY C. WALLACE,

Secretary of Agriculture, Washington, D. C.

NELSON, WIS., April 1, 1922.

DEAR SIR: On January 1, 1920, the Railroad and Warehouse Commission of the State of Minnesota assumed control of the weighing of livestock at the South St. Paul market under a certain State law passed by the Minnesota Legislature in December, 1919, and up to March 28, 1922 it has cost the livestock shippers and producers of the State of Wisconsin the enormous sum of $13,203.37, placing this additional burden on the livestock producers of our State on interstate shipments, whereas no such charge is made on livestock shipped to the Chicago market or any other market in the United States. Prior to the enactment of this Minnesota State law the weighing service was performed free by the St. Paul Union Stock Yards Co. at South St. Paul, Minn., in a very satisfactory manner. This places an additional burden on the livestock producers and shippers in the territory tributary to the South St. Paul market without any additional benefits and with no more accurate weights than those furnished by the stockyards company.

I understand that the rules and regulations promulgated by your department under the authority vested in you by the packers' act provides that the weighing of livestock at South St. Paul be performed by the St. Paul Union Stockyards Co. free of charge, and I am satisfied that this service, performed by the stockyards company under your jurisdiction will be just as satisfactory, if not more so, than the service now being performed by the State of Minnesota.

I have conferred with a large number of shippers from our State and they are all extremely anxious to be relieved of this extra burden. We therefore urge that your regulations under the packer act be put into effect at once. Yours very respectfully,

MATSON WALKER,

That is exactly the same amount stated in the other and in the exact language. Do you suppose that those people composed those letters independently? Who furnished the letters? We do not know. They were addressed to the department, were properly acknowledged, and the writers were thanked for their service. There are three other letters of that kind in the record, all going to show that there was an attempt made by somebody to create a sentiment against the weighing charges at South St. Paul. That resulted in five communications to the Secretary, and he put them all in the record here. You all understand what that means without my

going into it.

93853-24

-SER N-- -3

Mr. FULMER. I might say we are very familiar with that. We get that same kind of literature now.

Mr. WILKINSON. I think you do, and you take the usual stand on manufactured sentiment.

Now, I do not know what they do in the Chicago yards or other yards, but we do know that the weighing charges have been always considered a part of the expense in the stockyards ever since the weighing was established there, and that it has been paid by the shipper.

Mr. SINCLAIR. Then it isn't true that this is costing the State of Wisconsin $13,000 additional then?

Mr. WILKINSON. It would not have cost them a cent if it had not been for the opposition of the stockyards to a reduction of the feed charges to correspond-not one dollar. Our people say this, and I heard this within the last two weeks at a meeting of five or six hundred of these shippers, that they wanted accurate weighing, even if they had to pay extra for it-they wanted it.

Now, I want to mention just another matter, and that is, while we are not satisfied with conditions at the South St. Paul stockyards, the shippers to the stockyards know something about the crippled hog conditions in the yard, and the manner in which that is handled. The facts are that if a hog lies down and becomes stubborn and won't get up and be driven to the pen-as quite frequently happens, and you know it as well as I do that hog is classed as a crippled hog and a deduction made. That is, that was done. When I first knew about it I think the deduction was about $1 a hundred, and afterwards, during the high prices of pork, that discount was raised to $2 a hundred. When the State took over and undertook to regulate the yards they put in a different system. A crippled hog had to be actually a crippled hog. A hog that was stubborn was called a slow hog, and they made an arrangement whereby that hog was taken to the scales at a cost of 25 cents, and the man was saved the $2 a hundred deduction. During the short time that we had the privilege of doing that there was $19,000 saved to the shippers on that item.

Those are things that the shippers appreciate. If you beat him out of a little he don't like, but the smaller the amount you beat him out of the worse he hates it, because it then becomes contemptible.

What was the result? When they put us out of control, except of the weighing, that system was put back and finally, I believe, they have got some sort of a system down there where they have some kind of an agent of the Government, an Animal Industry man, I believe he is called, and when one of the hogs lies down in the yards they insert a thermometer at one end or the other and take his temperature, to see whether he is a crippled hog. Those are things that we don't exactly like.

Now, I understand they take exception to the statements I have made. They say we can not prove that the packers control the stockyards. Now, I will call your attention to the findings of the district court in this case, that has been pending. Finding No. 9 of the findings of fact, at the trial of the case: That at the time of the trial of this action a majority, consisting of six out of nine directors of the