HD 3030.9 U5A5 I5IX ^ ^iMr' ""^^ r^^B)^;^' ..fflMs^^i ' ''VS.' ^w» U'- ^ Cornell University Library HD9030.9.U5A5 1912 Inspection and grading of graln.Hearing 3 1924 013 862 143 iilPECTION AND GRADING OF GRAIN «P" HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE IMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY UNITED STATES SENATE SIXTY-SECOND CONGRESS SECOND SESSION ON S. 223 A BILL TO PKOVIDE FOR THE INSPECTION AND GRADING OP GRAIN ENTERING INTO INTERSTATE COMMERCE, AND TO SECURE UNIFORMITY IN STANDARDS AND CLASSIFICATION OF GRAIN, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE COMMITTEE ON AGRIOTLTURE AND FORESTEY. HENRY E. BURNHAM, New Hampshire, Chairman. FRANCIS E. WARREN, Wyoming. SIMON GUGGENHEIM, Colorado. CARROLL S. PAGE, Vermont. COE I. CRAWFORD, South Dakota. WILLIAM O. BRADLEY, Kentucky. WILLIAM LORIMER, lUinois. ASLE J. GRONNA, North Dakota. NEWELL SANDERS, Tennessee. JOHN H. BANKHEAD, Alabama. THOMAS P. GORE, Oklahoma. GEORGE E. CHAMBERLAIN, Oregon. ELLISON D. SMITH, South Carolina. LE ROY PERCY, Mississippi. HOKE SMITH, Georgia. OBADIAH GARDNER, Maine. INSPECTION AND GRADING OF GRAIN. monday, may 27, 1912. Committee on Ageicultube and Forestey, United States Senate, Washington, B. C. The subcommittee met at 2 o'clock p. m. Present: Senators Bradley (chairman), Chamberlain, and Gronna; also Senator McCumber. The subcommittee having under consideration the bill (S. 223) to provide for the inspection and grading of grain entering into inter- state commerce, and to secure uniformity in standards and classi- fication of grain, and for other purposes. The Chaekman. I understand that a hearing was promised some of you gentlemen and that the chairman of the Committee on Agri- culture forgot it, or overlooked it, and afterwards told you that you should be heard. Now, before we proceed with the hearing from you gentlemen, as Senator McCumber has to go to the Senate Chamber we will hear him and then hear you gentlemen. STATEMENT OF HON. PORTER J. McCUMBER, A SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA. Senator McCumbek. Mr. Chairman, I do not care about going into the merits at all of this bill. All the hearing that I desire to-day is to have you enter in your records a protest against further hearings on this matter. I do not know how many of these gentlemen who are present now have been here before on the same matter. I do not know whether any of them have been. It is a matter that has been before the Senate for 10 years on three or four different occasions, and the case has been closed, and each year, without any change in any conditions, and without any new matters to be submitted, we have been granting rehearings. The men who are in favor of this bill— and they are in vast num- bers — have made their case and have rested. Then we have allowed others to make whatever case they had, and they have also rested. At every Congress they wish to have another hearing in the matter, and I submit that I regard it as hardly fair to those who are inter- ested in this bill that it should be run on from year to year and after each adjournment of the session when it is reported — and very often at the last of the session — it comes up again, and they say they must have another hearing, covering possibly the same matters that have been heard before. I appreciate the fact that new Members have been made a part of of this committee. I do not know whether they have gone over the 4 INSPECTION AND GEAMNG OF GBAIN. testimony that has been taken heretofore, and the records that we have made, but I would ask them to read just the report at least, ana the statements and the evidence, if they have time, that has been heretofore taken. The Chairman. Is this all of it ? Senator MoCumber. Oh, no. That is all that has come to me. There is considerable more than that; there are considerable records and a great deal of material that has been produced independently oi this. . The Chairman. If you will get it we will be very glad to read it. Senator McCtimber. There is a great deal to go over. I appreciate the fact that these hearings are to go on, but what I want is, some- time while I am still alive, to have the committee say that the hear- ings are now ended. The Chairman. We will end them after this. I understand that the chairman of the committee has granted these gentlemen the right to be heard, and then overlooked c^ing them, and I think under the circumstances they should be heard. STATEMENT OF MR. A. E. REYNOLDS, OF CRAWFORDSVILIE, IND. The Chairman. Have you made a statement with regard to this matter before ? Mr. Reynolds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. At what time ? Mr. Reynolds. On two different occasions; I can not just give the dates. One was during Senator Dolliver's chairmanship, and the hearing was before a full committee. At another time I do not recall to mind who the chairman was. The Chairman. Have you something to add to those statements that have heretofore been made, or do you desire to go over the entire field again ? Mr. Reynolds. Yes, sir; we not only have something to add, but we felt in asking for this hearing, and insisting on it, that we were amply justified in doing so on account of the unreasonable and unjust imputation that has been thrown on the grain trade by the last report of