to with him. do something occasionally to square ourselves Laughter.] Senator GRONNA. May I ask you what your position is with reference to the manufacture of twine by the State prisons Mr. BAKER. I have left that matter entirely to Mr. Lukens. never thought of interfering in that. I have (Thereupon, at 2.05 o'clock p. m., the subcommittee adjourned to meet on Tuesday, February 29, 1916, at 10 o'clock a. m.) . IMPORTATION OF SISAL AND MANILA HEMP. TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 29, 1916. UNITED STATES SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY, Washington, D. C. The subcommittee met in the committee room, Capitol, Senator Joseph E. Ransdell, presiding, at 10.05 o'clock a. m., pursuant to adjournment. Present: Senator Ransdell (chairman), Senator Gronna, and Sen-ator Wadsworth. Mr. SPENCER. Mr. Chairman, in connection with the statement of Mr. Lukens, who appeared before the committee on Saturday, I would like to read into the record a short statement printed in the last issue of his paper, just as showing its attitude. This is an editorial from the Farm Implement News of the issue of February 24, 1916 (reading): CONCERNING PRICES. From the standpoint of the farmer, the advance in the prices of agricultural implements is of little consequence. Had it come at a time when prices of farm products were low and agricultural prosperity absent, the result would have been quite different. But with farmers getting about $1.15 for wheat, 70 cents for corn, 40 cents for oats, more than 7 cents for hogs, and prices correspondingly high for other products, the advances which increasing cost have made necessary in the implement trade will be nothing approaching a hardship. The primary cause of the advance is the same in both cases. The great war has given the farmer extraordinary prices for his products and now it will require him to pay an advance on farm operating equipment. Mr. Mayer suggests that I read also an advertisement printed on page 22 of the same number. [Reading:] To implement dealers: Two weeks ago I urged you to ask farmers to write to their congressional representatives demanding passage of resolutions calling for an investigation of the sisal fiber monopoly. The next day the Senate ordered an investigation of binder-twine prices, and the investigating committee, which is now holding hearings in Washington, is receiving testimony relating to every phase of the subject, including the monopoly of sisal and the exorbitant prices charged by the Sisal Trust. The important thing now to be done is to have farmers write to members of the investigating committee telling them what the effect of the trust's operations will be on the cost of harvesting grain and how the trust is in a position and has already begun to exact an enormous tribute from grain growers. It will be well also for you to write to members of the committee. The committee is composed of Senator Jos. E. Ransdell, of Louisiana, chairman; Senator A. J. Gronna, of North Dakota, and Senator J. W. Wadsworth, of New York. Mail or telegrams addressed to them in care of the United States Senate will reach them. No matter what you have done before in the fight against the greedy Sisal Trust, write to some member of the committee and urge representative farmers of your section to do the same. Western and northwestern dealers and farmers should write to Senator Gronna, eastern to Senator Wadsworth, and southern to Senator Ransdell. The Sisal Trust is endeavoring with the aid of crafty lawyers to show that the fight is in the interests of the big twine producers and that the farmer will not be affected by its control of the sisal supply. You who know that the ultimate consumer must pay all of the advances in the price of the fiber should, in the interests of your customers, do what you can to offset the impression that may be received from the trust's representations. C. A. LUKENS, Editor Farm Implement News. Mr. FISHER. You did not prepare that for him, did you, Mr. Spencer? Mr. SPENCER. If I had I could not have prepared it any better for the purpose of proving what I started out to prove. [Laughter.] The CHAIRMAN. Senator Gronna has something which he wishes to submit for the record. Senator GRONNA. Mr. Chairman, I have received a telegram which I believe I will ask to have incorporated in the record. This telegram is from one of the pioneers in our State. He is a very able and influential man. He is not a farmer. He is an implement dealer and merchant, and he is a member of the State senate. I will read the telegram, as it is very brief [reading]: Hon. A. J. GRONNA, Washington, D. C.: HILLSBORO, N. DAK., February 28, 1916. Farmers here are much interested in Sisal Trust investigation. The present rise in fiber incurs a loss to the farmers of this State alone of over $700,000. JOHN E. PAULSON. The CHAIRMAN. You could not tell us how he estimates that $700,000 loss? Senator GRONNA. We have under cultivation 16,000,000 acres of land. Of course, that includes everything. The CHAIRMAN. Corn and everything else as well as the small grains? Senator GRONNA. Yes. Of course, that would be 32,000,000 pounds, figuring 2 pounds to the acre. Mr. FISHER. That would be the average? Senator GRONNA. That would be the average; yes. I do not know how he estimates it. Mr. FISHER. He probably took the difference in price between this year and last year, and the quantity of grain, and estimated it on that basis. STATEMENT OF MR. DOMINGO