Mr. LATIMER. Yes; I have the same figures for 1921, and all of this will be filed. The 1921 figures, of course, were declined, because everything had declined; but just as salmon had not gone up the hill as fast as grain and other products, it did not go down the hill as fast, and that will appear as an official chart in Judge Bland's statement. Now, in 1921 you had the crash of cotton and grains to maybe a third of the sale price in 1920. Salmon declined only from an index figure of 106 to 86, or to $2.89 a dozen.

Now, this scale running from 1914 to 1941 shows a rather steady price. There are some fluctuations and some changes, of course, but not a drastic increase or decline. It speaks for itself, and I have no desire to take your time or that of the committee to give the reasons for it.

Mr. CRAWFORD. I think you will find the retail prices on red salmon this winter season in the Central Northern States in the retail stores will be about 35 cents for canned salmon as against about 18 cents a can 12 to 24 months ago. Now, it is that kind of an increase that we, the Congress, face in this inflation-prevention move.

I do not charge the industry with that, because I know what the Navy is doing. I have been looking into a lot of these canned-goods figures. In my line of questioning here this morning I do not mean to be antagonistic against your industry.

Mr. LATIMER. I understand.

Mr. CRAWFORD. That is the last thought I had. I do not know how this committee is going to exempt one group and put another group in. I just do not think we will ever do it. I do not see how it can be done.

Mr. LATIMER. I want to say this in closing my remarks on purely the question of the defense angle, which I touched on lightly. Last spring we had a serious labor question. Boats were ready to go to Alaska, with approximately 25,000 people. Certain agreements had not been reached with different unions. Representing the industry, and with the general counsel who came here for that purpose, we appealed for a classification or consideration as a defense industry. and it was promptly granted, and we were able to make this arrangement.

I want to again throw out the importance of not only this particular branch but of the general industry from a defense standpoint. One closing thought, and that is that our season is compressed into a few weeks, and that cannot be increased because of nature and because of necessary Federal regulations closing the seasons even within those few weeks of time. Thank you very much.

Mr. CRAWFORD. I have been through your storage houses up there in the Northwest. What is the longest you keep the salmon in storage there?

Mr. LATIMER. Frankly, Congressman. I am not familiar with that. Mr. CRAWFORD. Can you answer that question?

Mr. LATIMER. I am not familiar with that. I do not know how

long it is kept.

Mr. CRAWFORD. Is there anyone here who can answer that question! You know what I refer to?

Mr. LATIMER. Yes.

Mr. CRAWFORD. It is stored in there by the thousands of tons. eat big fellows this long [indicating] come in there, and they st shove them back.

Mr. LATIMER. You are talking about round salmon and not canned mon?

Mr. CRAWFORD. No.

Mr. BLAND. I do not know that there are any further questions. ave just received a message from the Speaker to go to the floor mediately, and I hope there is nothing to be asked of me. dr. BROWN. May I ask you one question?

Mr. BLAND. Yes.

Mr. BROWN. The purpose of this bill is to control inflation. I s just thinking that the money derived by fishermen is so small t it will probably not have any effect on inflation. What do you ak about that?

Mr. BLAND. Well, I think that is true on the inflation end of it, ile it might be destructive to the fishery industry. That would be

answer.

Ir. BROWN. I agree with you that there are so many elements to sider that it would be very difficult to fix a ceiling for fisheries. ar problem is similar to that of the sharecroppers in cotton farmWe have many elements there. We have not only the weather ditions to consider, but we have the boll weevil. When the weevil es you don't make any cotton.

Ir. ROLPH. I come from the district in San Francisco, where the erman's wharf is located. I want to thank you very much, indeed, the help you have given us.

Ir. FORD. The assumption that the industry has taken is that are going to put a ceiling on the price of fish. The philosophy the bill is that no ceiling will be placed on any product unless it completely out of line.

Ir. WILLIAMS presiding). Is there anyone who would like to ask questions? We have two other witnesses here.

Ir. BOGGS. I would like to ask a question of any one of these tlemen. Mr. Brown has a question. I will yield to him.

r. WILLIAMS. I thought you asked the question.

r. BROWN. Well, the witness left.

