know in such a case which authority to obey and it will result in great confusion, as well as duplication in governmental expense and supervision. 2. The bill should be further amended so as to amend the procedure before the Secretary of Agriculture in such a way that his findings of fact shall not be binding upon the court, unless they are supported "by the weight of evidence.' At present, the Haugen bill would require the circuit court of appeals to accept the conclusions of fact if they were supported "by evidence" which means if it was supported by any evidence whatever. We think this entirely too narrow and changes the rule of evidence which has been in force since the foundation of the Republic, which gives to any litigant that right. This amendment should be made in section 205, page 8, lines 5 and 17, subdivision (f) of the Haugen bill. The words "the weight of the" should follow the word "by" in line 5, subdivision (e), page 8; and should follow the word "by," line 17, subdivision (f), page 8. 3. I think the Haugen bill ought to be amended by striking out section 402, because that provision of the bill seems to attempt to make it a criminal offense for the head of any packing concern to err in judgment. It goes further than any provision which I have noticed in any legislation in that if the officer, employee, agent, director, member of the governing board of any packer, stockyard owner, commission man or dealer through neglect personally omits to perform any necessary act or properly to supervise or apportion duties among his subordinates in the execution of his authority and functions vested in him, thereby a violation of the act is brought about. It leaves it to the judgment of a Government official to say when or whether he has failed to correctly apportion the duty of each subordinate in a packing concern, several of which have as many as 25,000 employees. The same thing applies if he negligently omits to properly supervise such employees. No head of any business concern in this country could safely exercise his judgment in the face of such a provision of law. Furthermore, it seems that section 401 goes as far as any law should extend on this subject. Therein every corporation is held responsible for the act, omission, or failure of any agent, officer, or other person acting for any packer, stockyard owner, commission man, or trader, or packer agents in the stockyards or packing plants. Under this language in section 401 the packer corporation would be guilty of an offense even though its employee absolutely violated the instructions that had been given to him. 4. It seems to me that the definition of live-stock products, page 1, line 11, of the Haugen bill, when taken in connection with the definition of a packer on page 3, section 201, lines 5 and 6, would bring within the operation of that bill many concerns which the authors probably do not intend to supervise or regulate. For example, the term "live-stock products" in the language of the bill means all products and by-products of the slaughtering and meat-packing industry derived in whole or in part from live stock. Section 201, subdivision (b) line 5, provides that the term "packer means "any person engaged in the business or of (b) manufacturing or preparing live-stock products for sale or shipment in commerce. Therefore, any person using as a raw material any by-product of the slaughtering or meat-packing industry derived in whole or in part from live stock would be a packer. This definition would make the American woolen mills, who spin wool yarn, a packer, because the wool is a by-product derived from live stock. This language would also make the manufacturers of tooth brushes, or hair brushes, automobile manufacturers using leather or hair for cushions, or soap manufacturers, tanners, shoe manufacturers, harness makers, pharmaceutical manufacturers using glands, glue manufacturers, and many other industries in this country using products derived either in whole or in part from live stock, packers. I do not think that it was the intention of the authors to include these various industries within the terms of this bill. The definition of live stock as used in section 2, page 1, lines 9 and 10, means "live or dead cattle, sheep, swine," etc. This term as used in section 201 would bring within the operation of the bill every packer engaged in the slaughter of five animals for interstate shipment, so that it would hardly be necessary to provide, in the definition of a packer, subdivision (b) lines 5 and 6, of section 201, but if the committee should desire so to retain it, it should be changed so as to apply to only food products derived from the slaughter of live stock. I wish to thank you, gentlemen. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will now stand adjourned until 10 o'clock this morning. (Thereupon, at 12 o'clock midnight, the committee adjourned until 10 o'clock Friday morning, May 6, 1921.) MEAT PACKER. COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, The committee met at 10 o'clock a. m., Hon. Gilbert N. Haugen (chairman) presiding. There were present: Mr. Haugen, Mr. Purnell, Mr. Voigt, Mr. McLaughlin of Nebraska, Mr. Riddick, Mr. Tincher, Mr. Williams, Mr. Sinclair, Mr. Hays, Mr. Thompson, Mr. Gernerd, Mr. Clague, Mr. Clarke, Mr. Aswell, Mr. Kincheloe, Mr. Jones, and Mr. Ten Eyck. The CHAIRMAN. Who is the next witness, gentlemen? Mr. VEEDER. Mr. Chairman, at the session last evening I said I would bring to the committee this morning some copies of Swift & Co's. analysis of the Federal Trade Commission report, part 2. I have brought the copies here and they are on the table. Mr. TEN EYCK. Mr. Lightfoot, you were going to submit a letter. Mr. LIGHTFOOT. The one I referred to last night? Mr. TEN EYCK. Yes. Mr. LIGHTFOOT. It is in the Congressional Record here. Mr. VEEDER. The letter written by the Federal Trade Commission to the Secretary of State. Mr. TEN EYCK. And also a letter of the Secretary of State. Mr. LIGHTFOOT. We did not have a copy of the Secretary of State's letter but we had the letter of the Federal Trade Commission. Mr. VEEDER. There is a copy of it in Senator Sherman's speech which is printed in the Congressional Record. Mr. WILLIAMS. What is the date of that? Mr. VEEDER. January 27; and in addition to that, the Senator has printed in full the reports of the British Board of Trade and the other committees of the British Government which made a report, as to the packers, based, as they state, upon the Federal Trade Commission's report, in which report they recommend various devises for cutting the packers out of the business of importing into England. Mr. TEN EYCK. You have not a printed copy or a typewritten copy of this letter? Mr. LIGHTFOOT. I have a copy of it among my papers at the hotel, and I will see you have a copy of it. Mr. WILLIAMS. Is it not in the record? Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Yes. Mr. CREIGH. Mr. Ten Eyck, if I might explain the situation there, there was what was called the Sherman resolution which directed the Federal Trade Commission to send to the Senate certain information. The letter is in the great mass of information which the Federal Trade Commission furnished and which was printed as a Senate document, and the copy printed there is the same, of course. Mr. VEEDER. That is the source from which Senator Sherman took this letter. Here is a letter with the names of the countries written by the Federal Trade Commission and here is the form letter which they requested be sent out by the Secretary of State. Mr. TEN EYCK. Unless the chairman wishes, I am not going to put this letter in the record until we hear from the Federal Trade Commission in relation to it. I think that is only fair. The CHAIRMAN. Whatever you decide about that is all right. Mr. CREIGH. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Thomas E. Wilson, of Chicago, is here this morning, and I think I might have one other witness, and if, after Mr. Wilson is through, you can find a few minutes for a short statement of my own, I think then we will be very near the end. The CHAIRMAN. We will be pleased to hear from you, Mr. Wilson. STATEMENT OF MR. THOMAS E. WILSON, PRESIDENT OF WILSON & CO., CHICAGO, Ill. Mr. WILSON. Gentlemen, I have prepared with some deliberation a short statement which I would like to have the privilege of reading and talking from, if that is agreeable to you. It is my desire to make a statement in an effort to help you to a clearer understanding of the situation confronting the producers, the packers, and every other element in the live-stock and packing industry. The problem is in fact an economic one. Legislation may be helpful or may aggravate an economic trouble, but it is hopeless to look to it alone as a cure. What is wrong with this industry? Many people seem to have lost sight of the fact that the packing industry is merely a processing and distributing factor between the live-stock producer and the consumer of the product. These hearings have demonstrated that the service is efficient and economical, that the profits are lower than any other essential industry, and that its treatment of its competitors and of the public is fair and reasonable. In my opinion the principal thing wrong is the unwarranted suspicion that something is wrong. No industry can continue to serve the public efficiently when it is suspected, condemned without sufficient proof, and is distrusted without adequate cause. Such a public attitude lowers the morale and the effectiveness of every person in the industry; a lowered morale means poorer service, it reacts on the laborer as well as the executive. It sometimes makes work half-hearted and undermines the faculty for wise decision. I deem it unnecessary to answer the charge that the smaller or so-called independent packers exist by sufferance of the larger packers, or that many have been forced out of business. Not a single one has appeared at the hearings to support that charge, but on the contrary, large numbers of them have appeared and refuted the statement by declaring they have found the competition of the larger packers keen but fair, and their treatment has been reasonable and in accord with the principles of American business ethics. More than 200 of the packers, large and small, have organized themselves into an association known as the Institute of American Meat Packers |