Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

and we want to have them with as little complications to the seed men as possible, and of course, at a reasonable price. That is what we would like to have, of course, to have the price kept down.

Of course, we are not asking you to reduce the price

Mr. HOBBS (interposing). We are not taking the position that we are opposed to any legislation of this sort, because we earnestly desire a good seed law, and we feel there is a real need for it, and for the protection of the good seed men there should be a good law, but do not let us do something that is going to remove the protection from the seed men, good seed men, and stimulate more activity among the unethical operators.

Mr. COFFEE. We thank you, Mr. Hobbs.

Mr. HOBBS. Thank you.

Mr. COFFEE. Mr. Ross Eldridge, of Kansas City, is present, and I understand wants to make a statement.

STATEMENT OF ROSS M. ELDRIDGE, VICE PRESIDENT, RUDYPATRICK SEED CO., KANSAS CITY

Mr. ELDRIDGE. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Ross M. Eldridge, connected with Rudy-Patrick Seed Co., of Kansas City.

I really do not have any statement to make, and did not intend to appear myself. I think perhaps the situation was well covered by Mr. Hobbs, and I think that you are going to have a good seed bill, but there are several provisions in this bill we cannot support, and if these can be ironed out in connection with a committee from the Department, so that we can get something that is enforcible and workable, we are for it.

Mr. COFFEE. What particular section are you objecting to, Mr. Eldridge?

Mr. ELDRIDGE. Well, I think that is covered by Mr. Hobbs, and I think he has filed for the record suggested amendments and objections, and I will not go into them in detail unless you want me to. Mr. COFFEE. Do you have any statement you want to file?

Mr. Eldridge. No, I have not.

Mr. COFFEE. We thank you.

Our next witness is Mr. Edward F. Mangelsdorf.

STATEMENT OF EDWARD F. MANGELSDORF, PRESIDENT, EDWARD F. MANGELSDORP BROS., INC., ST. LOUIS, MO.

Mr. MANGELSDORF. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Edward F. Mangelsdorf, of St. Louis, Mo. I am chairman of the seed group of the American Seed Trade Association, and the president of Edward F. Mangelsdorf Bros., Inc., St. Louis.

Mr. COFFEE. We will be glad to have your statement, Mr. Mangelsdorf.

Mr. MANGELSDORF. Continuing with Mr. Hobbs' testimony, I am with this group, working with, and have been working with the legislative group committee on a seed bill, not only through the past year, but through the year previous. At that time we had different ideas which were suggested and worked upon, and we worked out some of them in a proposed bill, which was not accepted as possibly not

being practical for the present time at least. But in the meantime, Mr. Coffee's bill came out, and the seed trade and the legislative committee especially for the farm seed group, began working on it to see what could be done with that plan.

Now, this bill is the basis of a good plan. There are so many changes in it, however, that from the start we felt we should be better off if we could work directly with the seed policy committee appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture. And, after reading Mr. Hobbs' changes, or rather Mr. Hobbs' suggested changes, as deemed advisable to make in the previous bill, through many conferences, the new bill was substituted, that is, H. R. 9846, which includes vegetable seeds, and you will find good reasons for that; and we do have close contact with the seed policy committee, and believe that further conferences with them is the most direct way in which we can produce a good, reasonable plan, one that will be enforcible in all respects.

There are some points in there, particularly in section 203, that I see great possibilities in. I do not intend to repeat what Mr. Hobbs told you, but I do see great possibilities in that section, and if it can be made feasible and workable, I think much good can be done. But the way it is drawn now, I am convinced that it would require an army of men to enforce it; it would have to be done along the same lines that you make your investigations with respect to income tax, in the way that income-tax audits are made, or else it will just fall down and leave a loophole for the unscrupulous seed man to do what he wants to with it.

There is one small section that also stands out among the many difficulties we have to work on, and that is with respect to the name of agricultural seeds. For instance, Johnson grass is an agricultural seed, and is sold in interstate commerce, yet we cannot sell Johnson grass seed in the State of Missouri; they prohibit the sale entirely. Now that should be defined; we should have a definition of seeds that can be shipped in interstate commerce.

There is another item of that sort which must be tried out and worked out.

Mr. ANDRESEN. May I ask the gentleman a question?
Mr. COFFEE. Yes, Mr. Andresen.

Mr. ANDRESEN. I have a letter from the State Department of Agriculture of Minnesota, written by Fred Crane, director of the division of weed and seed control, and with your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to incorporate that letter in the record.

(The letter referred to is printed in the record as follows:)

STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,

Representative AUGUST H. ANDRESEN,

DAIRY AND FOOD,

April 1, 1938.

House Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: In the Coffee bill, H. R. 9846, as it now stands it appears that agricultural seeds containing all kinds of noxious weeds in unlimited amounts would be allowed to move in interstate commerce although the bill would prohibit similar lots of seed from entering the country. The only requirement which would be set would be that the names and numbers of the weed seeds would have to be given on the label.

This is in conflict with Minnesota's pure seeds acts, which, you will see by the enclosed, marked copy, limits the number of weed seeds to not more than 2 percent and the number of noxious weed seeds to not more than 90 per pound. ́ It would seem, were the conflict to be taken into court, that the State law's terms

could be invalidated by the Federal requirement, thereby removing one of the protecting bars from our agricultural set-up.

Would you, therefore, as a member of the House Agricultural Committee, work for amendment of this part of the bill so as to restrict movement of highly contaminated seed in interstate commerce and so into Minnesota? By bringing those certain pertinent passages of the law into line with Minnesota's requirements and those of other States, a great deal of good can be done.

Sincerely,

FRED CRANE, Director.

Mr. ANDRESEN. I want to read the first paragraph of that letter and see if you can help with this situation, and I quote:

In the Coffee bill, H. R. 9846, as it now stands, it appears that agricultural seeds containing all kinds of noxious weeds in unlimited amounts would be allowed to move in interstate commerce, although the bill would prohibit similar lots of seed from entering the country. The only requirement which would be set would be that the names and numbers of the weed seeds would have to be given on the label.

Now he further states that the provisions of the proposed bill are contrary to the laws of the State of Minnesota, and he is fearful that if this bill should be passed in its present form, that it would supersede the laws, not only of Minnesota but of other States, where they are attempting weed control through State legislation.

Now, what is your opinion with respect to that?

Mr. MANGELSDORF. As to whether it would supersede-I do not know that I can tell you.

Mr. ANDRESEN. It would as to interstate commerce.

Mr. MANGELSDORF. Very true. But in order to overcome the very objection that you have suggested there, the seed men are, from past experience, realizing that they must ship seeds into each State according to the State laws where the seeds are sold, and also, we must go beyond that and do two services, if there is any conflict in this bill, in interstate commerce, with the State laws, we must, as a matter of service, give to the State customers a chance to sell the seeds according to State laws.

Now, we have taken that as one of the suggested changes with respect to noxious weed seed, providing that noxious weed could go into the State of Minnesota, for example, in accordance with its act, but must comply with the noxious weed seed laws of the State.

Mr. ANDRESEN. What is the language you are suggesting?

Mr. MANGELSDORF. That is one of the changes that we want to be heard on, and have further discussion on with the seed policy committee.

Mr. COFFEE. I think it will be necessary to make some changes in the bill to conform with some of the State seed laws.

Mr. ANDRESEN. Now, he further states here that this is in conflict with Minnesota's pure seed act, which

you will see by the enclosed marked copy, limits the number of weed seeds to not more than 2 percent, and the number of noxious weed seeds to not more than 90 per pound.

That apparently is the law of the State of Minnesota.

Mr. MANGELSDORF. In our provisions, suggesting a change in the wording of this act as written, we have provided, or rather asked for a change which would allow the provision to disclose the State law of Minnesota, or that State law would be taken in on the label of seeds moving in interstate commerce into that State.

Mr. ANDRESEN. You are proposing that amendment to this present bill?

Mr. MANGELSDORF. That is right; that will be one of the proposed changes suggested in Mr. Hobbs' presentation.

Mr. ANDRESEN. Would that meet most of the requirements laid down by the various States, in their State laws?

Mr. MANGELSDORF. It would. There are, for instance, some 46 States, or 47 States, that today do have seed laws. All of them differ, and where we have seeds that go into States, we must comply with the State seed law requirements. There are some cases where we do not have to do that, but it is done as a matter of service; we must furnish that service in those States to the people who want to resell our products, and we have got to offer it by labels according to the State laws, they must sell under.

Mr. COFFEE. Would an amendment such as this cover the point you have in mind:

Except when a State has a law governing the sale of seed containing noxious seed as designated by their law, the law of the State shall govern the shipment or sale of seeds that contain noxious weed seeds.

