the purpose of the amendment, whereas in reality, of course, it was intended to be the savior of the desirable feeds. We say this, of course, with all due deference and will proceed to discuss the second paragraph of section 26 as we have come to understand it. In the first place, section 26 makes it unlawful, "except as therein otherwise provided," to ship in commerce among the several States any concentrated commercial feeding stuffs containing any one of a number of different ingredients therein mentioned specifically or any other foreign material. Now, the list of the named prohibited ingredients in section 26 is so long and so comprehensive that, as a matter of fact, almost every mixed feed made and shipped would be found to contain one or more of these prohibited ingredients in its admixture. This fact was so obvious that in the carrying out of the purpose of the bill to prevent an alleged evil the Senator who introduced the same naturally and necessarily added the second paragraph of section 26 to cover the point of permission to ship in interstate commerce the desirable mixed feeds. The second paragraph of section 26 authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture "to issue a written permit for the shipment of concentrated commercial feeding stuffs containing a mixture of foreign materials which in his judgment is inseparable from such prepared feeds or which does not detract materially from its feeding value: Provided, That such feeding stuffs in packages or bales be so labeled as to show the purchasers and users thereof specifically the percentage of each ingredient entering into the composition of the same; or if such feedstuffs are shipped in bulk in carload lots, then the bill of lading and the bill from manufacturer to purchaser of same shall both show such analysis. The agency distributing to users of such feeds in less than carload lots shall deliver to the purchaser of each lot, regardless of quantity sold, a bill showing cost and a correct analysis of such feeding stuffs." May we take up this paragraph in detail? The CHAIRMAN. I would like to interject right there that I think that clause ought to be changed. It requires the percentage to be stated, and it probably would not always be possible to state the exact, percentage in a mixed feed of this character, so there ought to be a latitude, allowing a maximum, or a minimum and maximum within. which the statement should be true. I realize that is too rigid the way it is drawn, and there ought to be some flexibility provided. Mr. ABBOTT. It is primary, of course, that a mixed feed is a product made up of two or more separate and distinct ingredients, usually a number. Now, then, the Secretary of Agriculture may issue a permit to ship in interstate commerce any mixed feed which contains, among other things, any one of the ingredients prohibited by the first paragraph of section 26; provided, first, that in his judgment such prohibited material is inseparable from such prepared feed. But "inseparable when? And how? Prior to the mixing of the feed, it is respectfully pointed out, every ingredient which is intended to be used therein is separable, of course, because it does not have to be mixed. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Abbott, will you let me explain? I have an idea that there would be some dust and perhaps some grit in these fed stuffs that could not possibly be separated, and I think where a man willfully puts dust or dirt in his feed it ought to be prohibited, but the way the manufacture and shipment of feed is carried on there will be more or less dust in it. Of course, it ought not to be interdicted because of that. That is what I had in mind. Mr. ABBOTT. I understand, Senator. After mixing, it is a well-known practical fact and a well-known scientific fact that no one of the ingredients is separable. Therefore, if the Secretary of Agriculture views the matter of separability or inseparability from the viewpoint of " before mixing" he will not be entitled to issue a single permit, and if he views the question of separability or inseparability from the standpoint of the finished product he may be obliged to issue a permit in every instance. This would seem to be, in this particular, at least, a defeating of the very purpose of the bill. Second, the Secretary of Agriculture may issue a permit for the interstate shipment of any mixed feed containing one or more of the prohibited ingredients, when in his judgment the presence of the prohibited ingredient or ingredients does not "detract materially from its feeding value." Now, the feeding value of a mixed feed is its feeding value as a completed product and, of course, that resultant is determined entirely by the very admixture itself; so that we urge this feature upon your careful consideration, for if the Secretary views the feeding value of a given mixed feed as a completed whole, as it would seem necessary for him so to do, then rather of necessity he will be obliged to find that no ingredient therein detracts from its feeding value, and if he does not take this view, we do not know what view he can possibly take. The CHAIRMAN. Now, Mr. Abbott, I have here a reference to an analysis made by Dr. Kellogg, of the Pennsylvania Experiment Station. It is an actual instance, as I understand it. The farmer ordered a carload' of feed, containing 20 tons, and it turned out there were 3 tons of water in the