buy it. We are interested in having the docking done in the best possible way. I think a committee member stated that as he understood the law the department had the authority to attend to the docking.

The CHAIRMAN. To supervise it, as distinguished between the docking and the supervision of it.

Mr. LAWRENCE. As I understood it, he thought it was possible that we had the right to provide the dockers in the yards.

Mr. VOIGT. No.

Mr. LAWRENCE. If that is so, that is what the producers would like to have.

Mr. VOIGT. No; the department has the right to supervise.

Mr. LAWRENCE. They have the same objection to the stockyards - company employing the dockers that they have to the stockyards company employing the weighers. That is the point I wanted to get before the committee. If it is possible for the department to attend to that we would like to have them do it. That is the idea I wanted to get in the record.

Mr. KINCHELOE. Do you contend as a representative of the department that you haven't got the right under the law to supervise docking?

Mr. HULBERT. That question has been given extensive consideration. In fact, it has been considered by the solicitor.

Mr. KINCHELOE. What does the solicitor say about it? Does he hold that you have or have not?

Mr. HULBERT. I think the solicitor has rendered an opinion that we did have the right to supervise.

Mr. KINCHELOE. Are you doing it?

Mr. HULBERT. I understand the matter has been referred to the Attorney General. That is all I can say about it now.

Mr. KINCHELOE. It puts the committee in a ridiculous attitude. If you have the power, all right; but I do not see why you should submit the matter to the committee before you know whether or not an amendment is needed.

Mr. HULBERT. I can not answer the question.

Mr. WATTS. Mr. Chairman, I want to say that so far as our organization is concerned and personally, that I am willing to meet these gentlemen that represent the national livestock exchanges at any time and any place, to go over these amendments and try to agree with them. I have been trying to do that for six years.

Mr. CLARKE. Then I suggest that you all be taken at your word and be instructed to get together with Mr. Campbell and thresh this matter out. We are willing to do anything we can to give authority to the department.

Mr. E. C. BROWN. This is the first request that we have ever had for a conference with them that I can remember.

Mr. JOHNSON. Is there any objection to a conference now?

Mr. E. C. BROWN. I haven't any objection to a conference any time.

Mr. JOHNSON. Then why don't you gentlemen get together now? Mr. BROWN. I will ask Mr. Everett Brown to state the time and place now.

Mr. CLARKE. What is the time and place?

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I might say that I am at the service of this industry and of the committee, but I do not see that there is any prospect whatever of the Department of Agriculture or any one of its representatives doing for the committee the things which, in the final analysis must be done by the committee. These bills are not bills that have been advocated by the department, as you know. They are bills that have been introduced by various phases of the industry. Undoubtedly, they represent certain factional interests that are going to be endorsed by one branch of the industry, and are going to be opposed by another branch of the industry. Under the circumstances, I am absolutely without any hope of being able to reconcile any differences, because these are differences that have existed for a long time, and they are fundamental. With respect to any proposed legislation the Department has advanced, that might be opposed by one or another phase of the industry, the department can do this, as I said a moment ago. explain the reasons for the proposed amendments to the bill, and in that respect try to save the time of the committee by eliminating such opposition as the industry might have to such measures, modifying in some particulars the amendments that we have asked, in so far as it does not affect the fundamental purpose of it. But I am frankly despairing now of being able to achieve the results that the committee seems to think might possibly be achieved by an conference as to these other measures. I have in view the fact that these gentlemen have come from various points with a desire for the committee to give them a hearing on these matters. The department, at any time, will be perfectly willing to make a statement on the bills that we have requested to be introduced, and to give an expression of opinion with respect to the other measures.

Mr. KINCHELOE. I understood you to say that the legal department was not in shape to give an opinion.

Mr. CAMPBELL. There is one bill that has been considered by the legal department. That has been certified to the Attorney General for an expression of his opinion, and we naturally would not be in a position to make a statement until the Attorney General has made a decision.

Mr. JOHNSON. Can you give us any idea when the Attorney General will give an opinion?

Mr. CAMPBELL. No; I can not.

Mr. CLARKE. How recently was it submitted?

Mr. CAMPBELL. I understand the latter part of the week.

