ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

Mr. VOIGT. I want to be frank in this statement. While I do believe that you are violating the law, I do not think that any prosecuting attorney can produce enough evidence to prove a violation of the law in a criminal proceeding. That is my position.

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. I will answer that this way. Of course, as to your opinion, you are entitled to its conclusion, which has suggested itself to your mind from the facts as you think they exist or as you have read this evidence. I would not deny your right to do so. Being more intimately connected with the industry, I say to you, outside of the fact of my position as a representative of the industry, that there is no truth in the statement that there is now a combination in restraint of trade. If there was, I would not represent them.

Mr. VOIGT. If you men did not voilate the law, you never would have gone into court and consented to the decree?

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. That is what I am going to answer just for your information and because it is something that I think should be cleared up. I was in these conferences from the beginning. They lasted several months. I said to the Attorney General of the United States, if there was to be a decree entered in this case enjoining the packers from continuing in the grocery business or their ownership in the stockyards or using their distributing system for distributing these so-called unrelated lines which was predicated upon any admission that we had violated any law or were guilty of any offense, that the negotiations would cease then and there, and that was maintained all the way through this entire proceeding. Furthermore, in the stipulation that was made before the decree was entered there is the express language which I will ask you to read, if you have not done it:

The entry of this decree and the consent to its provisions shall not be construed as an adjudication of the truth of any fact alleged in the complaint to be filed by the Attorney General in the case or as an admission of guilt on any charge he might make.

Mr. VOIGT. You are really in the position of the man who comes into court and says, "I am not guilty, I have not done anything, but I have no objection to the court holding me guilty. Is not that the situation, you consented to be found guilty?

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. I believe that nine-tenths of the people would believe the same thing by reason of that fact. That is the unfortunate part of it. Because the packers, in good faith, have tried to meet public opinion created by the charges of the Federal Trade Commission and these bills before Congress, that we were undertaking to monopolize the breakfast table of the American people. The packers had no such intention. They desired no such advantage and they could not get it if they had desired it. In order to meet public sentiment on that score, we thought by making it impossible for us to continue in this business, to give it up, would satisfy the public mind. I think it is true, that nine-tenths of the people in this country have the impression that exists in your mind in relation to this industry; that is, "if you had not been guilty, you would not have done it. I say to you, in all sincerity, that no such motive ever actuated us in doing it, and if it had been required that we admit guilt we would not have consented to the decree.

Furthermore, you can not blame the Attorney General. I am not criticizing his position. Perhaps, the Attorney General believed

that he had evidence enough, I do not know what was in his mind on that, whether he did believe it or not. From our standpoint there were no facts, and other Attorneys General passed on those facts, too, and no indictment was ever brought. I do not think that there is sufficient proof in this record anywhere, that would be acceptable to any court, to show that the packers had any monopoly as charged.

I want to call your attention to this one thing in closing. Senator Smoot made a speech in the Senate on the 24th day of January in which he analyzed the charges of the Federal Trade Commission. There are only four fundamental circumstances in their whole report offered in support of their charges. There is no affirmative proof that there was any monopoly. The circumstances presented by the commission were that we divided purchases of cattle on a percentage basis, that we had an agreement on foreign business, that we had agreements to fix the price of unrelated lines, and that we contributed to joint funds. They are completely analyzed in the speech of Senator Smoot on the 24th of January. If you gentlemen will read it you will find how much legal evidence there is in that Federal Trade Commission's report to support the charge that the packers were guilty of monopoly or in restraint of trade.

Mr. VOIGT. Any one who reads that speech ought to read in connection with it the so-called "black book" which you will find at page 213 of Part II of the Federal Trade Commission report.

Mr. GERNERD. On what page did you say, Mr. Voigt?

Mr. VOIGT. On page 213 of Part II of the Federal Trade Commission's report. That is the record kept by one of the packers.

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. I would be glad to have them read the whole record. If they find time I would be glad to have them read the whole Federal Trade Commission report and read this speech in connection with it. I am perfectly willing to take their judgment after

that.

I want to ask the pardon of this committee for this intrusion. I merely wanted to answer Mr. Tincher on the proposition of the socalled National Packing Co., that it was not a corporation in restraint of trade.

I have stated that I will take up the matter and see what we can do in relation to making some suggestions to the committee.

