« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »
chusetts, Dr. Arthur W. Gilbert, which I shall ask be incorporated in the record at this place.
Mr. PIPER. That is the original of the carbon copy from which I just quoted a paragraph.
The CHAIRMAN. All right, it may go into the record.
(The letter referred to is here made a part of the record, as follows:)
THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS,
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
Boston, Mass., December 20, 1926. Hon. CHARLES L. McNARY, Chairman Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry,
Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR MCNARY: May I respectfully beg to be recorded in favor of the so-called Lenroot-Taber bill, with the suggestion for one or two amendments noted below.
I have attempted to give the matter careful study from the standpoint of the Massachusetts and New England milk producer and also consumers in this industrial district. It seems to me that the protection offered in the bill both from the standpoint of the consumers and producers is an adequate one, without undue offense to Canadian producers. Our producers, consumers, public health offic als, and milk distributors have been engaged for some years in improving the standards of milk and other dairy products in this district. Large sums of money have been appropriated to eliminate bovine tuberculosis ; other attempts have been made to improve the bacterial content of m Ik, and our milk distributors have been offered various bonuses for improved quality milk. This program has been developed successfully for some years.
It seems to us that the arrangements set up for the protection of our producers and consumers is an adequate and proper one, allowing for necessary safeguards at a minimum of expense and with adequate protection.
You are doubtless aware that the city of Montreal adopted a regulation May 1, 1926, requiring that all milk sold in that city shall come from herds which have been tuberculin tested. This regulation in itself is likely to turn a good deal of milk from herds not so tested in this direction; another reason for safeguarding our supply.
I should like to suggest one amendment, namely, that certain milk which is raised in Canada, near the American border, and can be easily inspected, and is either teamed or trucked over the border, be exempted from the conditions of this bill.
This milk is now teamed or trucked into sanitary plants in northern Vermont and its exemption from this bill is fair and proper without compromising the principles set forth in the bill. This territory mentioned above is now adequately inspected.
Last summer I sent one of our dairy inspectors to make a trip into Canada to carefully check up conditions there and I respectfully include herewith a copy of his report. Respectfully,
ARTHUR W. GILBERT, Commissioner.
REPORT OF TRIP TO CANADA
On Monday, July 19, 1926, I arrived on Canadian soil and spent the week visiting cream factories, milk plants, and farms.
In the vicinity of Sherbrooke and Lennoxville, Province of Quebec, the cream is practically all shipped to Boston. One farmer was retailing his milk in the city of Sherbrooke and the surplus is sold to Boston. This place had not been inspected and was not sanitary, a pigpen being under the same roof as the cows. Practically all the barns are built without cellars and the manure is simply thrown out the window or more often out of the door into the barnyard.
In the Warden creamery, in the town of Warden, I talked with Mr. J. B. Hebart, manager of the creamery. He had been shipping cream to the Lyndonville, Vt., creamery up to January 1, 1926, and never had any inspection from the United States. They expected to ship again, as the manager said,
things are right.” The creamery was in good condition, as they ship to Montreal and also make butter.
The Waterloo creamery, in the town of Waterloo, has been shipping cream to Boston, Mass., for two years. They have approximately 75 dairies and have never been inspected. Mr. Murray, the manager, said that all the cream over 0.14 acidity was made into butter. It was hard to find a farmer who could understand English and therefore hard for me to get any information except by observation. The farms in this territory were not in as good shape as around the Sherbrooke territory. At this time of year the cows were very clean, although the barns were none too clean. At several places they were milking out in the pasture and left the cattle out all night to feed.
The creamery at West Shefford is owned by a Boston milk company and was in very good shape. They shipped fifty to sixty 40-quart jugs of cream a day. There were about 240 patrons selling to the creamery. No inspections had been made of these farms. Pictures of various barns were taken and will tell the story of the conditions.
The large milk companies in Montreal are shipping the most of the cream and without any inspection.
The Mont Royal Dairy Co. does the largest business in the United States. Over 200 carloads of cream were shipped, and at present about 5 carloads a week. The owners of this company were very courteous and willing to give me any information I asked for. After leaving this plant, the inspector of Pasteurizing plants in Montreal said, “ Take it all with a grain of salt." At their cream and ice cream plant they were making cream from stock butter, and although they said they never shipped any cream to the United States, I think they would in case of a shortage. They have had trouble in the past with this company using nut oils and other substitutes for butterfat. They have never had any United States inspection on the farms or at the plant.
A. Pouparte & Co. are shipping two carloads a week and are offering their product to all milk concerns in the East. Mr. Pouparte, the owner, visited all the plants that might be possible buyers. I saw letters to a considerable number of well-known dealers in eastern United States.