Mr. VOIGT. You said a few moments ago that the solicitor had ruled that the Secretary has the power to supervise docking.

Mr. CAMPBELL. That is what I understood to be the decision.
Mr. VOIGT. Is that the opinion of your solicitor?

Mr. CAMPBELL. That was the recent opinion that the solicitor rendered, and the matter was certified, I think, to the Attorney General.

Mr. RUBEY. Did the department appeal from the solicitor's decision?

Mr. CAMPBELL. The department elected not to act until it had recived advice from the Attorney General.

Mr. JOHNSON. Do they do that as a rule?

Mr. CAMPBELL. I would not want to go into that.
Mr. JOHNSON. But I want to get at the bottom of this.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Hulbert, from the legal department, can speak to that.

The CHAIRMAN. Has the legal department ruled on the weighing? Mr. HULBERT. About six weeks ago, or possibly seven or eight weeks ago, as these gentlemen have said, a hearing was held before the solicitor of the department as to whether the Chicago Livestock Exchange, I think, should allow these hog inspectors or dockers to inspect the hogs for the Farmers' Union Livestock Commission, the agency that Mr. Watts is interested in. I might say that prior to that time the acting solicitor of the department did express the view that the Chicago Livestock Exchange would have to allow these inspectors to inspect the hogs of the Farmers' Union Livestock Commission. At the time this conference was held it was attended by Mr. Watts, Mr. Brown, and others interested in the question. The solicitor at that time was quite uncertain as to the correctness of view that had been expressed by the acting solicitor of the department, and for that reason he thought best to transmit this matter to the Attorney General for an opinion. Approximately four weeks ago it was transmitted to the Attorney General for his opinion.

I would like to say further, with regard to a hearing being held on this matter on Monday, that that is not a matter that the Department of Agriculture has anything to do with, because it has been transmitted to the Department of Justice, and if they are going to allow any hearings on this matter, I assume that they would allow every interested party to be heard at that time.

Mr. KINCHELOE. With regard to the proposition that the solicitor ruled on, was the question involved in that as to whether the department, under existing law, had the right to supervise these dockers?

Mr. HULBERT. The specific question that was presented was this: Do these inspectors at the scales in the Chicago Union Stockyards have to inspect the hogs for the Farmers' Union Livestock Commission as well as for the members of the Chicago Livestock Exchange?

Mr. KINCHELOE. I understand that. You have said that before, but that isn't an answer to my question. Was the question involved in the proposition ruled on by the solicitor whether, under existing law, the Secretary of Agriculture has the right to supervise these dockers?

Mr. HULBERT. I will answer yes; but, of course, that would only involve any unfair practices or conduct, and it would not answer the specific question that Mr. Watts raised, namely, "Am I entitled to have these inspectors inspect my hogs?"

Mr. KINCHELOE. You say that is before the Department of Justice now and the department will decide on it?

Mr. HULBERT. It was transmitted to the Department of Justice about a month ago.

Mr. KINCHELOE. For the purpose of getting the opinion of the Attorney General?

Mr. HULBERT. Yes.

Mr. KINCHELOE. And the Attorney General is in Florida and you don't know how long he will be there?

Mr. HULBERT. As to that I am not able to answer.

93853--24-SER N——7

Mr. VOIGT. He is in Chicago.

Mr. KINCHELOE. He went from Chicago to Florida.

Mr. CLARKE. The department is able to operate all right.

Mr. WATTS. Mr. Hulbert, you say this question was transmitted to the Attorney General by your department?

Mr. HULBERT. It was.

Mr. WATTS. Are you looking after my interests on that? I haven't been notified that it was transferred or that there was to be a hearing or anything of that kind. Is the Department of Agriculture looking after my interests?

Mr. HULBERT. As I said a few moments ago, if the Department of Justice is giving any parties interested in this matter a hearing, it by all means would give everybody interested a hearing. It is a matter that is now in the control of the Department of Justice, and we have no control over it at all.

Mr. KINCHELOE. Does your department ever undertake to supervise the inspectors and dockers under this law since it has been the law?

Mr. HULBERT. If any complaint arose as to whether they were doing their work honestly or not, or any such matter as that, yes.