The CHAIRMAN. We might get together on one proposition, and if we can agree on that, the question then would be what the legislation

should be.

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. It has been thought by the members of the committee that we should not hold as extensive hearings as we did in the last Congress and other Congresses, and if it is agreeable to the committee we might adopt a resolution of this kind:

Moved that the testimony given in the following congressional hearings be considered a part of the present hearings to the same intent and effect as though introduced in these hearings:

Before the Subcommittee on Agriculture and Forestry, United States Senate, Sixty-fifth Congress, second session, from September 17 to 28, 1918, on Senate resolution 221.

Before the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, Sixty-fifth Congress, third session, commencing December 19, 1918, and closing in February, 1919, on H. R. 13324.

Before the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, United States Senate, Sixtyfifth Congress, third session, on S. 5305, commencing January 13, 1919, and ending February 13, 1919.

Before Subcommittee of the Committee on the District of Columbia, United States Senate, Sixty-sixth Congress, July, August, and September, 1919, on Senate resolution 150, "High Cost of Living in the District of Columbia."

Before Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, United States Senate, Sixty-sixth Congress, first session, on S. 2199 and S. 2202, commencing August 18 and ending September 13, 1919; also held again in January, 1920.

Joint hearings before the Committees on Agriculture, Congress of the United States, Sixty-sixth Congress, first session, on S. 2199 and S. 2202, held on September 25, 1919. Before Committee on Agriculture, House of Representatives, Sixty-sixth Congress, second session, on meat-packer legislation, commencing February 24, 1920, and ending in April, 1920.

Before Committee on Agriculture, House of Representatives, Sixty-sixth Congress, second session, on meat-packer legislation, held January 3, 1921.

Mr. KINCHELOE. Including the last hearings?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, sir.

Without objection it will be so ordered.

(There was no objection.)

Mr. MCLAUGHLIN of Nebraska. With reference to the suggestion of Mr. Clarke, Gen. Lightfoot or anybody else, I take it, any other person here, or any person who is not here, who wants to confer with the Secretary and make suggestions as to amendments to any of the present bills will have a right to do so, and will submit the new bill for the consideration of this committee. I am in thorough accord with that and I assume every other member of the committee understands it, but I want every man in this room to understand, and I want the public to understand, that before this committee reports out a bill the committee considers it carefully for amendment, it considers it very, very carefully, and that we are not inviting any packers' attorney or anybody else to write a bill for this committee. Mr. CLARKE. That was not the idea at all.

Mr. THOMPSON. If there are any suggestions along that line the suggestions should be made to this committee, which is going to bring out the bill, and not to the Secretary of Agriculture.

The CHAIRMAN. As I understand the suggestion, it was that they meet and confer, and possibly come to an agreement as to some provisions of the bill.

Mr. CLARKE. That is it, and to make their recommendations to this committee and let the members of the committee thrash them out themselves.

The CHAIRMAN. In other words, the committee would have the benefit of their suggestions. We will, of course, write our own bill. Mr. MCLAUGHLIN of Nebraska. I think the committee would be pleased to have the suggestions.

Mr. KINCHELOE. I think any suggestions which they might have to offer as to the bill should be submitted to this committee. So far as I am concerned individually, I will reserve my own opinion as to the question of the decree.

Mr. THOMPSON. I do not want any outside influence writing any bill for this committee, either officially or otherwise.

Mr. MCLAUGHLIN of Nebraska. If I may ask Gen. Ryan a question, Mr. Chairman ?

Mr. RYAN. I though I had been forgotten.

The CHAIRMAN. Certainly.

Mr. MCLAUGHLIN of Nebraska. With reference to the suggestion of Congressman Tincher, will you please have the Institute of American

Packers, either through one of their officers or representatives or by printed statement, furnish to this committee a statement of their receipts and disbursements for a period of time, say, one year or less? I wish, if it will not be asking too much, that you, as a member of the institute, one of the members, endeavor to get that for us? Mr. RYAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. MCLAUGHLIN of Nebraska. I should like to have it in plain language that we can understand.

Mr. RYAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. MCLAUGHLIN of Nebraska. I just want to call your attention in this connection to the Veeder pool that was talked of. This is just one, there may be a good many instances of this kind in the record, but I want to call your attention to this letter from Mr. Veeder to Mr. Traynor, the assistant to Louis F. Swift, under date of August 23, 1916, in which Mr. Veeder says:

Mr. W. B. TRAYNOR,

Care Swift & Co., Chicago.

