« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »
The CHAIRMAN. Very well. I think you have made that clear. Have you any other amendments to offer?
Mr. PARKER. As to section 5, page 5, I submit that with a bunch of reputable dealers, which is the usual situation in this line, and with the right of revocation of permits, there is no necessity for putting in a provision for heavy fine and imprisonment if anyone should do a certain thing. I want to suggest as a matter of decency that that be stricken out.
The CHAIRMAN. You think with the right of revocation, with uncontrolled authority in the Secretary of Agriculture, that that is sufficient without a penal provision ?
Mr. PARKER. Yes, sir.
Mr. PARKER. Yes. Or certainly the word “imprisonment” should not go in there.
The CHAIRMAN. Of course, with the word “knowingly” it would let the most of the violators off anyhow.
Mr. PARKER. I know of a case of one man who said that he had to pay a fine of a thousand dollars with the word “knowingly” in there.
The CHAIRMAN. What is the next amendment?
Mr. PARKER. Coming now to section 6, page 5, you set up an ap; propriation of $50,000. If this law is presented to you in good faith, and I know when and if you pass it you will pass it in good faith, as a health measure, there should be adequate provision to cover enforcement of the law. I want to tell you that $50,000 is not sufficient.
Senator KEYES. Your amendment here provides for $500?
Senator RANSDELL. I do not believe you heard Senator Keyes's question. Is it $500 or is it $500,000?
Mr. PARKER. Oh, it should be $500,000. I dictated that that way, but the stenographer who hurriedly wrote it out must have left the word “thousand” off. It would mean if you are going to have bacteriological tests made at the border in order to protect our clients, that they may know the situation they are in on this bill, you would have to have between Buffalo and the east coast of Maine, about 30 stations where you would have bacteriologists taking tests. Before
you can say you are in a position to make tests you would have to have a certain number of bacteriologists in those 30 stations, and you would have to have equipment for the 30 stations in order to be prepared to make the tests. Now, you can multiply your expense of $3,000 at least per annum for one of these stations and you have $90,000. That is on bacteriological tests alone. Then you have some thousand herds up in Canada that have got to be inspected, either by your department or by the department of Canada, and we do not know yet what provision can be made so far as that is concerned, or you must accept the tests and let Boston and New York do the protecting. Of course, an acceptance of those tests might lower the expense. But I will challenge anyone to produce before this committee one scrap of evidence from the Department of Agriculture that this act could possibly be enforced inside of
$200,000, with all allowance for mutual certificates that you can make.
The CHAIRMAN. Your position is that you oppose the enactment of legislation, on the one hand; and, secondly, you say that if this bill is enacted there is not sufficient money to make an administration under it effective.
Mr. PARKER. Yes. I say you should provide a sufficient appropriation. I say that with all honesty of purpose that without a sufficient appropriation this law can not be enforced, if it is enacted.
The CHAIRMAN. Have you any further amendments?
The CHAIRMAN. Were these amendments offered to the House committee?
Mr. PARKER. The amendments were not offered in exactly this form. There have been some changes made, and one of them particularly I want to call attention to, and that is the provision, the first one that I offered, section 2. I forgot to mention it as I was going along. Health Commissioner Bigelow, of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, did give a general approval to the purpose of this bill. But on further examination he became very solicitous about this question of milk shipped into Boston, having it Pasteurized on the Canadian side of the border. He said: We want our milk Pasteurized as near the consumer as possible. And he wired or wrote the House committee, and it is in the record, and I think he may have also wired the Senate committee, because he told me on Saturday he would either wire or send you a letter, that you should have received on yesterday, asking particularly that this provision be changed, and I have accepted Doctor Bigelow's word as a health expert on that. I should like to say that I believe Doctor Bigelow
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). Pardon me, but you have not answered my question. I want to know whether these proposed amendments were considered by the House Committee on Agriculture or are they entirely new amendments offered at this time.