Mr. KINCHELOE. You have been exercising a supervisory power? Mr. HULBERT. Yes; in just exactly the same way that we would exercise supervision over anybody else in the yard that was performing any function of marketing

Mr. KINCHELOE (interposing). Then, they have the power under the existing law to exercise supervisory power over these inspectors and dockers?

Mr. HULBERT. Yes; I should say so.

Mr. VOIGT. Has your department ever taken any steps to bring about general supervision over dockers in the various yards of the country?

Mr. HULBERT. Only in the same sense that we exercise supervision over the commission men to-day, both cooperatives and old line.

Mr. VOIGT. When was this point brought to the attention of the department, that there was discrimination in the services of these dockers between the old line commission houses and the cooperatives?

Mr. HULBERT. As I understood this matter, and if I am not correct Mr. Watts will correct me, along in May or June of this past year Mr. Watts took the matter up with the Chicago Livestook Exchange, and at that time he went to the supervisor of the packers and stockyards administration at the Chicago market, Mr. Crate. Mr. Crate was supervisor of the Chicago stockyards. He also went to the Chicago Livestock Exchange, I presume along in June, and also on a number of other occasions, with a view to seeing whether this matter could not be ironed out.

Mr. VOIGT. Had that question ever arisen prior to that time at any other market?

Mr. HULBERT. So far as I know that is the only specific request that we have ever received by a cooperative agency asking to have the services of inspectors of hogs and dockers who were under the control of the exchange on any market.

Mr. VOIGT. Has Mr. Morrill ever rendered a legal opinion on this controversy?

Mr. HULBERT. So far as I know he has not.

Mr. VOIGT. Then why don't he?

Mr. HULBERT. The matter was referred to the solicitor of the department for his views on the matter.

Mr. KINCHELOE. You say you want to iron it out. If you had the power under the law to exercise that supervisory power, why did not you go ahead and do it?

Mr. HULBERT. It is my impression that the first communication that the Washington office received from Mr. Watts was on or about the 1st of October of this last year. Prior to that time, as I understand it, Mr. Watts and Mr. Crate, our supervisor, had met together, on three or four occassions, with the Chicago Livestock Exchange. Isn't that true?

Mr. WATTS. My complaint was put in with the department in Chicago about 11 months ago.

Mr. VOIGT. Then, as I understand the situation, Mr. Morrill was unwilling to act on the opinion of the solicitor of the department?

Mr. HULBERT. No, the opinion was not rendered by the solicitor for the department. It was rendered by the acting solicitor, and when the solicitor returned from an out-of-town trip, he then took this matter under advisement. As I understand it, he wanted to be entirely accurate about it, and he was uncertain as to what was the proper course to take.

Mr. VOIGT. He was unwilling to take his own guess on it and referred it to the Department of Justice?

Mr. HULBERT. I prefer not to express an opinion on that.

Mr. E. C. BROWN. You were present at the hearing before the solicitor?

Mr. HULBERT. I was.

Mr. E. C. BROWN. Isn't it a fact that Mr. Brown, representing the Producers Commission Co. said he did not want to use our system of docking?

Mr. HULBERT. Gentlemen, I do not think I ought to be dragged into this controversy.

Mr. BROWN. He can answer the question.

Mr. HULBERT. I will say this: My recollection is that the views expressed by Mr. Brown carried with them a number of qualifications. I do know that it was Mr. Watts who asked for the use of the inspectors and that is what Mr. Watts asked the department to pass on.

Mr. RUMBLE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a statement. The CHAIRMAN. Very well.

STATEMENT OF MR. W. E. RUMBLE, OF SOUTH ST. PAUL, MINN.

Mr. RUMBLE. Mr. Chairman, I am attorney for the Central Cooperative Livestock Shippers' Association, of South St. Paul, and authorized to speak here for that association, and for 14 associations composing the National Livestock Producers' Association, and I am speaking now merely for the purpose of attempting to obtain some equality with respect to the present situation.

Mr. CLARKE. Which bill are you addressing yourself to?

Mr. RUMBLE. If you will let me speak for a second, I will tell you what I want to do. There are before this committee six bills, three offered by Mr. Clague, 4823, 4824, and 5093. Also a bill offered by