F. EVIA, PLANTER, MERIDA, YUCATAN, MEXICO. Mr. SPENCER. Mr. Evia, please state your full name. Mr. EVIA. Domingo F. Evia. Mr. SPENCER. Where is your home? Mr. EVIA. My home is in Merida, Mexico. Mr. SPENCER. Are you interested or engaged in the growing and production of sisal? Mr. EVIA. Yes, sir; I am a farmer myself. Mr. SPENCER. How long have you been so engaged? Mr. EVIA. Why, about 12 years. Mr. SPENCER. Was your father engaged in that same business? Mr. EVIA. He was a farmer. Mr. SPENCER. I presume that the plantations which you have in Merida were inherited from your father? Mr. EVIA. I inherited from my father. Mr. SPENCER. Do you know anything of the conditions that existed in the fiber market of Yucatan prior to, say, 1912? M. EVIA. Yes, sir. Mr. SPENCER. Will you please state in your own way the situation in the fiber market in Yucatan prior to that time? Mr. EVIA. Why, I know that there were only two houses who bought hemp from the farmers, and these houses were Montes and Peirce. Mr. SPENCER. Well, were they in competition with each other in the purchase of fiber? Mr. EVIA. No; I do not believe they were. Mr. SPENCER. Was there any difference, and if so, what, in the prices at which they bought? Mr. EVIA. There was no difference, because they always paid the same price. Mr. SPENCER. Was the price which they paid a fair price, as a rule? Mr. EVIA. No; I do not believe it was a fair price. Mr. SPENCER. Was that price ever below the cost of production to the planter? Mr. EVIA. Most of the time. Mr. SPENCER. Now, did the farmers ever take any steps or do anything in an effort to relieve themselves of that situation? Mr. EVIA. Yes; I know that they did. They formed two or three corporations or associations to fight these houses that were buying hemp in Merida. They were the Compania de Hacendados de Henequen and the Compania Exportadora de Henequen. Prior to those was the Camara Agricola. Mr. SPENCER. Were those associations able to do anything for the relief of the planters? Mr. EvIA. No; I do not believe they were. Mr. SPENCER. Why not? What was the trouble? Mr. EVIA. Why, the Compania Exportadora de Henequen had a capital of 500,000 pesos, Mexican, and they entered the market buying hemp. They succeeded in raising the price of the hemp, not over 50 cents, I guess-between 25 and 50 cents-but, of course, the capital was so small they could not do much, you know. As soon as they bought hemp to the amount of their capital they had to stop, and the prices of the hemp went down again. Mr. SPENCER. While they were buying hemp did Montes and Peirce stay in the market or did they stay out of the market? Mr. EvIA. They were in the market, but they did not pay as much as this company did. Mr. SPENCER. So as soon as that company bought to the extent of its capital it had to stop buying, and then the prices were put down? Mr. EVIA. Yes. Mr. SPENCER. Whom did Mr. Montes represent in Yucatan? Mr. EvIA. Mr. Montes represented the International Harvester Co. Mr. SPENCER. And Mr. Peirce? Mr. EvIA. Mr. Peirce, the Plymouth. Mr. SPENCER. Was that a perfectly open and well understood matter in Yucatan? Mr. EvIA. Oh, yes; everybody knew it. Mr. SPENCER. Did Montes himself claim to be the agent of the International? Mr. EVIA. Yes; he said so always, and we know about Mr. Peirce representing the Plymouth. Mr. SPENCER. Now, Mr. Evia, what was the condition of the laboring people and the farmers generally in Yucatan ? Mr. EVIA. Well, the condition was very bad, because not being paid at a fair price we always had to rely on the laborers. When we did not get the price that would assure us the cost of our production we would always lower the price to the laborers. Mr. SPENCER. In other words, if the farmer could not make any money at those prices he would have to reduce the prices to those laborers? Mr. EVIA. Why, we had to do that; otherwise we could not work. Mr. SPENCER. Then the last effort made was the organization of the Reguladora in 1912? Mr. EvIA. In 1912; yes, sir. Mr. SPENCER. When that comision was first organized did it operate successfully? Mr. EVIA. No; I did not. It did not, because it did not have any capital at all, and to succeed in this hemp business requires a large capital. Mr. SPENCER. Did Mr. Montes and Mr. Peirce adopt any tactics of any kind for the purpose of fighting it? Mr. EVIA. Yes; they did; the same that they did when the Compania Exportadora went into the market. Mr. Montes and Peirce allowed the Reguladora to buy hemp, and as soon as they exhausted their money they bought at a lower price. Mr. SPENCER. They put the price down? Mr. EVIA. Yes. Mr. SPENCER. Now, is this association, the Comision Reguladora, a voluntary organization on the part of the planters? Mr. EvIA. It is. Mr. SPENCER. Have you a contract with the Reguladora for the sale of your hemp? Mr. EVIA. Yes, sir. Mr. SPENCER. Was that contract entered into by you voluntarily? Mr. EVIA. Yes, sir. Mr. SPENCER. What is the object and purpose of the Reguladora, as you understand it down there? Mr. EvIA. I understand that the object and purpose of the Reguladora is to regulate the price so as to give us a fair interest on our money invested on our farms. Mr. SPENCER. All you want is a fair profit on your product? Mr. SPENCER. To your knowledge, has there been any determination or discussion of raising the price arbitrarily in the United States? Mr. EVIA. I do not think so, because it would not be wise for us to do that? Mr. SPENCER. Why do you say it would not be wise? |