Gambar halaman
[ocr errors]

raw. It would be unfair to put on a 70 barn score on Canadian producers, when cream comes in under what might be called in New York grade B Pasteurized and for which there is no numerical score and for which a reasonable barn and sanitation equipment holds.

My experience has been that with Boston inspectors and New York inspectors the cleanliness goes a long way in favor of admitting milk rather than possibly the highest equipment in the way of stalls and things like that.

Mr. PARKER. The bacterial content of the milk itself is the answer very largely, is it not?

Mr. GRANT. We are required under the law in Massachusetts, and the city of Boston follows out the Massachusetts regulations, to have cream that tests not over 500,000 bacteria. And, by the way, in New York if they find—and that is in your regulations there, Mr. Parker—they do not shut milk or cream out on the first score. They call the dealer's attention to the fact that his milk is of a higher bacterial count than the law requires and warn him on it and give him a specific time to make another report. He makes another report in that specified time, and if it is still high they take the matter in hand, and during a specified time they follow the matter up themselves to find out what the trouble is, and if it is something that has not been or can not be remedied they shut that cream out. But they do not fine them $1,000 or put them in jail.

Mr. PARKER. Now, in regard to the other provisions, the provisions made for the enforcement of the act.

Mr. Grant. In my opinion, as a practical creamery man, it would be utterly impossible in 90 days to get the machinery in motion. And what Mr. Holman says—while the department would issue permits, etc., I don't like to go on what somebody may think. The law says

that you can't take in cream unless you have a permit, and in order to get that permit you must have had a physical examination of all the cows, you must have your barn score, you must have bacteria under 500,000 at the point of entry, which would mean that you would have to have laboratories there, that you would have to have an immense amount of expense, more than they could get in order to go out and make inspections in 90 days. It positively could not be done. New York and Boston never required anything like it in 90 days. They give a man 6 months or a year to get ready.

Mr. TABER. Have you considered the practical situation, which is this: The bill takes effect 90 days after it becomes a law. It is impossible that the bill could possibly be passed and become a law much before July 1. That would mean the first of October before it would become a law. According to what you have told us this morning the importation of cream and milk from Canada from your standpoint, and according to what Mr. Haskell told us yesterday from the standpoint of his concern, is not an important factor after that period. With that in mind does the 90-day proposition make much difference?

Mr. GRANT. Yes: it does.
Mr. TABER. Why?

Mr. GRANT. Well, because that is a theoretical situation. The practical situation is that the law does go into effect. 90 days after it is passed. The law might be passed next week. You say the

[ocr errors]

first of July. They say Congress is going to adjourn on the 15th of June. We do not know when this is going to be passed.

Mr. HOLMAN. Mr. Grant, here is a table prepared by the Tariff Commission showing the monthly shipments by railroad into Boston during 1925, showing that in January 290,434 gallons, February 306,000 gallons—I will just read these aproximately-March 399,000, April 418,000, May 580,000, June 679,000; there is no statement of July; August 459,000, September 387,000, October 337,000. In other words, your October shipments are considerably less than your March shipments and approximately what your February shipments



Mr. GRANT. Yes. Mr. HOLMAN. So you have just testified that along about the first of October you begin to get western cream.

Mr. GRANT. No; we did not get western cream until about November.

Mr. PARKER. May I make this suggestion? Those Canadian shipments to which Mr. Holman called the attention of the committee from the Tariff Commission's report do not include shipments made from Mr. Grant's plant, which is on the Alburg side, and which are entered and billed at Alburg and billed as Vermont stuff to Boston.

Mr. HOLMAN. These were total shipments from all sources.

Mr. GRANT. Just one more thing there. Imposing a fine and imprisonment on anyone who knowingly violates that law-I never heard of such a thing on the importation of a dairy product. The word “knowingly" you say is put in there. That means you have to go into court and prove that you did not know.

The CHAIRMAN. It is hardly right to say that. The other fellow would have to prove that you did know.

Mr. GRANT. Yes; but you have to defend it. We have had that in milk cases before and the word “knowingly” has caused trouble to milkmen in the last 20 years.

The CHAIRMAN. Of course, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove that it was done knowingly.

Mr. ĜRANT. But after you have spent $1,000 to prove you did not know you never get your $1,000 back.

