STATEMENT OF HARRY H. HOBBS, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN SEED TRADE ASSOCIATION, DETROIT, MICH.

Mr. HOBBS. Mr. Chairman, my name is Harry H. Hobbs. I am president of the American Seed Trade Association.

Mr. COFFEE. We will be glad to hear you, Mr. Hobbs, on any suggested changes that you may have to make to the provisions of this bill.

Mr. HOBBS. I would like to take a few moments, Mr. Chairman. Mr. COFFEE. You may proceed.

Mr. HOBBS. If I may, Mr. Coffee, I would like to make it perfectly clear that the American Seed Trade Association and its affiliate organizations, the seed associations of this country, are thoroughly in sympathy with the objectives of the Department.

We know they have had difficulty with the present law, and we know they want to have a good seed law, and we want to see them have a good bill. We made that suggestion here a year ago last January, and we have all spent a great deal of time in trying to offer something workable that could be recommended.

We recommended last year, last summer, a bill involving rather radical treatment, but something involving the type of enforcement that will be effective in this country. Possibly that is too soon for it from practical reasons, but that at least is evidence of a sincere desire to produce a bill that will do an effective job in regulating interstate commerce in this country.

Now, I want to emphasize also that the great majority of the seed men in this contry are honest, dependable businessmen, who are trying earnestly to do a good business in the face of tremendous difficulties.

I think that as evidence of that fact the 12 firms represented here this morning have a total experience in business of 717 years, or an average of 60 years each, so I think, if you please, their experience in the seed business should be worth something in planning a seed bill, and, secondly, the seed men who are discussing this thing are giving their attention to producing a fair bill, and are representative citizens. Now, our concern entirely is with the matter of producing a bill which will strike a happy medium, which I think both sides hope to do, so that we can do a good job, and work out a bill that will be satisfactory to all concerned, one that will enable the Department to do a good job in regulating interstate commerce, and yet at the same time will not handicap nor harass the good citizens who are trying to conduct a legitimate business.

Now, the framing of seed legislation is probably one of the most difficult things that has to be faced in the matter of legislation. The State statue books of this country have been loaded in the past years with laws which have had either entire sections or provisions that have been so impracticable, so erratic, that they have simply been forced to discard them entirely, and that has been due to the fact that sufficient attention was not given in getting something needed to meet a definite situation.

And it is an exceedingly complex problem. I would like, if I may, to point out some places in this bill before taking up the text of the bill, which I think require consideration.

In the first place, we are setting up in this bill, as has been stated, a broad definition of agricultural seeds that have to apply to all seeds which may be produced, whether on a small scale or on a large scale.

Now, this may not be something that seems so important, but I want to bring it to your attention, but from the Department's standpoint, it seems to me it would be better to have a definition of agricultural seed, and give to the Secretary of Agriculture the authority to add to the kinds of agricultural seeds defined in the act. That, I think, would remove a situation that is causing worry, although it may not be warranted, on the part of those who object to this type of regulation.

That is one of the points that I think is rather important, and there again is something which would need considerable study in order to cover a situation which affects every part of the country. Again, we have the requirement here of the "true and correct state'ment" and the definition of that true and correct statement is that it means a statement which is not false or misleading in any particular. Every honest seedman knows that it is humanly impossible for him to give a true and correct statement as to every lot of seed because all he can do is to make a test, give a statement of a test properly made under recognized sampling processes, taken from the lot of seed which he has bought.

Again, there is no provision here for tolerance; and you are up against the question of variations in tests made and the testing methods used all over the country. There must be a proper tolerance provided for, and there is nothing in this bill which sets up the principle of tolerance in the act on the contrary, it is provided here that the method provided by the official Analysts Association to be used, or that any other method which the Secretary of Agriculture may promulgate, may be put into effect.

Now, in the first place, it seems unnecessary to include in this the reference to the official seed analyst because of the provision made that the Secretary may make such provisions and make promulgations as he sees fit. Therefore, he can use the method of the official seed analyst if he wants to do so.

On the other hand, it is a private organization, and on top of that its membership includes Canada, so that I do not think there should be any reference made to it.

Again, I think there should be set up in this bill definitely the principle that tolerance must be considered; that it must be considered, that the Secretary of Agriculture may be permitted to set up the rules and regulations with that idea in mind.