Mr. PARKER. If you ask the question whether they are entirely new as to purpose I answer that they are not, although some are. But they are in changed form so as to make them properly workable.
The CHAIRMAN. They seek to accomplish the same thing.
The CHAIRMAN. The House committee at the last session of this Congress, and the Senate committee at the last session of this Congress
Mr. PARKER (interposing). Pardon me, but I did not catch that question.
The CHAIRMAN. These amendments you are now proposing, while a little different as to language, yet they seek to accomplish the same purpose as those presented to the House committee and the Senate committee at the last session of the Congress.
Mr. PARKER. They do, mostly. They do differ in language, however, in order to make them proper.
The CHAIRMAN. All right.
Mr. PARKER. Now may I just say this word as to the reason why these amendments should be adopted: You have had before your committee, or the House committee, the opposition of both the health department of New York and the health department of the city of Boston, because they feel that this bill is creating a differentiation against milk and cream coming from the territory that they cover by an inspection, and that from Canada, and attempt to force on them cream and milk from different points that they do not want to take, because they were not sure it was coming there in good shape.
And I might say that with the shortage of cream that has existed since this bill came before your committee last spring it has been impossible to get cream from western sources to fill the need in New York and New England.
Senator RANSDELL. If the purpose of this bill be a sincere and honest endeavor to protect consumers of milk from bad milk, why does not it require the same kind of examination and test when milk is imported from one State to another as is sought to be required when imported from Canada into the United States?
Mr. PARKER. Well, my answer is that it should, that it should require the same provision.
Senator RANSDELL. Then in your judgment there is no more reason why we should require this elaborate test when milk and cream come from Canada than when it comes from any of the other States.
Mr. PARKER. No; and I should be glad to see it applied to all of the States, for that matter.
Senator RANSDELL. I do not want to interrupt your line of thought, but I wanted to get clear in my own mind your view. I can not see any difference in the situation if the purpose of the bill is to protect the health of the public.
Mr. PARKER. May I answer one question that Senator Keyes asked me the other day when I came informally before your committee, and I did not have any data here to answer it? He asked me with regard to importations of milk from Canada under the assumption that they had grown quite much during this year. In October, at the end of 10 months, importations of milk and cream from Canada were $8,846,205 in value, and in 1925 it was $8,841,922, a slight increase.
Going back to the month of October—well, I will take the month of September. I thought I had October, but up to the end of the month of September, when the demand had been greatest in Boston, milk and cream for 1926 totaled only $7,705,212, and in 1925 it had totaled $8,110,260.
The CHAIRMAN. Do you attempt to make the implication that the threat of this legislation has diminished the amount of cream imported into the United States from Canada?
Mr. PARKER. No, I do not. But the reason urged insistently for the passage of this bill was the fact that there was an increasing supply of cream coming in from Canada. I want to show you that it stood practically the same this year in spite of the fact that we have not the stuff and can not get it, east or west in this country, and Canada included, to get the cream to our customers as now needed. It is letting up a little now, but for the past two months that has been the situation.
If it be considered material, Mr. Chairman, I should like to have Mr. Taylor, of New York, tell you about the present condition of the market in cream.
Senator KEYES. In view of the fact that you were replying, apparently, to a question you said I asked in a recent hearing, let me say that the figures I have do not correspond at all with the figures you have quoted. The figures I have in regard to cream indicate that there was more cream imported from Canada in the 10 months of 1926 than during the whole of the year 1925.
The CHAIRMAN. Senator Keyes, have you the figures there?
Senator KEYES. Yes; I have the figures furnished by the Division of Foreign and Domestic Commerce of the Department of Commerce.
The CHAIRMAN. Will you put those in the record ?
Senator KEYES. I have the figures from the printed report. These are their figures for the year 1925, and for the first lò months of 1926.
The CHAIRMAN. Will you kindly read those figures for the benefit of the record ?
