favor on the balance of trade was $41,568,088; and for every pound of butter that we imported we exported one of a higher value on the average.

Of course during the war we were having a big demand for milk, and we were having a tremendous balance on dairy products generally running from 6 to 15 times as much on exports as we had on imports, including condensed milk which went for war purposes. This resulted in having a considerable export surplus, and immediately following the war we were faced with what to do with that surplus. We were in the same position as we were with our grain situation; we were all dressed up and nowhere to go; and tariffs could not help us when we had an export surplus, particularly.

(The table referred to is as follows:)

Mr. PARKER. Now I have also a little table showing the fact that New England has a very small surplus over the amount required for table consumption in milk. This is from figures taken from the New England Milk Producers' Association official organ of 1922, The New England Dairy.

The milk produced was 4,470,680. We required of that for milk 3,700,453. Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont had an excess. Massachusetts took up practically all of the excess of the farms for its shortage. Rhode Island and Connecticut also took up some of the shortage. It left a net balance over the amount required for milk of 770,127 quarts per day, which would hardly take care of the Boston demand for cream, to say nothing about butter produced up in New England. That naturally had to go for butter, because they are smally dairies, and it could not come in in the form of cream. I submit that.

(The table referred to is as follows:)

99586-26- -15

Mr. PARKER. Just one word more, and it is an important word, and important to those interested in the dairy industry, regardless of health. I want to refer to this monthly summary of exports. The CHAIRMAN. What year is that?

Mr. PARKER. December, 1925. That is the time we make up the annual report.

Our dairy products in total of all kinds exported were of a value of $22,837,093.

The CHAIRMAN. For what time?

Mr. PARKER. That is 12 months ending in December. The exports were $22,837,093.

The CHAIRMAN. What were the imports?

Mr. PARKER. The imports were $30,107,492.

Now, if we examine where this goes-and I have only just two or three figures on this-we find that we exported of condensed, evaporated, powdered, and fresh and sterilized milk, in 1925, 29,835,980 pounds, of a value of $6,224,572, to the United Kingdom. To the British East Indies we exported 1,664,522 pounds, of a value of $172,436. British South Africa, 1,379,194 pounds, of a value of $155,764.

I have not the figures for 1925, for some reason, on butter, but in 1924 we exported in butter to the United Kingdom, 2,354,289 pounds, of a value of $860,033.

An examination of this sheet shows that of meat and various things produced on the farm we were shipping heavily to Great Britain and the various component parts of the Kingdom. It shows that of eggs we shipped to Canada, in 1925, 2,617,929 dozens, of a value of $945,054.

Now, I want to ask whether it is not worth while for the farmers of the country to stop and think whether we can consistently, by direction or indirection, endeavor to exclude foreign products of the same general class while seeking other markets. Of course, no country can say anything if a tariff is established. They can establish counter tariffs, etc. But if this were done for the purpose of shifting trade from Canada to some particular portion of the country, is it not quite possible that legislation might result which would injure the farmer?

Senator RANSDELL. Would there be any objection to the passage of this bill if we were to apply it to interstate commerce in our own Nation, here?

Mr. PARKER. I think there would be no objection, although you would have to make a large appropriation.

Senator RANSDELL. Of course, but it would be wise, in the main, would it not? Would it not promote the health?

Mr. PARKER. That is a question which I can not answer categorically. It might, as far as milk is concerned, but I honestly believe, as I expressed to the chairman earlier in the hearing to-daySenator RANSDELL. I am sorry I was not here.

Mr. PARKER (continuing). The opinion that if milk or cream either one is pasteurized, if the bacterial content is counted before it is pasteurized and then pasteurized right at the same spot, that amply provides for health, without the tremendous burden which the chairman referred to the other day in the hearing, that these health laws were incurring. In other words, that the test of the milk or cream is its test at the market. The difficulty with the count after it is pasteurized is that you may have it pasteurized and may have dead bugs in there instead of live ones.

Senator RANSDELL. It is so easy to have these regulations carried out in great cities like you refer to, such as Boston, but there are many small towns anywhere from 2,500 to 50,000 or 60,000. Mr. PARKER. That is true.