Now, to go on further. This bill provides for the enforcement of certain provisions with regard to the movement of seed in interstate commerce. It also states "or at any time thereafter." And I do not think that this bill can provide for the movement of seed, the control and movement of seed in interstate commerce, and also the control in intrastate commerce.

I do not think that statement is necessary because it is made applicable to interstate commerce.

Again, I want to call attention to this provision in the bill. It is to cover the movement of agricultural seeds that are defined, and vegetable seeds as defined, and yet there is one clause and penalty

provision which says agricultural seeds, vegetable seeds, or any other seeds. We do not feel, and I think that you will agree that there should not be put in a penalty provision seed which may never come under the bill, a bill which is intended to cover agricultural and vegetable seeds.

Mr. COFFEE. Would you mind pointing out the places in the bill, Mr. Hobbs, as you come to them?

Mr. HOBBS. Yes. Now, on page 8, lines 20 and 21, strike out the words "or any other seed" and make it read "any agricultural seeds and vegetable seeds having a false labeling or pertaining to which there has been a false advertisement."

Now, I am passing over this and simply covering the high lights; there are a number of things that we think can be rearranged and amended, and I will not take time to go into details now, although I will be glad to cover that later, as I have them all written out here.

Again, in section 205, the provision with reference to disclaimers and nonwarranties, which pertains to any possible seed, which he may have, because of the inherent nature of the product that he is handling, the seed man is restricted to the extent that he is not covered under the provisions of this bill.

It also says "or the rules and regulations made and promulgated thereunder."

We feel very strongly that that should not be subjected to any rules or any regulations. I will go into that more fully at a later time.

And, section 203 is in my opinion the most objectionable section in that bill, and I firmly believe that it will cause a chaotic condition in the seed industry and the agricultural industry generally. I know it was put there with good intentions, and I recognize it, but I maintain that that provision will simply make it possible for the unethical seedman, unless you are going to provide an appropriation that will be 10 times the amount you speak of in this bill, to effectively enforce the regulations in this country, to sell more seed than he could possibly sell otherwise under the protection of this clause. Unless the actual movement and the records of the shipments of seed in interstate commerce can be checked, unless you are going to authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to establish a sufficiently large field force to thoroughly check and thoroughly supervise the work that would be required under that section, that will simply set up here a situation where the unethical operator, because of the competitive conditions, can increase his sales, and can get a statement from growers that he has bought a hundred pounds of such and such variety of seed, and he will sell upon the reputation of that grower a thousand pounds.

In other words, you put him in position of being able to sell any quantity he sees fit unless the Department can follow that up, first, last and all the time, and unless you are ready to go through with that, you are going to ruin the seed business.

Now, I think that I speak for the members of the trade association when I say that we are in sympathy with the idea that is expressed in that section, and I think it is a subject that is broad in its implications; it is so broad and has so many possibilities, I think it should be be approached only with the most intensive study, and then possibly studied only in a limited way, and enlarged upon as we go on.

Mr. COFFEE. Mr. Hobbs, if you will permit the suggestion, I think I can say that section 203 will be changed, and in Dr. Bressman's

statement this morning he recommended a substitution for this section 203, and I am not sure that you are familiar with the provisions that have been recommended as a substitute.

Mr. HOBBS. No, I am not; but I think the subject is so important that again I want to say I think it should be approached only after the most intensive study, and whatever language is used should be gone over very, very carefully, and I say that for the protection of the farmers, and they, after all, are the consumers of the seeds, as well as in the interests of the seedsmen; I think that that must be very, very carefully considered.

And you have got to, eventually, if you are going to put in that kind of language, to provide a very large appropriation to carry out the provisions of that section.

Now, there are some other things that should be touched upon. I am simply giving you the more important things involved here.

Again, there is the question of penalties, and again I sympathize with the feeling of the Department on this score. They have had a tough situation under the law, which, so far as the movement in interstate commerce is concerned, simply provides an implied penalty and the necessity of proving that the statement was false or fraudulent.

Here you have a bill set up in which everything going into interstate commerce is going to be liable to a considerable degree, and no provision for standard is given.

I mention that because I think it is hardly fair to the seedsmen, the man who makes an honest statement, and I think you will agree with me, while it is necessary to provide some measure of penalty, undoubtedly to be able to enforce the provisions of this law, yet there should not be set up a minimum penalty.