Senator KEYES. Cream for 1925 represented 4,569,655 gallons, valued at $6,626,119. For the first 10 months of 1926 it represented 4,606,076 gallons, valued at $6,878,233. Fluid milk in 1925, 6,274,895 gallons, valued at $1,055,410; and in 1926, for 10 months, 6,355,474 gallons, valued at $1,057,447.
Mr. PARKER. I was taking the total values for milk and cream, and I am not sure that they check up with your figures, but I had these from the regular departmental report issued for October, the last one that has come to hand.
The CHAIRMAN. Have you another witness?
Senator DENEEN. A question has arisen whether those transporting milk or cream, whether it be by truck or boat, or railroad, are liable under this bill. Have you considered that?
Mr. PARKER. Do you mean as an importer?
Senator DENEEN. Whether the railroader or trucker or boatman would be responsible for it under this bill. The question has been submitted to me as to whether they would be responsible, and I wondered if you could answer the question.
Mr. PARKER. Well, the whole question comes up if it is prohibited. On the first page it says that on and after the date on which this act takes effect the importation into the United States is probihited unless
Senator DENEEN. That points to the importer only, does it not?
Mr. PARKER. Yes, that applies to the importer. I will look through this.
Senator DENEEN. If you have not considered it I will not press the question.
Mr. PARKER. I did not consider that phase, as to transportation.
Senator RANSDELL. Has there been any great evidence of disease brought into this country from Canada by milk or cream, that you know of?
Mr. PARKER. Not one iota, and no evidence presented by the witnesses that there are any conditions existing in Canada that are not duplicated in Maine, or New Hampshire, or Vermont, or New Yorkor possibly in the West, although I do not know about that section of the country. I could go and duplicate any condition suggested by anybody as to any districts or plants investigated. And I might say that it was significant that those inspectors who went over said they were sent at the request of the producers' organization to certain places. They were not sent with blanket authority to go anywhere they pleased, but only sent to certain places.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further questions, members of the committee! [After a pause :) If not, that will be all, Mr. Parker.
Mr. PARKER. Shall I put Mr. Taylor on the stand?
The CHAIRMAN. Very well. Give the committee your name and occupation.
STATEMENT OF HARRY C. TAYLOR, WOOLWORTH BUILDING, NEW
Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Chairman, I am a wholesaler in the cream business in New York City and Philadelphia.
The CHAIRMAN. What is your address ? Mr. TAYLOR. Woolworth Building, that is my office address. The CHAIRMAN. Do you desire to be seated and make a statement ? Mr. TAYLOR. Yes, thank you. The CHAIRMAN. Make such statement as you have in mind. Mr. TAYLOR. All I can say is this: That in the past three months there has been an acute shortage in cream on the eastern market. I refer to cream that does not come under the inspection of New York City, Boston, or Baltimore. It is what is commonly known in the trade as uninspected cream. But by that I do not mean a low grade of cream, but that it does not come from farms which bear the approval of some city or State board of health. We have not been able to secure sufficient cream to take care of the needs outside of that received from the Western States or from Canadian cream, even though the price has risen from the average of $18 and $20 to $25 to $26 a can.
The CHAIRMAN. How many gallons are there in a can?
Mr. TAYLOR. I refer to 10-gallon cans. Canada has not been able to give us any volume over and above her average volume.
The CHAIRMAN. Has there been any subnormal amount coming in this fall?
Mr. TAYLOR. The amount that has come in this season is about the same as the amount that came in last season. There has been no increase in the quantity coming in under the State or city regulations from Canada this past year.
The CHAIRMAN. But the total has not been a diminishing quantity.
Mr. TAYLOR. I can not tell you the gross total, but from the Ontario and Quebec sections coming into New York City, Pennsylvania, and Maryland, I should say the volume has been just about the same.
The CHAIRMAN. How do you account for the situation?
Mr. TAYLOR. We have been unable to secure any increase in quantity.