T. FRAMPTON. The Congressman asked if the sea-food industry ld cause inflation. We say no; it is too small.

Ir. BROWN. Well, that is the purpose of this bill and the sole Dose of this bill.

ir. FRAMPTON. There is nothing in the sea-food industry that ld cause inflation.

Ir. LATIMER. May I supplement that? The reason for that was y clearly brought out this morning. People do not generally buy in preference to other meats. They generally buy it because of omy and for other reasons. They will not buy fish if there are its at comparable prices.

fr. BoGGs. Is there anybody here representing the Louisiana fishindustry?

Ir. FRAMPTON. We have been in touch with a sea-food company New Orleans and others, and I personally have represented and am

64300-41--pt. 2-45

now representing about 20 shrimp producers in the Monark Egg case before the Interstate Commerce Commission. They know about this matter.

Mr. BOGGS. Have you any figures on the comparable cost of shrimp within the last year?

Mr. FRAMPTON. Yes, sir.

Mr. KEAN. With reference to New England and the haddock business, you mentioned that there were eight companies only that owned more than one boat. What percentage of the total business is run by those eight companies, roughly? Is it 8, 10, or 15 percent?

Mr. COOLEY. I should say about 12 percent. That is an estimate. Mr. BOGGS. How many people are engaged in the fishing industry throughout the country?

Mr. FRAMPTON. About 131,000.

Mr. BOGGS. Does that include producers, canners, and so forth? Mr. FRAMPTON. Producers. Certain persons related to the sea-food industry, such as box manufacturers, and so forth, run the total up to approximately 250,000 people interested, let us say, in fishery production.

Mr. BocGs. What proportion of the catch of the entire industry, in answer to Mr. Crawford's question, is canned?

Mr. FRAMPTON. Approximately 33 percent.

Mr. BOGGS. Don't you have information relative to the salmon industry?

Mr. LATIMER. Approximately 82 percent of salmon caught is packed in cans.

Mr. BOGGS. Is there any limit to the amount of time you can keep these canned goods on the market?

Mr. LATIMER. I am not a scientist, and I would not attempt to answer it accurately, but I think that the feeling that canned goodsit will apply to other fish besides salmon-do not deteriorate at all is erroneous. In other words, I do not believe that science this is largely my personal opinion and not a scientist's-has ever invented a process by which animal life does not eventually start some deterioration.

Am I correct on that, Dr. Radcliffe?

Mr. RADCLIFFE. I do not know any limit beyond which canned sal mon is not perfectly edible. When you change the product from fresh to some other condition, you lessen its food property, and I think that all through this you have got to realize that people want this product fresh. They want all the vitamins and minerals preserved. Preservation in cans is simply a way to keep things when you cannot keep them fresh.

Mr. BOGGS. In the salmon industry, according to your testimony, 90 percent

Mr. LATIMER. I would rather correct that to 82 percent. Mr. RADCLIFFE. Take the great bulk of salmon up in Alaska. They are not available for market. Canning is the only way to handle them. Mr. BOGGS. What figures have you got on the shrimp industry? Mr. FRAMPTON. The shrimp industry stands fifth in the United States in value importance of all the sea-food products. First is salmon: second, tuna; third, oysters; fourth, pilchards; next comes shrimp. Mr. Beggs. What States are the largest producers?

Mr. FRAMPTON. Louisiana, as I understand it. In volume shrimp is seventh and in value fifth. It is a very important industry, both as to volume of catch and value of the catch.

Mr. BOGGS. A minute ago you said that there were 131,000 persons engaged in production of fish. Do you have any figures on any breakdown in that relative to the number engaged in canning, packing, shucking, or the other incidents relative to packing?

Mr. RADCLIFFE. The figures are as follows:

Persons assisting in the production of fishermen's manufactured prod-
ucts----

Persons on transporting craft (exclusive of fishermen) –.
Persons engaged in taking seed oysters (exclusive of fishermen) __
Persons employed in wholesale and manufacturing establishments_.

Total other than fishermen...