I had a very nice visit with the milk inspector of Montreal and received the following information :
The regulations are very rigid on milk in the city and if a producer feels that he doesn't want to comply with the city regulation he starts selling to a cream factory and then his product is usually shipped to the United States.
At present there are three counties around Montreal that are free of tubercular cattle. Ninety thousand head of clean cows are producing milk for the city. The city requires all milk to be Pasteurized and also from T. B. tested cattle. This last clause was inserted at the request of the large dealers. Apparently it is not a hardship to the dealers or producers by having a regulation like this. Milk that is 60° F. at the wharfs or railroad stations is condemned for drinking purposes.
The Montreal health regulation (Ch. III, art. 7) is as follows:
“From and after the 1st of May, 1926, milk sold by any dealer in the city must come from cows which have undergone the tuberculin test within a period of less than 12 months, in accordance with article 155 of the present by-law, and are perfectly healthy, and, with the exception
RUSSELL I. PRENTISS,
Dairying and Animal Husbandry. (Three pictures of barns follow, with the following explanatory titles: (1) Owner furnishing milk to West Shefford creamery; (2) type of farm buildings around Montreal; (3) type of farm buildings around Sherbrooke, Province of Quebec.)
The CHAIRMAN. Go right along with your statement.
Mr. PIPER. I think that covers the subject so far as this single amendment is concerned.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any member of the committee desire to ask any question? [After a pause.] Then we thank you, Mr. Piper. Now, Mr. Parker, have you anyone else?
Mr. PARKER. I think Mr. Finerty wishes to make a statement
The CHAIRMAN. The committee will hear Mr. Finerty. State your name, where you live, and whom you represent.
STATEMENT OF JOHN F. FINERTY, ATTORNEY AT LAW, TRANS
PORTATION BUILDING, WASHINGTON, D.C., REPRESENTING THE SHEFFIELD FARMS CO. (INC.)
The CHAIRMAN. What line of business are they engaged in?
Mr. FINERTY. In the marketing of milk in the city of New York and Greater New York.
The CHAIRMAN. They are dealers in milk, did you say?
The CHAIRMAN. Have you appeared before the House Committee on Agriculture or before the Senate Committee on Forestry before this time on this matter?
Mr. FINERTY. I have not.
The CHAIRMAN. Do you desire to present a new amendment, or to discuss one that has been proposed ?
Mr. FINERTY. I wish to discuss the amendments proposed, and to make some suggestions with regard to the bill itself. In the first place, perhaps, I ought to say that my clients are opposing this bill on the ground that it is not essentially a health measure; that they are further opposing it on the ground that if it is intended as a health measure it is not necessary, because (1) of the ineffectual language
Senator RANSDELL (interposing). If it is not a health measure, what is it?
Mr. FINERTY. It is an attempt to bring about an embargo on Canadian milk and cream by subjecting it to entirely different conditions than apply to milk and cream from points in the United Sstates. And finally, and perhaps most important, that if th's bill passes it will be unenforceable for reasons which I will give more in detail later.
As to the question whether or not this bill is a health measure, I have only to refer this committee to the prior proceedings had here, in which Senator Lenroot avowed this bill as being something more than a health measure; that is, that it is justified as an attempt to protect the American farmer from what he terms “unfair competition” by the Canadian farmer. It is true that Representative Taber stated in the House of Representatives that it was solely a health measure, but Mr. Holman very frankly avowed that a large, what he termed a “big,” purpose of the bill, was to control Canadian competition. And I can, if the committee desires, refer to the specific portions of the hearings where those statements are set forth.
The CHAIRMAN. I think the committee is familiar with the record. You may just make your own statement.
Mr. FINERTY. The bill is, then, being represented to this committee as making no more stringent requirements than are made by the city of New York; that it is, indeed, reproducing those requirements, It has already been pointed out by Mr. Parker that in one respect at any rate the bill does go beyond the New York requirements, and that is, that under this bill the transportation of raw milk from points in Canada to New York for the purpose of Pasteurization could be prevented unless it was produced from tuberculin-tested
cows, while raw milk not produced from tuberculin-tested cows can be transported from any point in the United States and from any point in New York State to New York City for Pasteurization. Mr. Parker has proposed an amendment in that respect.
May I point out in connection with the chairman's question to Mr. Parker, that that amendment is necessary if this bill is really to reproduce any reasonable requirements, or any present requirements, of any municipality in the East at least. New York does now allow the transportation and sale in the New York market of milk produced from nontuberculin-tested cattle if that milk is Pasteurized before its sale.