DEAR SIR: You asked me the other day for certain percentages which are generally known as usual percentages." On July 30, 1913, L F S, A M, and T E W agreed with C and S & S upon the following percentages to cover general legislative and litigation matters: S, so much; A, so much; M, so much; C, so much; and S & S, so much.

We find that the Federal Trade Commission has concluded that that was a code meaning certain figures. We do not want a code. We want the names of the contributors and we want to know what they spend their money for.

Mr. RYAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. MCLAUGHLIN of Nebraska. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you concluded your statement, Mr. Ryan? Mr. RYAN. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. We are much obliged to you, Mr. Ryan.

Mr. RYAN. I am very happy to have come here to meet you. It is a long journey, but nevertheless I have been well paid, because I feel that the disposition of this committee is to be fair and friendly to the packers of the country. We will cooperate with you all we can. The proposition to ask for suggestions from the packers when you are formulating the bill is a splendid one, and the packers will give you the very best we have. If there is any legislation necessaryI hope to the good Lord you will not have it

The CHAIRMAN (interposing). I think it is absolutely fair that anybody feel free to offer suggestions. I do not think any committee would want to go on record that they had denied anybody the right to submit suggestions or any information.

Mr. KINCHELOE. I wish we could have some suggestions from the consumers and producers.

The CHAIRMAN. They have been notified and they will have an opportunity to appear, and others are to appear. We want the suggestions as well as the testimony of everybody who has any interest in this matter.

How many witnesses have you for this afternoon?

Mr. CREIGH. Our program is a little out of gear, but we have at least five others that we should like to go on.

The CHAIRMAN. How would it do if we took a recess until 2 'clock? Mr. CREIGH. That would be satisfactory.

The CHAIRMAN. Then, without objection, the committee will take a recess until 2 o'clock this afternoon.

(Thereupon, the committee took a recess until 2 o'clock p. m.)

AFTER RECESS.

The committee reconvened at 2.20 o'clock p. m., pursuant to recess, Hon. Gilbert N. Haugen (chairman) presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. Who is the next witness?

Mr. CREIGH. Mr. Brown, the chairman of the National Live Stock Exchange.

The CHAIRMAN. We will be pleased to hear from you, Mr. Brown. Mr. CREIGH. Might I say, Mr. Chairman, that we have probably six witnesses who will wish to get on this afternoon, and each of them will probably make as compact a statement as he can, but I don't want to sidetrack any questions or any discussion; that really was helpful this morning, I thought, in bringing us closer together; but if you will help us a little bit this way we will try to help you.

The CHAIRMAN. It is in your hands. The time is yours. Now, we will hear you, Mr. Brown.

STATEMENT OF EVERETT C. BROWN, CHAIRMAN OF THE NATIONAL LIVE STOCK EXCHANGE, UNION STOCKYARDS, CHICAGO, ILL.

The CHAIRMAN. Will you give your name?

Mr. BROWN. Everett C. Brown. I am chairman of the National Live Stock Exchange, Chicago.

The CHAIRMAN. Proceed with your statement, Mr. Brown.

Mr. BROWN. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, this morning in looking over the committee and I have been coming before this committee for four or five years on different legislation-it seemed to me that I saw quite a number of new faces. It has occurred to me that some, and perhaps most of the committee, are not thoroughly conversant with the particular functions of the commission man and the livestock exchange. I made quite a voluminous statement on the exchange question in the Anderson bill. I don't propose to read that now, because it is too long, but there is a definition of commission men here, and the construction of exchanges that I think should be read into this record, and if you will permit me to do so, I will start with that.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you mean the testimony given on the Anderson bill?

Mr. BROWN. This testimony was submitted in the Anderson bill. But I wanted to call the particular attention of the committee to the functions of live-stock commission men and exchanges, which are the organizations of commission men.

First of all, to describe the live-stock commission men:

The live-stock commission men selling live stock at the open markets throughout the country act as the personal agent or representative of the live-stock producers. They perhaps perform more actual labor in connection with the handling of live stock shipments than is the case with any other commodity marketed. As statistics show, the small sums paid them for commission

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »