Title III of the bill deals with stockyards.

Section 301 defines stockyards, stockyard owner, market agency and dealer.

Section 302 defines "commission" as the Interstate Commerce Commission and "stockyards' as a place where 150,000 or more head of cattle, or 500,000 or more head of hogs are handled. The commission shall ascertain the stockyards which come within the definition and shall give notice.

Section 303 provides that 30 days after commission has given public notice, no person shall carry on business of a market agency or dealer unless he has registered.

Section 304 provides that it shall be the duty of a stockyard owner or market agency to furnish, upon request, reasonable stockyard services without discrimination.

Section 305 provides that all rates and charges shall be just and reasonable and nondiscriminatory.

Section 306 provides that stockyard owners and market agencies shall file with the commission, open to public investigation at the stockyard, schedules showing all rates and charges. Such schedule shall state rates and charges in such detail as the commission may require, also any rules and regulations. The commission may determine and prescribe such schedules. No changes shall be made in the rates or charges, except after ten days' notice. The commission may reject and refuse to file schedules as tendered. Whenever there is filed with the commission any schedule stating a new rate or charge or a new regulation or practice effecting any regular charge the commission may either upon complaint or upon its own initiative enter upon hearings concerning the lawfulness of such rate. After 60 days no person shall carry on the business of a stockyard owner or market agency unless the rates and charges for the stockyard services furnished have been filed and published, nor charge, demand, or collect a greater or less or different amount for such services. The penalty is not more than $500 for each offense and not more than $25 for each day. Whoever willfully fails to comply with the provisions, fine not more than $1,000.

Section 307 makes it the duty of stockyard owners to observe and enforce just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory regulations and practices in respect to furnishing stockyard services.

Section 308 provides that if any stockyard owner, market agency, or dealer violates sections 304, 305, 306, or 307 or any order of the court he shall be liable to the person injured thereby for the full amount of damages sustained.

Section 309 provides that complaints may be made to the commission by petition and that if the defendant does not satisfy the complaint within the time specified it shall be the duty of the commission to investigate; further, that the commission may at any time institute an inquiry on its own motion; and the commission may order defendant to pay. If not complied with within one year, defendant may file a petition in the District Court of the United States for the district. Findings and orders of the commission shall be prima facie evidence. If the petitioner finally prevails he shall be allowed a reasonable attorney's fee.

Section 310 provides that if the commission is of the opinion that any rate, charge, regulation, or practice of a stockyard owner or

market agency is unjust, unreasonable, or discriminatory, the commission may determine or prescribe what will be just. Also the maximum or minimum to be charged.

The commission may make an order that such owner or operator shall cease and desist and shall not thereafter publish, demand, or collect any rate or charge other than the rate or charge so prescribed, or in excess of the maximum or less than the minimum.

Section 311 is modeled after section 13 of the interstate commerce act in respect to conflict between State and Federal regulations.

Section 312 provides that the commission may order stockyard owners, market agencies, and dealers to cease, desist from unfair, unjust, discriminatory, or deceptive practice or device.

Section 313 provides that certain orders of the commission shall take effect within not less than five days.

Sections 314 and 315: Dealer's forfeiture makes it the duty of the district attorneys to prosecute.

Section 316 provides that the provisions of sections 12, 14, 16a, 17, and 19 and the first 10 paragraphs of section 20 of the interstate commerce act as amended and of all laws relating to the compelling of testimony before a commission and the immunity of witnesses in connection therewith, or to the suspending or restraining the enforcement, operation, or execution of, or the setting aside in whole or in part the order of the commission, which are made applicable to the jurisdiction, powers, and duties of the commission in enforcing the provisions of this title, and to any person subject to the provisions of this title, except that the commission shall have no authority to prescribe the form of accounts, records, and memoranda of a dealer, unless it finds that the accounts, records, and memoranda kept by such dealer do not fully and correctly disclose all transactions involved in his business, including the true ownership of such business by stock holding or otherwise.