Senator RANSDELL. And in the aggregate they run up to a pretty large population, and you can not have these rules carried out like you do in the large cities.

The CHAIRMAN. And all those people ought to be protected.

Senator RANSDELL. They ought to be protected, it seems to me. Mr. PARKER. The only difficulty in that, it seems to me, is that because of the present tendency toward economy in the National Government probably you can not get such a bill as that through. Senator RANSDELL. We economize on everything except the public health.

Mr. PARKER. I agree with you, we economize on everything. Senator RANSDELL. We talk about it, but we are stingy when it comes to the public health, absolutely stingy, in my judgment. Mr. PARKER. I believe in liberal appropriations for constructive purposes. I think that is where the big saving comes.

May I just say that if there is something of which I would submit a copy, the same as Congressman Taber suggested, that may protect us in the event of the passage of this act until proper inspection could be made, that would help very materially on the passage of this bill.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Parker, let me suggest to you, like I did to Congressman Taber, that you write a letter suggesting amendments

from

it

your standpoint, directed to me, and when the committee takes up in executive session, I will lay all those things before it. Mr. PARKER. I shall thank you to.

I wish to thank you for the courtesy extended in the hearings. I have felt somewhat handicapped because I did not have advance knowledge, and it is my fault that I did not, but I started in with a very poor opportunity to make preparation, consequently I asked your indulgence more than I ordinarily would.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I guess that is the end of the hearings, and the committee will adjourn.

(The following letter from the Secretary of Agriculture was received following the close of the hearings and by the chairman ordered printed in the record:)

Hon. GEORGE W. NORRIS,

MAY 29, 1926.

United States Senate.

Chairman Committee on Agriculture and Forestry,

DEAR SENATOR NORRIS: In compliance with your recent request, I am making the following comment on S. 4126, "A bill 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."

I am wholly in sympathy with any measure designed to protect the public health. The growing interest and concern of the Federal and State Governments to leave no stone unturned to insure a pure and wholesome milk supply for the United States is evidenced by the fact that during the current fiscal year more than $15,000,000 is being expended for the eradication of bovine tuberculosis, to which must be added the cost sustained by the owners of the herds tested. A material increase is anticipated in State expenditures for this work during the next fiscal year, and it is important that every possible precaution be taken to supplement their efforts by adequate quarantine and import regulation at ports.of entry.

The department, in its experience in dealing with regulatory questions such as would probably arise under the bill referred to, if enacted into law, has found it more satisfactory to temper the exactions in the beginning in such manner as not to demoralize the producing industry. With this in mind I advance the suggestion that the committee consider very carefully whether it would not be more advisable to impose less exacting requirements at the beginning than this bill contemplates, leaving the more stringent regulations for the cities as the use of the product indicates.

The bill provides for the issuance of permits to shippers of milk and cream into the United States with certain conditions precedent to the issuance of such permits. It is noted that an appropriation of $50,000 per annum is provided for the enforcement of the measure as now drawn. It will be impossible to estimate the cost of enforcing the act because of the variable factors such as the amount of cooperation which can be expected from foreign governments and the number of producers who will desire to ship to the United States under the conditions set forth in the bill.

The present bill contains an apparent inconsistency in that section 4 provides that it shall be unlawful to receive milk or cream imported into the United States from the importer thereof unless the person by whom such milk or cream was imported holds a valid permit. In view of the fact that no provision is made for the issuing of permits to others than the shippers of milk or cream into the United States, it is believed that the section should be amended by the substitution of "shipper" for "importer " in line 3 and that the word "imported" in line 4 should be stricken out and the phrase "shipped into the United States" substituted therefor.

Sincerely yours,

W. M. JARDINE, Secretary.

Referred to the Bureau of the Budget, pursuant to Circular No. 49 of that bureau, and returned to the Department of Agriculture under date of May 24, 1926, with the advice that the foregoing is not in conflict with the President's financial program.

(Whereupon the hearings were then closed, and the committee adjourned subject to call.)

X