Grand total__

Mr. SPENCE. Will you yield for a question, Mr. Boggs?
Mr. BOGGS. Yes.

344

3, 802 1,000

92, 795

97, 941

229, 266

Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Bland said there were 131,000 persons engaged in the fishing industry and there were 250,000 employees in the activities embraced in the industry. Does that include those employed by processors and canners?

Mr. FRAMPTON. Take a man who makes a box. I do not understand the amendment applies to making boxes. What he meant was that while there are 131,000 persons catching fish and scaling them and canning them, or the various things they do, there are others related to the industry, such as box manufacturers and ice manufacturers and people like that, so that the sea-food industry embraces about 500,000 people. But that does not mean that 500,000 people would be affected by this amendment, as I understand it.

Mr. SPENCE. Well, there would be a considerable number. It would be over 131,000. He figured it would be 500,000 people. Mr. FRAMPTON. Not that many.

Mr. SPENCE. How many do you think are actually embraced in producing fish as embraced in Mr. Bland's amendment?

Mr. FRAMPTON. Approximately 250,000.

Mr. SPENCE. What do they do outside the actual catching of the fish and the production of those sea-food products embraced in Judge Bland's amendment?

Mr. FRAMPTON. In the oyster industry they shuck the oysters, and in the salmon industry they would work in the canning houses, depending on how the particular catch is put on the market.

Mr. SPENCE. It is not your idea that within the provisions of this amendment are included those employed by processors and canners? Mr. FRAMPTON. Yes.

Mr. BOGGS. I did not quite understand your answer to that.

Mr. FRAMPTON. Yes. His question was that this amendment would apply to those handling fish processing and handling fish, as I understood the Congressman's question.

Mr. SPENCE. Does that include the people that are employed by the processors and canners of fish?

Mr. FRAMPTON. Yes, sir.

Mr. SPENCE. It includes them?

Mr. FRAMPTON. Yes.

Mr. SPENCE. That is within the purview of the amendment?
Mr. FRAMPTON. Yes, sir.

Mr. SPENCE. Now, Judge Bland said that would include 500,000 employees altogether in the production.

Mr. FRAMPTON. No, sir; it would not include that many. He said allied industries. The men who make tin cans and the various things that are used in the sea-food industry, ice manufacturers, box manufacturers, and the various products and supplies, if you please, that are used by the sea-food producers and processors, are included in the allied industries.

Mr. BOGGS. Have you got those figures I asked you for a minute ago! Have you got the number engaged in canning, packing, and processing? Mr. FRAMPTON. Approximately 100,000.

Mr. BOGGS. What is the average wage paid to these people?
Mr. FRAMPTON. You mean the people in the canning houses?
Mr. BOGGS. Yes, sir; the shuckers, packers, and cleaners.
Mr. FRAMPTON. I would have to supply that.

Mr. BOGGS. I would appreciate it if you put it in the record.
Mr. FRAMPTON. There are lots of them. I mean, they are all differ-

ent.

Mr. BOGGS. Would you mind supplying for the record the percentage of fish products which is sold canned, the percentage which is sold which has been packed and cold-stored, and the percentage which is sold fresh?

Mr. FRAMPTON. Would this help any, sir? We will take the shrimp industry. Reading from a table prepared by the Fish and Wildlife Service of the Department of the Interior, and this covers the year 1939, there were 150,000,000 pounds of round weight of shrimp caught. That represents 3.4 percent of the total catch of all fishery products. Now, the round weight of the quantity which was marketed in the form as landed was 21,507,000 pounds. The round weight of the quantity which was marketed in a form other than as landed was 128,493,000 pounds.

Now, Congressman, as you know, while there were 128,000,000 pounds of shrimp put on the market in some form other than as landed and only 21,507,000 pounds put on the market as landed, it does not mean that 128,000,000 pounds were put on the market in cans, because you have headless shrimp, cooked shrimp, pickled shrimp, raw shrimp, and so forth and so on.

Now, would you want us to have a break-down, in the case of shrimp, in the various ways in which it was put on the market other than as landed or just canned products?

Mr. BOGGS. The purpose of my question was to get some proportion of the amount of these products which are prepared in such a