Of the sections of the interstate commerce act referred to above: Section 12 authorizes the commission to make investigations and take testimony.

Section 14 requires the commission to make reports of its investigations.

Section 16a provides for rehearings.

Section 17 authorizes the commission to make rules for its procedure and to carry on its work by divisions.

Section 19 authorizes the commission to sit and prosecute inquiries. at any place.

Section 20, paragraphs 1 to 7, authorizes the commission to require reports and accounts.

Section 20, paragraph 8, prohibits the giving out of information by the employees of the commission.

Section 20, paragraph 9, relates to mandamus to enforce the commission's orders.

Section 20, paragraph 10, authorizes the employment of special examiners to take testimony.

Title IV deals with the ordinary clauses and is of a general nature. The bill is designed to eliminate evils which are alleged to exist in respect to unreasonable practices resulting in heavy burdens upo the purchasers and consumers. The testimony before the committee in the Sixty-sixth Congress and the reports of the Federal

Trade Commission clearly indicate existing evils. That there is need for immediate legislation on the subject there seems to be no question. A careful study of the bill will, I believe, convince one that it will, if enacted into law, in a measure give protection to the purchasers of live stock, independent packers, and consumers from abuse and oppression, which are now evident.

AMENDMENTS.

In order to correct typographical errors and to make it clear that there shall be no dual jurisdiction in the bill between the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Secretary, and further to make it clear that the Secretary and the Interstate Commerce Commission shall have exclusive jurisdiction, the following amendments are suggested:

Page 9, line 13, strike out the word "employer" and insert the word "employee.'

Page 11, strike out lines 22, 23, and 34, and lines 1 and 2 on page 12, and insert in lieu thereof the following: "The term 'dealer' means any person engaged in the business of buying or selling in commerce live stock at a stockyard, either on his own account or as the employee or agent of the vendor or purchaser; but does not include a market agency or a packer, or an employee or agent of either." Page 27, line 1, strike out all after the comma down to and including the third comma in line 3, and in line 5 strike out the word "or," and at the end of line 13 add the following: "the act entitled 'An act to create a Federal Trade Commission, to define its powers and duties, and for other purposes,' approved September 26, 1914, but upon the enactment of this act the authority of the Federal Trade Commission under section 5 of such act of September 26, 1914 (unless complaint under such section has been served before the enactment of this act), shall be terminated so far as relating to any matter which by this act is subject to the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Agriculture or of the Interstate Commerce Commission; or'

Also one as to pleadings:

Page 5, line 15, strike out the words "specifying the alleged violations" and insert in lieu thereof the following: "stating his charges in that respect," and at the end of line 24 add the following sentence: "At the close of the introduction of evidence on behalf of the Government, or at any time prior thereto, the Secretary may amend the complaint by adding new charges; but in case of such amendment the hearing shall, on the request of the packer, be adjourned for a period not exceeding 15 days.'

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Anderson, are you ready to proceed now?

STATEMENT OF HON. SYDNEY ANDERSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.

Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I want at the outset to express my pleasure at again having the privilege of appearing before this committee, with which I have had a somewhat long and certainly a very interesting association.

I also want to express my appreciation to the chairman and the members of the committee for allowing me to appear first on the program. The problems that come before this committee are not only interesting but exceedingly difficult and complex. They offer a very large opportunity for a lot of hard work, as well as the exercise of great constructive ability, and I can find it in my heart to regret that I do not have a closer and more intimate connection with the actual drafting of the legislation of the committee, as I had heretofore. I do not intend to discuss the necessity for this legislation; but I may say that back of it there is a long history of combination, of agreements to apportion markets, to apportion supply, a long history of litigation resulting in the making of restraining orders, enjoining members of the Big Five and others from engaging in combinations and in oppressive practices with respect to competition, which I am sorry to say have more or less characterized the action of the Big Five in the packing business. I should say, to be entirely fair, that some of the things that were done probably were not unlawful at the time they were done, but the facts still remain that there is behind this legislation a long history of combination, apportionment of territory and of markets, as well as the oppression of competitors.

What I want to particularly discuss this morning is not the need of legislation but the character of the legislation which should be enacted and the essential requirements of that legislation if it is to be effective.

There has been a contention before this committee that the forums of law were open, if there were violations of law, and that it would be sufficient if we were to enact into law definite prohibitions to be enforced by the usual legal methods.

In my judgment no such form of execution can be in the slightest degree effective in this instance.

In the first place, the courts are already congested with the trial of cases which have criminal character on one side or civil character on the other. The offenses which are sought to be reached by this legislation are not necessarily essentially criminal. They are offenses against good business; they are offenses against the sound public policy of business.

In order to adequately deal with offenses of this character which, in statement, must of necessity be more or less indefinite, it is essential that an agency should be set up which, through the process of investigation and of trial of causes, can acquire a fund of information, a library of information, if I may put it in that way, as to the movement of the raw materials and the finished products in the channels of trade, the manufacturing processes, so far as those processes are an element in the business practices of those to be regulated by this legislation.

Fundamentally, it seems to me the primary requisite of legislation regulating the packers is the setting up of an agency between the producer and the consumer which can deal more or less informally with all of those who normally will come within its jurisdiction.

Particularly, I am impressed with the fact that there should be some forum in the stockyards clothed with jurisdiction to deal with the grievances that arise there on the part of the producers, the shippers, the commission men, the traders, or the buyers, and I think it is fundamental that whatever agency is set up in the stock

yards should have jurisdiction of all of the parties; that is to say, that there should be no division of authority with respect to transactions in the stockyards.

An illustration which I think will justify that conclusion is this: When the railroad companies deliver stock in the unloading chute the liability of the stockyards company for the safety of that stock begins. Once that stock is delivered to the commission man and his gates locked against all comers, the liability of the stockyards company ceases for the moment and the liability of the commission firm commences. Again, when the stock is weighed, the bell is rung, the stock is again delivered to the stockyards company for delivery to the buyer, and so at that point the liability of the commission man ceases and the liability of the stockyards company again begins.

If you do not have a single jurisdiction over all of those who at one time or another may have a liability or a duty with respect to the cattle, your regulation will fall between two stools. If you jurisdiction fails as to the commission man and it is found by the regulating authority that the stockyards company has no liability but that the commission man has a liability, your regulating authority will be without power to enforce its conclusions with respect to and against the commission company. The same thing is true with respect to traders or others in the yards.

One thing which I think is fundamental in that respect is that there should be one single authority dealing with the stockyards and everybody engaged in transactions upon them.

I think it is equally clear that there should be a single tribunal dealing with offenses which may be committed by those whom the bill designates as packers.

The bills that have been introduced differ with respect to the authority which is to be set up for the enforcement of the provisions relating to the packers.

In the bill which I introduced that authority is conferred upon the Federal Trade Commission. In the bill which the chairman has introduced, that authority is conferred upon the Secretary of Agriculture. In the bill which Mr. McLaughlin, of Nebraska, has introduced, if I understand it correctly, the authority is conferred upon a commission created by that act.

Mr. TINCHER. Let me ask a question there. Mr. McLaughlin, is your bill the Kenyon bill which was passed in the Senate?

Mr. MCLAUGHLIN of Nebraska. No; the Gronna bill.

Mr. JONES. Are those the primary and essential differences in the three bills?

Mr. ANDERSON. So far as the bill which Mr. Haugen has introduced and the one which I have introduced, that is the primary difference. With respect to the bill Mr. McLaughlin, of Nebraska, has introduced, there are a number of differences. The whole theory of regulation under the McLaughlin bill, which is the Gronna bill, is different from the theory of regulation which is prescribed in either the bill which Mr. Haugen has introduced or the one which I have introduced.

The CHAIRMAN. Your bill is identical with the bill reported by the subcommittee.

Mr. ANDERSON. Yes, sir.