I may say that I am in favor of a good strong penalty for the persistent offender. I think every honest seedsman in the country would like to see those fellows taken care of, as they should be, but you could provide a perfectly fair and a perfectly reasonable set-up if you would simply provide in the law that the judge before whom the individual case comes should fix the minimum penalty, and after all, in the individual cases which come before him, he should be able to determine with some degree of accuracy what the measure of the punishment should be. Simply establish a maximum but not a minimum penalty. This bring me back to this, Mr. Coffee: We simply want to see a good Federal seed bill. We know from sad experience all over the country that too hasty an approach simply results in handicapping your regulatory bodies in the work of the good, honest seedsman.

Now, we do not want to see anything like this delayed, if it can be avoided, for another year. What we do feel, however, is this: There is so much technical matter involved here, that I think it important we spend some time in arriving at what would be a good bill. There are so many problems involved that I think if we tried to decide without working out these intricate problems, that we will simply create an intollerable situation.

In the last analysis, it seems to me that perhaps we should be able to bring in a bill that will be reasonable; that will be practical and enforceable for the Department and for the representatives of the seed industry as well, and to me I feel very strongly that what we should do with this is to go over the whole situation again, have free and open discussion between the Department and the seed industry, and see if we cannot agree on a practical bill.

As I see it, it is not possible for the layman, who is not familiar with the technical features of the problem, to appreciate the difficulties involved. You can see them, but it is difficult to realize their significance and importance; many of the provisions have a relation to another, and a change made in one provision may or may not have some significance with respect to another provision.

We would like to have this bill delayed with the understanding that the committee on seed policy and ourselves be given the opportunity to sit down and have further conference. We have had a few conferences. These gentlemen have come down here, and I am perfectly willing for us to spend some time going over this bill and considering it with the Department.

There is a great deal involved, but I do not want us to act too hastily. I think we can work out a bill, and when we pass a bill, it should be one to work to the advantage of the consumers of seed; we do not want to break down, we do not want regulations that will create uncertainty and hazards for the good seedman, because, heaven knows, we have enough hazards now.

Now, we have here prepared some suggested amendments to the pending bill. A number of them are just the same wording, with just a word or two changed, from what is in the language of the bill. Mr. COFFEE. We will be glad to have that inserted in the record. (The suggested amendments referred to follow :)

Suggested Amendments to the Coffee BILL, H. R. 9846, Introduced MARCH 14, 1938

BY THE LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE OF THE AMERICAN SEED TRADE ASSOCIATION AND CURTIS NYE SMITH, GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE AMERICAN SEED TRADE ASSOCIATION

Dated April 5, 1938

1. Page 2, lines 17 to 19 inclusive, strike out and insert the following: “(A) Agricultural seeds are defined as seeds of

Pro

vided, That the Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to add to the kinds of agricultural seeds defined in this Act where used to produce field crops, and to remove from the operation of this Act kinds of agricultural seeds, when, in his judgment it is in the public interest so to do."

2. Page 2, lines 24 to 26 inclusive, and page 3, lines 1 to 16 inclusive, to be stricken out and in lieu thereof insert the following:

"(7) (A) For the purposes of title III, the term 'weed seeds' means the noxious weed seeds listed in subsection (B) under this subsection (7) and all seeds not listed in subsection (6) (A) and as amended by amendment No. 1 last-above stated."

3. Page 4, line 25, strike out the final period, insert a semicolon and the following words:

"But in the case of a substantial difference of opinion among experts qualified by scientific training and experience as to the truth of the representation, the advertisement or labeling, as the case may be, shall not be considered misleading." 4. Page 4, at the conclusion of title I, insert the following new matter:

"(16) The purity of agricultural and vegetable seeds shall be defined as. the freedom from inert matter and some other seeds distinguishable by their appearance."

5. Page 4, following the last suggested amendment, add the following: "(17) The word 'approximate', as used in this statute, and having the same meaning as a margin of tolerance, shall be defined in its various uses under this Act by regulations promulgated by the Secretary of Agriculture.”

6. Page 4, following the last suggested amendment, add the following: "(18) For the purpose of enforcement of this Act, wherever the terms 'purity', 'germination', 'live pure seed', 'weed seeds', 'noxious weed seeds', 'hard seeds', and 'other crop seeds' are used, they shall be based on the test made from a

60499-38-ser. h