carload. He paid $60 for that water. That is one of the evils that this amendment is directed against. I do not think the water would have any feeding value; certainly it would not be worth $180 for the 3 tons. Mr. ABBOTT. I quite agree with you there. The CHAIRMAN. You see what I am getting at. We want all the help we can get to get at the evil and do not want to do anybody any harm that is in a legitimate business. I should be glad to have your assistance along that line, because we want to protect legitimate and honest business. Mr. ABBOTT. So that there again the licensing power will find itself in the position of denying license to all or granting license to all, which, again, we respectfully submit is contrary to the whole purpose of the Gore amendment, as we understand the Senator himself to have explained it-that is, that worthless feeds are to go under the ban. Thirdly, in the event that the Secretary of Agriculture sees his way clear to grant a license to any mixed feed which contains a mixture of foreign material-that is to say, some one or more of the prohibited articles enumerated in the first paragraph of section 26-the receiver of that permission is obliged to see to it "that such feeding stuffs in packages or bales, be so labeled as to show to purchasers and users thereof specifically the percentage of each ingredient entering into the composition of same, or if such stuffs are shipped in bulk in carload lots, then the bill of lading and the bill from the manufacturer to the purchaser of same shall both show such analysis. The agency distributing to users of such feeds in less than carload lots shall deliver to the purchaser of each lot regardless of quantity sold a bill showing cost and a correct analysis of such feeding stuffs." This proviso we feed manufacturers feel can not be complied with as a practical matter in the first place, and, in the second place, that if it were necessary to attempt to comply with it, it would open the doors to possible dishonesty that might lead to greater evil than any which may now appear to be existent in the industry. It would compel the manufacturer to conform to two incompatible standards; one a chemical-composition guaranty required of him by the State laws; the other a percentage-ingredient guaranty required by this Federal law. Under present manufacturing conditions he can not comply with both of these requirements. The raw materials from which he makes his feeds vary materially in chemical composition. If, for example, the manufacturer is producing a feed guaranteed to contain a specified percentage of protein and is obtaining the protein from cottonseed meal, linseed meal, gluten feed, alfalfa, corn, and oats, he will find that his cottonseed meal varies from 32 to 38 per cent in protein, that his linseed meal varies from 31 to 36 per cent, the gluten feed from 20 to 27 per cent, and even the corn, oats, and alfalfa will show material variations in protein content from day to day and from shipment to shipment. In order to maintain his protein at approximately the guaranteed percentage, he must have all these ingredients analyzed by a chemist and must vary their per cent in his mixture in accordance with the chemist's report. If he were required to guarantee the percentage of ingredients and maintain that guaranty continuously, the chemical composition of his feed would necessarily fluctuate with the fluctuations in the composition in ingredients, and the chemical-composition guaranty would become absolutely inoperative-a veritable dead letter. The second objection to this provision is that it is absolutely non'enforceable. Neither chemists nor microscopists, nor the two working conjointly, can determine with any degree of accuracy the percentage of ingredients in a mixed feed of ordinary composition; and when I say that I mean that they can not determine it closely enough to give such a law any force whatever. This provision will depend for its value entirely on the honesty and good will of the manufacturer and will, consequently, operate to place a premium on dishonesty and a penalty on honesty. We trust that we have pointed out the objections to the second paragraph of section 26 in a clear and succinct manner, and if we have done so we think that it will appear rather conclusively that if the Gore amendment were to be passed as it now reads it would have the highly undesirable effect, especially in these times of stress, of preventing the interstate shipment of virtually all mixed feeds as they are now manufactured, and have been for a long time past. For again may we call your attention to the fact that practically everyone of them contains one or more of the ingredients prohibited in the first paragraph of section 26. For the above reasons, therefore, we seriously object to the Gore amendment, although we again reiterate that we have no contention whatsoever with those who desire that fraudulent feeds be prohibited from interstate shipment or even intrastate sale. We feed manufacturers are not opposed to Federal legislation for the control and regulation of our industry; but we feel from our knowledge of our own industry and from our experience with the practical operation of the laws of the several States, that such legislation should be comprehensive. We are happy to say that we stand ready and willing to give all the aid possible in the preparation of a Federal feeding-stuffs law whenever that