Would that take care of the situation you have in mind?

Mr. MANGELSDORF. We feel that it would give us a greater freedom in transporting seed in interstate commerce.

Mr. ANDRESEN. Would it not be better, Mr. Chairman, to put in a general provision in the bill that would meet that requirement? That could be done to meet the requirements of the States so as to do away with as much duplication as possible; otherwise you might have for the 48 different types of State laws, 48 different laws governing the sale of noxious weed seed, and it seems to me that it might be feasible to incorporate that in one clause.

Mr. COFFEE. That is one of the difficult things confronting us. Mr. HOBBS. May I interrupt to make this observation, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. COFFEE. Yes, Mr. Hobbs.

Mr. HOBBS. I think that a general provision such as stated requiring the seedsmen to meet all the requirements in interstate commerce, of the provisions of each State law, would be most unfortunate for this reason, that we find in the statutes of the different States sometimes entire sections and sometimes a whole bill is so absurd and so impractical, that it is not being obeyed, or enforced at all. And a provision of that kind would lend new life to every bad State law. All we can do is to certify the content, insofar as noxious-weed seeds are concerned, that can be recognized; and we have a provision which I think Mr. Mangelsdorf was referring to in the proposed amendments. Mr. COFFEE. Will you let us have that amendment?

Mr. MANGELSDORF. This is found on page 5, lines 19 and 20, as the bill reads:

kinds of noxious-weed seeds present and the quantity of each expressed as to number per pound.

This is in change No. 11, amending the bill. On page 5, lines 19 and 20, strike out these two lines and in lieu thereof insert the followingthis would be No. (5):

Kind or kinds of noxious-weed seeds and all weed seeds present and the approximate rate of occurrence of each expressed in accordance with the law or regulations of the State into which the seed is transported.

That would be the change which Mr. Hobbs has given you in the proposed amendments.

Mr. LORD. May I ask the gentleman a question?

Mr. COFFEE. Yes, Mr. Lord.

Mr. LORD. Now some States, I take it, require a greater degree of purity in seeds than others, less weed seeds in them.

Mr. MANGELSDORF. Yes.

Mr. LORD. What is it for Minnesota?

Mr. MANGELSDORF. I do not recall the provision for Minnesota, but I can cite the State in which we do a considerable amount of business-Illinois. We are in St. Louis, and we ship across the river and do a considerable amount of business in Illinois. If I may, I can use that as an illustration.

Mr. LORD. Yes.

Mr. MANGELSDORF. Illinois requires a limit on the amount of noxious seed that can enter the State.

The State of Missouri does not require a limit, but it does require that the number per ounce be shown on the tag in excess of 125 grams. In the State of Illinois we can show also the number per ounce in excess of 125 grams up to a certain limit, then it is a prohibited sale. Mr. LORD. Would it be possible, you think, to clean these seeds so that they would go into any State? In other words, when you were taking out the weeds, you must make the seeds cleaner in some instances; you make the seeds clean, do you not?

Mr. MANGELSDORF. In some cases it is impossible, and in some the wholesaler can ship according to the custom. If I may continue, I will give you an illustration

Mr. LORD. Yes.

Mr. MANGELSDORF. The State of Illinois has a district growing red clover, a desirable clover, possibly from strains that have been very hardy; that have been in the same locality for many years; yet at the same time that district is subject to buckhorn. Buckhorn grows in that section, but it does not do a great deal of damage because the red clover is of a very hardy type.

Now it is the custom for farmers to sell that clover among themselves, or sell to dealers, and they in turn retail it, and they will tolerate a certain amount of buckhorn in that district and that has become a matter of custom, so it is not necessary in that district to clean the clover absolutely free of buckhorn; and in some cases it is impossible to do so. We can do a good job of cleaning it, but we cannot make it 100 percent clean.

Mr. LORD. That is for interstate purposes?

Mr. MANGELSDORF. Well, in all cases we purchase from Illinois this same clover from that section, and we clean it and do the best job that we can, but we cannot remove the buckhorn 100 percent, but we can ship that back under that tolerance into Illinois as Illinoisgrown seed.

Now, in that connection we cannot remove all the buckhorn and it is the custom that they sell that seed with some buckhorn in it, and it can be shipped into Illinois in that way; in other words, we buy that seed, clean it as best we can, and then ship it back and they accept it.

Mr. LORD. What about the State law? Does that conform to the State-law requirements?

« ForrigeFortsett »