Secretary WALLACE. I think you should give supervisory power over all the agencies which come in contact with this business.

Mr. CLARKE. In other words, looking at the great big business as an entity.

Secretary WALLACE. Yes; it is an entity, and a business that is very necessary to us, and we should try to see that it is administered efficiently and economically, and on a basis that will give the producer a price that will enable him to maintain production, and at the same time give the consumer his meat at the lowest price consistent with a price that will maintain production, and we have got to have in mind the interests of both, as well as deal justly with all those who function between producer and consumer.

Mr. GERNERD. There must be an equal balance.
Secretary WALLACE. There must be; yes, sir.

Mr. KINCHELOE. Mr. Secretary, are there any provisions in any one of these three bills that you think are too radical or that should not be in there?

Secretary WALLACE. I have not been able to give a close enough study to the bills to enable me to answer that question, but I expressed the hope that we might have an opportunity to study the bill you finally decide is a proper bill. I would like to have time to do that, not that we want to interfere with your operations, gentlemen, but if you lodge supervisory power with us we would like to cooperate with you.

Mr. GERNERD. And we want to cooperate with you.

Secretary WALLACE. Mr. Chairman, I believe that is all I have to

say.

The CHAIRMAN. We are very grateful to you, Mr. Secretary, for appearing before us.

Secretary WALLACE. I thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Who is your next witness?

Mr. CREIGH. Mr. Chairman, I understand Mr. Veeder has been called away. There are a number of these packer witnesses here. Gen. Ryan, of Cincinnati, I believe, is the next one on our list.

The CHAIRMAN. You are in control of the time, and we will be pleased to hear from him.

STATEMENT OF MR. MICHAEL RYAN, OF CINCINNATI, OHIO.

Mr. RYAN. I believe I am familiar to your worthy chairman, Mr. Haugen. The courtesy he showed me a year ago when appearing before a similar body is a pleasant memory, and I have thought of you ever since, Mr. Haugen, and I was very glad to read in the papers that you were reelected to come back again. I just thought then that the Democratic voters in your constituency must have mistaken the name of Haugen for Hogan [laughter], and whether Republican or Democrat, they voted for their countryman.

Now, sir, I represent the packers of old Cincinnati. Cincinnati is proud of being the birthplace of the packing industry. It was a long time ago, and some of her lusty western cities have taken the advance largely in that industry, but we are still down there doing business at the old stand, and I come representing the packing interests of the city of Cincinnati and southern Ohio, and part of the State of Ken

tucky, to protest against what is called antipacker legislation. I do not know whether it is meant that way or not.

There is scarcely a newspaper you take up that is not headed by antipacker legislation. I do not think that it is the intent or purpose of Congress to antagonize the packers in any way, and I do not know that the packers are guilty of flagrant violations of law so as to justify harsh and drastic measures being enacted against them.

Some abuses may creep into our business as in many other lines of business, but we have laws sufficient, Federal and State laws, to punish the offenders, and why should the packers be singled out from the other industries of the country to be put under Federal control and according to the scope and substance of the bills now before you, that is nearly akin to martial law.

Gentlemen, I have the old fashioned notion that legislative functions should be extended to private industries as little as possible. I believe they will work no good to the public or to the industry and will result in failure.

There is such a thing as legislating a business to death, and that seems to me to be the case with the packers, and if this constant legislation and agitation keeps on, I am not a prophet of evil, but I will say that in five years time that great packing industry will be wrecked.

This is not an opportune time, gentlemen, for introducing experimental legislation. The whole world is in a state of paralyzation. Industry is very much depressed. I have been in the packing business all my lifetime. I have gone through hard times and panic, but I have never experienced anything like this before. I can only look at it as a great commercial earthquake that has spread all over the civilized world and has shaken the basis of every industry, and I want to tell you, although I guess you know it, the packers have not escaped it. They have been hit very hard within the last six or eight months, and their affiliated industries have suffered very, very severely. The war profits, in many instances, have all disappeared, and more with them, but nevertheless, as Americans, we determined to take our medicine, grit our teeth, go right to work again and by new vigor and energy endeavor to recoup our losses.