The CHAIRMAN. That is true. I am impressed all the way through with another thing that is not involved in it at all. This is all a question of human food, and when I think of the immense machinery surrounding milk and cream and butter that is in operation all over the country and in Canada and all the States and of the men that are employed, and the inspection that has to be made, and that all of it comes out of the consumer in order to get pure food, it is really a very expensive thing to be healthy and to see to it that the foods are healthy. It costs lots of money. If we could get rid of this in some way it would reduce the cost of living on butter and cream and milk at least to a wonderful extent. The amount of money in the aggregate that is spent for these inspections and these high salaried men is enormous. They seem to me to be necessary and I am not complaining about it. I am in favor of getting it as nearly perfect as possible but it is a terrible thing to think that it is going to cost so much to the people.

Mr. GRANT. In my opinion to put this thing adequately in effect would cost at least a quarter of a million dollars a year.

The CHAIRMAN. I want to read section 8 of this proposed bill:

Nothing in this act is intended nor shall be construed to affect the powers of any State, or any political subdivision thereof, to regulate the shipment of milk or cream into, or the handling, sale, or other disposition of milk or cream in such State or political subdivision.

I want to ask all these gentlemen here would not that give Boston the right to go to Canada and get her cream if she wanted to, regardless of the provisions of this bill? Does not that after all qualify the whole thing!

Mr. GRANT. Well, I hope it does.

Mr. PARKER. I never thought of that in that light, Mr. Chairman. It is possibly so. But doubtless the purpose of drafting the act was to provide that nothing should hinder the interstate shipment or the handling after it once got over the border. It may be that it would be adequate to do that. If so, the bill would be absolutely of negative value anyhow. There would be no value to it.

The CHAIRMAN. I do not want to help pass a law that is not any good after it is passed.

Mr. GRANT. I looked at that and the way I interpreted that is: Nothing in this act is intended nor shall be construed to affect the powers of any State, or any political subdivision thereof, to regulate the shipment of milk or cream into, or the handling, sale, or other disposition of milk or cream in such State or political division.

I figured it meant interstate business.
The CHAIRMAN. Maybe it does.

Mr. PARKER. May I ask just one or two more questions, Mr. Grant? If this bill were so amended as to provide that no dealer should be refused a license and no source of supply should be excluded until the United States had had an opportunity to examine and pass on the conditions and the barn score were reduced to a fair proposition, or leaving out the question of a score, to certain regulations as most of our boards of health set up, would you have any objection to the bill then?

Mr. GRANT. Except on the question of fine or imprisonment. I think if this was changed to “excluded” that would be sufficient. I do not think that the caliber of men in the milk and cream business today require a fine or imprisonment for having a high bacteria count.

The CHAIRMAN. It seems to me from these various witnesses that I get this idea : If a shipment of milk from some dealer comes in, whether it is from Canada or any place this side of the line, and the bacteria count is too high they do not exclude it in the first instance, but they notify him.

Mr. ÞARKER. That is the local regulation?
Mr. GRANT. New York.

The CHAIRMAN. He keeps on shipping, but they look after him right away? Mr. GRANT. Right away, and you have to make a definite report

The CHAIRMAN. And if that condition is not corrected they exclude his milk.

Mr. GRANT. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Now let us take this criminal provision. Suppose that happened, you have violated the law, have you not?

Mr. GRANT. Yes.

[ocr errors]

on it.


The CHAIRMAN. Would you not be liable to criminal prosecution then ?

Mr. GRANT. Yes, sure.
The CHAIRMAN. It seems to me that is where some danger comes in.

Mr. GRANT. Yes; it is not necessary if you can exclude the milk, which you can through either the State governments, the city governments, or the departments.

The CHAIRMAN. In other words, if you as a shipper now could ship in some milk or cream from Canada and you discovered when it came in that this batch of milk from this particular dealer had too many bacteria in it, you would ship it on nevertheless?

Mr. GRANT. No; we would not. If we took that at our plant up there we would send it back. We have a laboratory at the border and we send it back.

The CHAIRMAN. You do not test it every day, do you?

Mr. Grant. Pretty nearly. We take plants and if a plant is running, for instance—I think possibly this is what you meant to imply—you would not test every can of cream that came in. The CHAIRMAN. I do not see that that would be practicable. Mr. GRANT. You could not do it. The CHAIRMAN. It would cost too much money.

Mr. GRANT. It is impractical. In fact, the Government could not do it.

The CHAIRMAN. It would take too much time.
Mr. GRANT. But we check up on it.

The CHAIRMAN. Suppose a dealer has cream coming in; that cream in bulk consists of cream of a whole lot of individual farmers?

Mr. GRANT. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. And you find that the mixture does not come up to standard ?

Mr. GRANT. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. You do not know which one of these farmers does not comply or whether more than one or the bulk of them do not comply absolutely with the regulations, and you have to go back to the man you got it from, the original producer, and test each one to see which one is to blame.

Mr. GRANT. The way we do that, Senator, is this. We have what we call a quick method—the Contamos test. I do not know whether it is used in the west or not. But that gives us the quick bacteria count, and we will warn a plant that their milk was high, and if it is very high we will send it back, but if it is running toward the danger point we warn them and the next time it comes in if we find it high we put a man at the door to take samples of every can that comes in and pin it onto the right fellows, and find out whether it is a dirty test or very high acid.

The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen, we will have to stop now. Mr. PARKER. May I say, Mr. Chairman, that I will be glad to submit the various rules of the boards of health of the United States for pure food protection, New York, Massachusetts, Cleveland, and so forth?

The CHAIRMAN. If they are not already in the record we would like to have them, but I think most of them are already in.

Mr. PARKER. And I would like to submit a couple of petitions of the New England Association of Ice Cream Manufacturers and one from the various Vermont interests.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well.
(The petitions referred to are as follows:)

51 Cornhill, Boston Mass., May 20, 1926. At the meeting of the New England Association of Ice Cream Manufacturers held in Springfield May 19 it was unanimously voted to send the following letter: THE SENATE AGRICULTURAL COMMITTEE,

Washington, D. C. GENTLEMEN : We wish to enter our protest against the Lenroot bill, Senate 4126 as it is now drawn. Most of the sanitary regulations imposed in the bill we can indorse, but the amount appropriated for the enforcement of the act, $50,000, so inadequate that there would be no means of enforcement, and the 90 days allowed after the passage of the act for it to take effect would not allow the Government to make adequate provisions for its enforcement. Thus, cream would be shut out automatically in 90 days from the passage of the act.

New England is dependent on Canadian cream for its supply during the summer and fall months, and this act in its present form would inflict great hardship to both dealers and consumers.

We believe that the inspection of Canadian creameries and dairies as made by the Boston Department of Health and the health boards of other cities in New England is adequate to protect New England against impure cream coming across the border, and we earnestly ask that the provisions of the act be changed to give New England protection in the way of cream supply.


W. P. B. LOCKWOOD, Secretary. A true copy. Attest: W. P. B. Lockwood, secretary, representing 75 ice cream manufacturing companies.

LYNDONVILLE, VT., May 17, 1926. To the honorable COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE,

United States Senate, Washington, D. C. Petition in the matter of United States Senate bill 4126, “To regulate the importation of milk and cream into the United States for the purpose of promoting the dairy industry of the United States and protecting the public health.”

We believe that the above bill is unnecessary for protection of public health and that under the health laws and rules of the United States, the several States, and municipalities, there is adequate machinery to protect the purity of the milk and cream supply, and that the proposed law is so burdensome and expensive in the machinery of its administration that it will prevent fair competition of purest and clean milk and cream, thus unnecessary raising the price to the consumer.

We further believe that this form of restriction will react unfavorably on the dairy industry of New England instead of promoting the same.

We, therefore, respectfully petition your honorable committee to report adversely on the bill.

Maple Hills Creamery Co. (Inc.), East Berkshire, Vt., by B. F.

Combs, president; Wachusett Creamery, Enosburg Falls, Vt. ; Nestle's Food Co. (Inc.), Enosburg Falls, Vt., by G. M. Boyce, superintendent (plant) ; Holland Creamery Co., Derby Line, Vt.; J. G. Turnbull Co., Orleans, Vt., by T. D. Turnbull, vice president; Lyndonville Creamery Association, Lyndonville, Vt., by W. C. Conner, general manager; Lamoille Valley Creamery

Co., East Hardwick, Vt., by E. B. Fay, vice president. (Whereupon, at 12 o'clock noon, the hearing was adjourned to Tuesday, May 25, 1926, at 10:30 o'clock a. m.)

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »