Campbell-I have heard his name mentioned, although I do not know him but when we get down to the fellow who is doing the work, you will find that sometimes his ideas and interpretations of the law are not as broad gauged as those of such men as Mr. Campbell. You will find that he will adhere to the letter of the law often and not the spirit of the law.

Mr. TINCHER. But you do not think Congress can afford to refuse to pass that law to cure an evil practice, on the hyphthesis, if you like that word, that some Government official is going to be corrupt and abrupt in the administration of the law?

Mr. Cook. I do not say that, but I do say that the Government of the United States-and I am a loyal supporter of the Government of the United States.

Mr. TINCHER. I do not doubt that.

Mr. Cook. The Government of the United States has no right to a law that is so vague, so indefinite as that proposed in this bill. It is my own contention that this law is too vague and does not mean anything, but I am only giving my personal opinion on that.

Mr. TINCHER. In view of that statement I think we had better consider the law in executive session before reporting it but I was directing my remarks to the principle involved.

Mr. Cook. I do not want you to take my remarks in a jocular way, because I am sincere in it. I am in earnest in saying that we can not afford to see this kind of law passed; that the public can not afford to see it passed, because it is not in the interest of the public welfare.

STATEMENT OF MR. CHARLES A. THAYER, REPRESENTING THE AMERICAN SPICE TRADE ASSOCIATION.

Mr. THAYER. I represent the American Spice Trade Association. Our members do 90 per cent of the spice business of the country. While we do not necessarily stand as opposed to the bill, we do not stand in favor of the bill as it is written, for the reason that in actual operation it would work such impracticalities as to interfere with the business of distributing spices on the most economical basis. We would like to see incorporated in the bill such reasonable tolerances as would permit of the selling of spices on the most economical basis. Spices are sold in packages of 1 ounce, 14, 2, 3, and 4 ounces. Those packages are filled by automatic weighing machines, and in doing the work you have to have the packages of uniform size to go through the machines.

For instance, here are samples of powdered sage, where there is a 4-ounce content. Here is a package of white pepper only about seven-eighths full as to content. Both of these [indicating] are ounce packages and they would be entirely legal under the Act if provision is made for reasonable tolerance.

We are also working in hearty cooperation with the Department of Commerce in the simplification of a great number of containers with an idea of reducing the number of containers to as low a figure as possible. We would like to see incorporated in the bill such a provision for granting of reasonable tolerance as will make it practicable to not add to the cost of the goods and increase the price to the

consumer.

Our organization favors the amendment as to tolerances as presented by the American Specialty Manufacturers' Association through Mr. Dunn.

STATEMENT OF W. PARKER JONES, WASHINGTON, D. C., REPRESENTING THE NATIONAL CONFECTIONERS' ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE AMERICAN BOTTLERS OF CARBONATED BEVERAGES.

Mr. JONES. The National Confectioners' Association and the American Bottlers of Carbonated Beverages are opposed to the bill as drawn. I would like to call the attention of some of the new members of the committee to the statements that were made when the same bill was previously considered at the hearings, which have been printed. There has been a good deal of discussion here on both sides of the bill which seems to indicate that there is apprehension on the part of the industries that the Department of Agriculture will not use sane methods under the bill. I would like to direct your attention to the fact that both amendments treat with the question of quantity. The first section makes illegal any article of food which is packed in a container which is made, formed, or shaped in such a way as to deceive. Now, in my opinion, that alone is sufficient to meet the objections which have been discussed here. But, not satisfied with that, there is a second provision which says not only that the container must not be deceptive, but that it must be filled. Now, gentlemen, if this act is passed, and gets into court, the court must consider both provisions and they must consider that Congress meant what it says. It is a familiar principle of construction that in construing the language of a statute the words must be given the same meaning. Having covered the deceptive package with one provision, what latitude is there allowed in this bill as now drawn for the department or for any court to relieve from the charge of illegality any package unless it is filled? No package is filled unless it is full. Now, it seems to me that this committee should not leave it to the Department of Agriculture to suggest that these laws are entitled to criticism or apprehension that the Department of Agriculture will not enforce the law, but it is up to the committee to frame the law so that it will reach the evils which the committee is trying to reach, so that it will not spread over the entire field where no evils exist and where no evil is apprehended.

Mr. Jones spoke of a suggested amendment on which he requested Mr. Dunn's views, which consisted of adding, after the word "filled in line 11, the words "as full as practicable." That is my opinion, and it is the opinion of the American Bottlers of Carbonated Beverages. We have conferred with the general counsel of the National Confectioners' Association, but I can not say whether it meets with his approval or not. It is my opinion that if those words are included, the bill will be workable; that it will accomplish everything which the committee seeks to accomplish, and that it will remove the major part of the opposition to this bill.

I thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen, I have before me a number of drafts of bills transmitted by the Secretary of Agriculture. If it is agreeable to the committee, these drafts may be incorporated in the hear

ing at this point and also the Secretary's letters submitting them and giving the reasons why these bills and amendments should be passed.

Mr. RUBEY. In regard to this bill?

The CHAIRMAN. No on other matters. For the convenience of the members of the committee, the bills, together with the letters from the Secretary giving the reasons for the proposed legislation, might be printed.

Mr. THOMPSON. I move that the bills and letters referred to by the Chairman be printed in the hearing.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection it is so ordered. Without objection, hearings on these various bills will be held next Tuesday, January 29.

(There follows a list of the bills submitted by the Secretary and introduced by Mr. Haugen, referred to above:)

A bill (H. R. 5791) to repeal that part of an act entitled "An act making appropriations for the Department of Agriculture for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1912," approved March 4, 1911, relating to the admission of tick-infested cattle from Mexico into Texas.

A bill (H. R. 5941) to complete the construction of the Willow Creek Ranger Station, Mont.

A bill (H. R. 5939) to facilitate and simplify the work of the Forest Service, United States Department of Agriculture, and to promote reforestation.

A bill (H. R. 5946) to amend section 84 of the penal code of the United States. A bill (H. R. 5937) to empower certain officers, agents, or employees of the Department of Agriculture to administer and take oaths, affirmations, and affidavits in certain cases.

A bill (H. R. 5947) to authorize arrests by officers and employees of the Department of Agriculture in certain cases and to amend section 62 of the act of March 4, 1909, entitled "An act to codify, revise, and amend the penal laws of the United States."

A bill (H. R. 5938) to increase the subsistence and per diem allowance of certain officers and employees of the Department of Agriculture.

A bill (H. R. 5940) to amend an act entitled "An act for preventing the manufacture, sale, or transportation of adulterated or misbranded or poisonous or deleterious foods, drugs, medicines, and liquors, and for regulating traffic therein, and for other purposes," approved June 30, 1906 (34 Stat. 768), so as to authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to define and fix standards for articles of food, and for other purposes.

A bill (H. R. 5945) to authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to issue licenses for the preparation for sale and transportation in interstate and foreign commerce of viruses, serums, toxins, and analogous products for use in the treatment of domestic animals and to repeal so much of the act of March 4, 1913, as relates to such products.

A bill (H. R. 5771) to amend that portion of the act entitled “An act making appropriations for the Department of Agriculture for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1908," approved March 4, 1907 (34 Stat. 1260), commonly known as the meat-inspection amendment.

(The bills and letters are here printed in full:)

CATTLE TICK.

[H. R. 5791, Sixty-eighth Congress, first session.]

A BILL To repeal that part of an act entitled "An act making appropriations for the Department of Agriculture for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1912," approved March 4, 1911, relating to the admission of tick-infested cattle from Mexico into Texas. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That that part of an act entitled "An act making appropriations for the Department of Agriculture for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1912," approved March 4, 1911 (Thirty-sixth Statutes at Large, page 1240), which amended the act of August 30, 1890, so as to authorize the Secretary of Agriculture under joint regulations pre

scribed by the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Treasury to permit the admission of tick-infested cattle from Mexico into that part of Texas below the southern quarantine line, be, and the same is hereby, repealed.

Hon. GILBERT N. HAUGEN,

Chairman House Committee on Agriculture.

JANUARY 17, 1924.

DEAR MR. HAUGEN: The department has the honor to recommend that the provision contained in the act of March 4, 1911 (36 Stat. 1235), for the admission of tick-infested cattle from Mexico into that part of Texas below the southern cattle quarantine line be repealed.

It is the aim of the department to free the entire State of Texas, as well as all other States, from the cattle tick, and as more and more territory is from time to time released from quarantine as the tick is eradicated therefrom the area in the State of Texas to which tick-infested cattle from Mexico could be admitted under the existing provisions of law will naturally become very much less and the entire area will eventually become free. Furthermore, owing to the fact that the laws of the State of Texas now prohibit the introduction of tick-infested cattle from Mexico, this provision is practically a dead letter, since such cattle can not get into Texas from Mexico, and there does not seem to the department to be any good reason for continuing the same upon the statute books.

A draft of a bill repealing the foregoing provision is submitted for your consideration.

Respectfully,

HENRY C. WALLACE, Secretary.

WILLOW CREEK RANGER STATION.

[H. R. 5941, Sixty-eighth Congress, first session.]

A BILL To complete the construction of the Willow Creek ranger station, Montana.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of Agriculture is hereby authorized to expend, out of any moneys appropriated for general expenses of the Forest Service, not to exceed the sum of $500 to complete the construction of the Willow Creek ranger station on the Lewis and Clark National Forest, Montana.

Hon. GILBERT N. HAUGEN,

JANUARY 19, 1924.

Chairman Committee on Agriculture, House of Representatives. DEAR MR. HAUGEN: I inclose draft of a proposed bill to complete the construction of the Willow Creek ranger station, Mont.

The construction of this building was planned and undertaken during the fiscal year 1924, at about the time of the recent sharp rise in the price of building materials. But for this unexpected rise in prices and other unforeseen obstacles the building would have been completed within the $1,000 limit. In spite of the very best efforts of the local forest force the cost of the building is now very near to the present building limitation, and it is estimated that $300 additional will be required to complete the structure. As a measure of safety, the additional limit is placed at $500.

Inasmuch as this bill will entail no additional appropriation, but is merely an authorization to use funds already provided, I trust it will receive the favorable consideration of your committee.

Sincerely yours,

HENRY C. WALLACE, Secretary.

FOREST SERVICE ADMINISTRATION,

[H. R. 5939, Sixty-eighth Congress, first session.]

A BILL To facilitate and simplify the work of the Forest Service, United States Department of Agriculture, and to promote reforestation.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all moneys received as contributions toward reforestation or for the administration or protection of lands within or near the national forests shall be covered into the Treasury and shall constitute a special fund, which is hereby appropriated and made available until expended, as the Secretary of Agriculture may direct, for the payment of the expenses of said reforestation, administration, or protection by the Forest Service, and for refunds to the contributors of amounts heretofore or hereafter paid in by or for them in excess of their share of the cost.

SEC. 2. That the Secretary of Agriculture, out of any moneys appropriated for the improvement or protection of the national forests, may construct. improve, or purchase buildings for national forest purposes at a cost of not to exceed $2,500 each, but not more than 10 buildings constructed, improved, or purchased in any one year shall cost in excess of $1,000 each.

SEC. 3. That the act of June 6, 1900 (Thirty-first Statutes, page 661), is hereby amended to enable the Secretary of Agriculture, in his discretion, to sell, without advertisement, in quantities to suit applicants, at a fair appraisement. timber and cordwood not exceeding $1,000 in stumpage.

SEC. 4. That the Secretary of Agriculture is hereby authorized to furnish subsistence to employees of the Forest Service, to purchase personal equipment and supplies for them, and to make deductions therefor from moneys appropriated for salary payments or otherwise due such employees.

SEC. 5. That where no suitable Government land is available for national forest headquarters or ranger stations the Secretary of Agriculture is hereby authorized to purchase such lands out of any funds appropriated for building improvements on the national forests, but not more than $5,000 shall be so expended in any one year; and to accept donations of land for any national forest purpose.

SEC. 6. That the Secretary of Agriculture is hereby authorized, in his discretion, to provide out of moneys appropriated for the general expenses of the Forest Service medical attention for employees of the Forest Service located at isolated situations, including the moving of such employees to hospitals or other places where medical assistance is available, and in case of death to remove the bodies of deceased employees to the nearest place where they can be prepared for shipment or for burial.

JANUARY 19, 1924.

Hon. GILBERT N. HAUGEN,

Chairman Committee on Agriculture,

House of Representatives.

DEAR MR. HAUGEN: Inclosed herewith is the draft of a proposed bill to facilitate and simplify the work of the Forest Service, United States Department of Agriculture, and to promote reforestation.

Section 1 would authorize cooperation between the Forest Service and the owners of land within or near national forests in the reforestation, administration, or protection of the lands. It would simplify many problems of administration, especially where those lands form natural units of administration for timber sales or the grazing of livestock. This section would also be particularly helpful to nonresident owners of land and to those who are not qualified to handle those projects as separate units. It would be of greater advantage in fire protection. Authority of this kind could be put to a very wide range of benificial use without involving expense to the Government.

Section 2 would permit the erection or improvement of not more than 10 buildings each year at a cost not to exceed $2,500 each. At the present time ranger stations and other administrative headquarters can not be constructed or improved at a cost exceeding $1,000 each. That limitation was placed in the agricultural bill at a time when a habitable building could be censtructed for the maximum price so fixed. Due to the high cost of material