But, gentlemen, I want to say to you that instead of being discouraged we want to be encouraged by our lawmakers. We want to have a free hand in our business, and as some of these bills propose, not all of them, but some of them, if they are enacted into law, we are fettered hand and foot in such a manner that we can not conduct our business.

If you gentlemen had practical experience of the vicissitudes and the uncertainties of the packing business, you would not consider putting these restrictions upon them. It would be very discouraging, under some of these bills that are before you, if we have at our shoulders all the time detectives, spies, petty tyrants, when on the most trivial violation of any of the technical laws, we are hauled before the courts and placed in litigation involving lawyers' fees, endless injunctions, etc.

If you want to do us a great favor, if you want to help us along, gentlemen, keep your hands off the packing industry, for the time being, at least, and let us work out our own destiny the best we can.

With these few preliminary remarks, gentlemen, I will be very glad if any of you would ask me any questions that may occur to you. Mr. JONES. Mr. Ryan, most of this legislation you speak about, the actual legislation, has been confined to the newspaper headlines you spoke of. There has been no actual legislation regulating the packers.

Mr. RYAN. I have looked over the bills and it seems to me that in some of these bills the control of the business is taken entirely away from the packers.

Mr. GERNERD. Take, for instance, the Haugen bill, how does that take away your freedom of action?

Mr. RYAN. If any of the bills have mitigation about them, it is the Haugen bill, but there is also pending the Norris bill and the Anderson bill. The Norris bill appoints a commission. That commission is to be composed of three gentlemen paid $10,000 a year, with secretaries, attorneys, and officials, and under such a measure they will want a number of officials in every establishment in the United States in order to enforce the law.

Mr. GERNERD. You heard Secretary Wallace give his views about this matter? There was not anything extremely radical about his view of the matter.

Mr. RYAN. What I heard from Mr. Wallace was simply referring to the stockyards and the live-stock industry. I have not got any interest, nor have the packers of Cincinnati any interest, in stockyards.

Mr. GERNERD. I appreciate that, but it is all interallied.
Mr. RYAN. Yes; there is a relationship.

Mr. GERNERD. You have read the Haugen bill?

Mr. RYAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. GERNERD. With all your experience, Mr. Ryan, would you say there was anything radical about that bill or anything drastic, or anything that would in any way interfere with the operation of your business?

Mr. RYAN. The bill puts the supervision of the packing industryunder the Secretary of Agriculture, does it not?

Mr. GERNERD. Only from the standpoint of obtaining information for the benefit of the Nation at large.

Mr. RYAN. The Secretary of Agriculture is at the head of the inspection bureau at the present time.

Mr. GERNERD. Yes, sir.

Mr. RYAN. And he has access to all the packing houses in the United States at the present time through those inspectors.

Mr. GERNERD. All right; but he has not any authority beyond that. Mr. RYAN. If there is a violation of law in any one of the packing houses, I do not see why the Government inspector is not there to report it.

Mr. TINCHER. As I understand you, you are willing that the packers should be governed by the law of the land, the same as other people.

Mr. RYAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. TINCHER. You have, as you call it, an old-fashioned idea that the law should not interfere with a man's personal liberties any more than is absolutely necessary.

Mr. RYAN. That is right.

Mr. TINCHER. That is right, is it?

Mr. RYAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. TINCHER. It has been necessary, however, in the interest of good government, to have a law to interfere with the personal rights of man.

Mr. RYAN. Where he is a wrongdoer or disobeys the law; yes, sir. Mr. TINCHER. If the evidence discloses that the packing business is carried on in such a way and to such an extent that there ought to be some law, you think the Secretary of Agriculture, as I understand it, would be the place to put the jurisdiction?

Mr. RYAN. A special law governing that?

Mr. TINCHER. It would not be special; it would be general, because it would apply to the trade and to the business. We have special laws, as you would term them. For instance, were you in the packing business before the Interstate Commerce Commission was created? Mr. RYAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. TINCHER. Did you get your rebates from the railroads in those days?

Mr. RYAN. No, sir; we never got any rebates.

Mr. TINCHER. There was a gentleman who testified here yesterday who got rebates.

Mr. RYAN. We never asked for any rebates.

Mr. TINCHER. Was it not a proper step to take when we passed a law that prevented the granting of rebates?

Mr. RYAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. TINCHER. The railroads were owned by individuals just like you own your packing company.

Mr. RYAN. I did not understand your question. Did you say it was a proper step to grant the rebates?

Mr. TINCHER. No; to prevent them.

Mr. RYAN. To prevent the rebates; yes, sir.

Mr. TINCHER. You thoroughly approve of that move on the part of your Government?

Mr. RYAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. TINCHER. And that operated to the good of the whole people, you think?

Mr. RYAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. TINCHER. Now, if there are other practices in vogue which are considered all right by the packers but are just as detrimental to the whole people of this country as the rebating system was, do you not think they ought to be cured in some way?

Mr. RYAN. I do not think the packing industry and the railroads are analogous.

Mr. TINCHER. One of them was engaged in the transportation of the necessaries of life and the other is engaged in the distribution of the necessaries of life. The common carriers of the country were engaged in the transportation of the necessaries of life practically to the exclusion of everyone else, and the packers are engaged in the distribution of the necessaries of life to the extent, at any rate, of being able to control the market. Do you not now see some analogy between them, and if there is any favor on either side of the matter, is not the packer the more important of the two functions?

Mr. RYAN. One is a great public utility owned by hundreds of thousands of stockholders and the other is a private business.

Mr. TINCHER. This eating proposition is private, of course; but it is more or less of a public proposition, because we all indulge in it. The whole public has to indulge in the proposition of eating, and you are dealing with one of the necessaries of life. You consider it absolutely necessary in order for this Government to exist that the production of food products, such as meats, should continue? Mr. RYAN. Yes, sir; that is all right.

Mr. TINCHER. Under existing conditions and for a number of years there has been a tendency, except during the stimulation for a short period during the war on account of the war, to absolutely discourage and destroy the production of meats in this country, and there can not be any future production of meat products under present existing conditions.

Mr. RYAN. I did not know that. That is new to me.

Mr. TINCHER. Do you not know that the meat producers of this country are either in bankruptcy or on the verge of bankruptcy and are producing at an absolute loss to-day?

Mr. RYAN. That is occasioned by an unfortunate combination of circumstances that nobody could prevent.

Mr. TINCHER. Do you think they will go on at that rate?

Mr. RYAN. No, sir.

Mr. TINCHER. Do you think they can go on under those conditions? Mr. RYAN. No, sir; things will recover all right.

Mr. TINCHER. Now, to whom can they look, if they can not look to their own Government?

Mr. RYAN. The natural laws that govern trade and commerce, the law of supply and demand.

Mr. TINCHER. When the natural laws of trade and commerce are absolutely put aside, and five organizations in the United States have the ability and the organization to manipulate them, do you not think it is time then for the Government to step in.

Mr. RYAN. If they do that to the injury of the public and it is proven that they do it to the injury of the public, the Government has got a right to prevent them, because that is wrongdoing.

Mr. TINCHER. The only proof we have is the testimony of witnesses who come before this committee and a conclusive finding of one of the arms of the Government, which had a heavy appropriation for the making of the investigation, that that is true. Do you think the American Congress can afford simply to ignore that proposition?

Mr. RYAN. Has not the American Congress passed the Sherman antitrust law and is not that sufficient to reach out its arms and correct these evils without any new laws?

Mr. TINCHER. No one ever went to jail under the Sherman antitrust law.

Mr. RYAN. I do not think they will go to jail under any of the laws that you pass.

Mr. TINCHER. I hope not. I hope they will comply with the laws that Congress will pass.

Mr. RYAN. Then they ought to comply with the common law of the land.

Mr. TINCHER. You would not be in favor of this Government relying entirely upon the common law of the land in all such matters."