aid may be desired by any Member or committee of the Congress of the United States. The CHAIRMAN. In order to set this matter clearly before the committee and to get it in the record, I want to ask Mr. Abbott a few questions. I would like to say, first, that the enumeration of articles contained in this amendment is not just and ad captandum enumeration; it is based upon analyses of actual feedstuffs which were being sold to farmers, and these materials were found in the feedstuffs. This amendment was taken from a report based on these experiment station analyses. As I understand, Mr. Abbott, you do not contend, of course, that stuff like sawdust and other dust and dirt, ground corncobs, cocoa shells, and ivory-nut turnings, whatever they are, ought to be mixed with these concentrated feeds and sold to the farmers? Mr. ABBOTT. We quite agree with you, Senator, that such things as sawdust and dirt are very undesirable. The CHAIRMAN. I am glad to hear you say that, and I knew you would. But your objections go to this entire amendment; you are opposed to the prohibition of interstate shipment of fraudulent feeds. You allege that this amendment is unworkable and impracticable, although in large measure you seem to favor the end sought. I will ask you at this point to prepare amendments to this proposed amendment that will cut out the fraud and will not interfere with legitimate business. You say this amendment is not workable, and yet that the end is desirable. I have no pride in this matter at all, and shall be glad to have any suggestions from you or your organization, or from any other quarter, that will meet this situation and avoid the evils that you suggest. You are president of what association? Mr. ABBOTT, The American Feed Manufacturers' Association. Mr. ABBOTT. Ten years old. The CHAIRMAN. How many members has it? Mr. ABBOTT. Approximately 175. The CHAIRMAN. Did you send out a number of telegrams, Mr. Abbott, to have telegrams sent in concerning this amendment? Mr. ABBOTT. We requested our membership to get in touch with the proper parties, so that we might be heard before the conference committee before the matter proceeded any further. Unfortunately, we had not had the opportunity of appearing previously. The CHAIRMAN. Will you be kind enough to attach to your statement a sample copy of your telegram to these organizations? Mr. ABBOTT. I will, sir. I have not the telegram with me, but the secretary of our organization undoubtedly can furnish it to you. (The telegram referred to was subsequently furnished and is here printed in full, as follows:) Gore amendment to House bill 11949 makes it unlawful to ship or transport in interstate commerce any concentrated commercial feeding stuffs containing mill, elevator, or other sweepings or dust, buckwheat, cottonseed, oats, or other hulls, clippings, screenings, chaff, or offal from any seed or grain when separated from standard product or from cleaning or milling, peat, flax, straw, hay, etc., passed Senate committee yesterday, likely pass Senate to-day, and House Saturday morning. This infamous measure will practically prohibit the shipment of every commercial mixed feed. Wire your Senators and Congressmen immediately to stop this bill. The CHAIRMAN. Who is the secretary of your organization, Mr. Abbott? Mr. ABBOTT. Mr. L. F. Brown, with headquarters at Milwaukee. The CHAIRMAN. How long has he been with you? Mr. ABBOTT. About five years, I think, if my memory serves me. The CHAIRMAN. Have his services been satisfactory? Mr. ABBOTT. Very. The CHAIRMAN. What was his official position before he became secretary of this Feed Manufacturers Association? Mr. ABBOTT. I can not attempt at this time to give you his exact status. My understanding was that he was working with the Department of Agriculture in the State of New York. The CHAIRMAN. And had to do with the law prohibiting adulterated foods? Mr. ABBOTT. Personally I am not in a position to enlighten you as to his definite duties at that time. ' Representative LEVER. You mean the State Department of Agriculture of New York? Mr. ABBOTT. The State Department of Agriculture of New York. The CHAIRMAN. You are not aware then that Mr. Brown, prior to his connection with your organization, was connected with the New York Department of Agriculture and had charge of the specimens that were to be analyzed for the detection of fraudulent mixtures? Mr. ABBOTT. Speaking from a definite standpoint, I can not say that I do know exactly. I have, of course, come in contact with him. I have had occasion to come in contact with him in the department of agriculture at Albany, but, as I stated a minute ago, just what authority he had in that department I am not prepared to say. The CHAIRMAN. If I do not find it soon I will put in the record later at this place the official status of Mr. Brown in the New York Department of Agriculture. Mr. ABBOTT. Speaking further on your suggestion of amending your present proposed regulations, we as feed manufacturers would like at this time to recommend to your committee a proposed uniform feed law which in 1913 was indorsed by the Department of Agriculture of the United States, by the feed-control officials of the various States, by delegates from the Millers' National Federation, the Interstate Cottonseed Crushers' Association, and the American Feed Manufacturers' Association. The CHAIRMAN. Will you attach a copy of that bill to your statement? |