I do not think it a fair assumption that nontuberculin cattle are necessarily tubercular. But assuming that that is so, the New York regulations recognize the fact that that milk can be safely marketed in the city of New York—which city of New York has the model requirements perhaps for all cities in the United States—provided it is Pasteurized before resale.
Milk from Canada from nontuberculin cattle may readily be Pasteurized in the same way in the city of New York if it were permitted to be transported into the United States; but raw milk can not under the terms of the present bill be transported into the United States, and Mr. Parker's amendments, and Mr. Piper's amendment, are both made to permit that transportation. In other words, to permit nontuberculin milk from Canada to move to market, such as New York and Boston, under the same conditions that nontuberculin milk from other points, within the United States, can move; and under the laws and regulations in those States such milk can move to market under the conditions here mentioned.
Senator KEYES. In your opinion will you please tell us to which amendment you refer as bearing on this situation? Is it an amendment suggested by Mr. Parker.
Mr. FINERTY. Well, for reasons I shall state later, I do not like either amendment, and I think the bill itself should be defeated. But either amendment in that respect I think would be satisfactory. I want to point out, however, that even with Mr. Parker's amendment the bill will not comply with the present provisions of the New York health regulations. The provisions of the New York health regulations allow what is called morning's milk to be delivered at a creamery without any requirement as to cooling, provided if it is grade A milk it is delivered before 8 a. m., and if grade B milk it is delivered before 9 a. m. That is on the ground that it is practically impossible to precool milk to 50° to 60° that is fresh from the cow, and that milk may be safely delivered to a creamery if done within the time specified without any increase in bacterial content. I refer you to regulation 48 of the New York Code, shown on page 211 of the proceedings of the Senate committee hearing, and regulation 78 of the same code, making these provisions as to grade A and grade B milk, respectively. No amendment has been proposed in that respect as to morning's milk, which means that this bill will be an absolute embargo on morning's milk from Canada because that milk can not be cooled either to 50° or 60° and be delivered to any creamery on this side of the border.
The CHAIRMAN. Do you mean to say that if this bill were just the same as the New York statute you would not oppose it?
Mr. FINERTY. Exactly. I think I am free to state for my clients that if the New York statute were fairly reproduced here there would not be any opposition on their part. But our first ground of opposition is that it is not a health measure, and, secondly, that it is an attempt to put an embargo on Canadian milk and cream, that being the real intention of the bill.
Senator KENDRICK. Is not there a strong protest against the regulations in New York, and is it not claimed that they are not nearly drastic enough to produce pure milk?
Mr. FINERTY. Well, there is, I believe, some tendency to increase the regulations, and I am sure that my clients will not oppose any increased regulation, provided it is uniform and provided it does not discriminate against sources of supply; and, moreover, provided it is really intended and has the effect of protecting health.
Senator Ransdell pointed out here, and it has been pointed out by Senator Norris, that it is absurd to talk about protecting health by restricting importations of milk and cream from Canada when that same milk and cream can move inside the United States without restriction. Senator Lenroot says it is not possible to regulate as effectively the transportation of milk and cream inside the United States—that is, interstate transportation within the boundaries of the United States—as it is milk and cream coming from beyond our boundary. I do not want to enter into details of any discussion on that subject, and I assume I would not have time to do it, but I do propose to show that you can not, under the terms of this bill, reguIate the importation of Canadian milk and cream even if this bill is enacted in the law.
The CHAIRMAN. Just develop that proposition that you have stated there. Why can not it be made operative?
Mr. FINERTY. Because your bill fails to define at what point in the course of the importation the regulations provided in the bill shall attach to the milk and cream; that is, whether they attach at the border, when the milk passes the border, or whether they attach only after the milk and cream reaches a port of entry. If they attach at the border, and if an importer of milk and cream, or a transporter of milk and cream-and I want to point out, in answer to Senator Deneen's question propounded to another witness, that this does apply to railroads, that it does apply to boatmen, that it does apply to truckmen, although they have nothing to do otherwise with the importation. And if that liability applies to the importer and to the truckman, the boatman, and the railroad at the border, when it crosses the border, then you have the important task of trying to police thousands of crossroads on the Canadian border by which this milk may enter the country, not to speak of the railroad lines by which this milk and cream may enter the country. And if it attaches at the border, and you attempt an inspection at the port of entry, you can not obtain a conviction under this act, because there is nothing to show that the condition when the milk or cream passed the border was the same as the condition when the inspection was made at the port of entry. Therefore you could not sustain any conviction secured at a port of entry.
Senator DENEEN. To what section do you claim the railroads, trucks, and boats would look to be penalized under this bill ?