the subcommittee. There never has been .a time since the first hearing — answering the Senator from North Dakota — that we would not have been wuling to have submitted all the evidence already introduced and closed the hearings, but at each and every hearing the advocates of this bUl have introduced new statements. We therefore felt it was our right to have a hearing to controvert the statement brought out by the Sena- tor m advocating the bill. There is no intention whatever to unduly J^l °"V^ lengthen these hearings, but I believe that a quiet perusd of the Eleven Reasons Why the BUI Ought to be Passed, as adduced by the last hearing before the subcommittee and reported to the com- mittee on May 7, will convince you that if we do not stand and refute and dispute m the strongest terms that we are capable of, those state- ments, we would not only stand indicted, but we would stand self- convicted of those charges that have been made The Chairman. What date was that ? Mr. Reynolds. The 7th day of May. The Chairman. Of this year ? INSPECTION ANI> GEADING OF GRAIN. 5 Mr. Reynolds. Of this year; yes, sir; under the statement of 11 reasons why the bill should be passed. We have those, and if you will bear with us for a few minutes, they will be introduced by the second speaker. Now, I want to say to this committee that we have been before the committee several times. We are thoroughly aware of the burden that is imposed upon committees, and we want to be just as brief as possible, and if the committee will grant us one request, and that is to allow each speaker to have his say and then be questioned at the close of his statement, it will make our statements much briefer than they would be if the questions were made during the statements. Now, we come here and want to treat this proposition systemat- ically and consistently. We claim that no. other branch of commercial industry in the country can more truthfully boast of honorable and square dealing than the grain traffic. We have never used harsh measures; we do not stand here to use harsh measures now toward the advocates of this bill , but as men in the highest branch of commerce in this country, and one that impinges on every man's rights at some point in his existence, we feel as men conducting that industry that we must stand here and defend ourselves against such unjust state- ments as went to the public press under date of May 7. If we did not do so we should not be worthy of the high calling to which we claim we belong. Therefore, this hearing, instead of being imposed upon this com- mittee and this Senate, is brought ' about solely for acts not ^'^ithin our control. Had the bill been reintroduced and sent here without any statement, or new argument, this committee and the representa- tives from this grain industry of the country would have been the last to reopen the 'argument. But we do claim our rights, when our honor, our truthfulness, and when the integrity of our business and high calling in the handling of products of this country that produces the food of every man, woman, and child in it — when such an industry or such high calling is so attacked in the public press, coming from so high and eminent a source as a committee of the Senate, we are absolutely compelled in self-defense to come here and meet those charges. Now, I will not continue further. We have prepared a little pro- gram which we shall carry out just as briefly as the importance of the occasion will permit. The first subject we want to treat of is the 11 reasons contained in the subcommittee's last report to the general committee on May 7. It will be treated by Mr. Merrill, of Chicago. Senator Geonna. I would like to ask the gentleman one question. I would like to know what business you are engaged in. Mr. Reynolds. I beg your pardon. I am a country grain shipper. I operate 20 grain elevators. I am president of the company that operates 20 grain elevators in Indiana, buying from the farmer, and snipping the same to the great markets, but mostly to the small con- sumers in the eastern markets. Senator Geonna. Are you an e3q)orter of grain ? Mr. Reynolds. Not directly. We sometimes sell to exporters in New York, Philadelphia, and Baltunore. The bulk of our trade is in the consumptive demand in New England and other eastern States. 6 INSPECTION AND GRADING OP GEAIN. Senator Gronna. You sell ' that grain — I suppose a good deal of it — to the mills directly ? Mr. Reynolds. I beg your pardon, I did not hear that. Senator Geonna. I say, do you sell a great deal directly to the mills « Mr. Reynolds. Quite a little; yes, sir. Our wheat that we handle goes to the mills of the Central West — Louisville and Toledo, and mills in the Central West. Wheat is the smallest part of our com- modity. We handle more corn and oats, and that corn goes nearly all of it to the eastern consumptive demand; oats usually to the southern demand. STATEMENT OF ME. JOHN C. MERRILL, OF THE CHICAGO BOARD OF TRADE. The Chairman. Will you please state your business in order that we may identify you ? Mr. Merrill. I am a member of the Chicago Board of Trade. The Chairman. Have you testified before in this matter ? Mr. Merrill. I have. The Chairman. How many times ? Mr. Merrill. Before this committee, once, as announced by the chairman. The Chairman. Have you testified before the House committee? I am j-equested to ask by a member of the committee. Mr. Merrill. Yes, sir; once. My testimony will be found in the record. Senator Chamberlain. Are you going to read the report of the last subcommittee 1 Mr. Merrill. Yes, sir; I will give you that report as published. Senator Chamberlain. I was a member of tnat committee and agreed with the chairman in submitting a report favorable to the bill, but I did not read the report after it was made, and I have not seen the report about which complaint is made at this time. Have you the official report, or simply the newspaper account of it ? Mr. Merrill. I simply have the newspaper report. I asked in Senator Burnham's office this morning for a copy of the official report, and they told me there that it was typewritten and in the possession of the chairman of this subcommittee. Senator Bradley ; that it had not been printed as yet ; that the copy that went out to the press must have been a typewritten copy. So I have one of those printed copies before me. Senator McCximber. I would like to ask if the Committee on Agri- culture has made its report at all. Senator Chamberlain. Not to the Senate. Senator McCumber. Then you are discussing what some individual member of a subcommittee has probably drafted and which has not yet been submitted to the Agricultural Committee. Senator Gronna. I am a member of the committee, and I will say that the report has never been submitted to the whole committee and acted upon. The Chairman. Here is the report, and all it says is that this bill was referred to the subcommittee and the subcommittee reported it INSPECTION AND GBABING OF GBAIN. 7 with the recommendation that it should be passed. That is all there is of it. Mr. Merrill. There is no reason given there, is there ? The Chairman. None; the report reads: "This bill or one identical with it was favorably reported by this committee by the Sixty-first Congress after full and exhaustive hearings, and your subcommittee can not add anything to the former report. We suggest that the testimony taken at those former hearings be submitted to the Senate with a favorable report." Senator Chamberlain. That report, I will say, was simply sub- mitted to the clerk of the full committee and it has never been called to the attention of the Agricultural Committee at all. Senator Gbonna. I want to say for the chairman of the sub- committee. Senator Crawford, who is now away^ — he had to go out to his own State — that he said to me that he simply had written out a very brief report, and said that he had nothing to add to what had already been said, and as a member of the committee I will say that this is the first time I have heard that any aspersions have been cast upon, or anything said against, the grain men. It is evidently only newspaper report. The Chairman. There is no typewritten report in these papers. Senator Chamberlain. Here is the report [indicating] I find it myself. The Chairman. And I find it too. Mr. Merrill. Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen, if you will allow me, then, I should like to read to you these 11 reasons, as published throughout the country as being attributed to the subcommittee at that time, it having, as it is supposed, completed its consideration of the question, and these 1 1 reasons were ascribed to the committee of three Senator Gronna. Mr. Chairman, I desire to be as courteous to these gentlemen as possible, but I hardly think it would be fair to charge this subcommittee with things that they have not done. Senator Chamberlain. Here is the report that speaks for itself, signed by the three members of the committee. If you want to go into a defense of your business against newspaper people, that is a dif- ferent proposition; but here you are defending against charges that the subcommittee is said to have made, and the subcommittee's written - report shows that they did not make them. Mr. Merrill. I think it proper, however, and I think you gentle- men will agree, it would be only fair that what has been published throughout, the country, and no attempt of any kind made by this committee or any one a member of it to deny — the trade of the country might accept it. Senator Chamberlain. So far as I am concerned, I will say that we are willing to hear you gentlemen, but you are proceeding now to criticise the action of a subcommittee for things they did not do. We are not responsible for what the newspapers say, but the report of the committee is here and speaks for itself. It is written in 20 lines on a single page. Mr. Merrill. Well, Senator, my position now is that by acquaint- ing you with the alleged report, then, if it be that it went throughout the country and stands to-day before the country as your report, under which indictment we stand — I think it eminently proper, 8 IN-SPECTION AND GEADIlsrG OF GRAIN. and I think it is a just right of ours to come here and acqu^nt you with what the country believes to be your action m order that you may deny it if it is untrue, and on that basis, then, I have permission to read to you these 11 reasons. Senator Chambeklain. Before you do that, m fairness to this com- mittee, I think it proper to read into the report, before you read those charges, what the report of the committee actually was. Mr. Meerill. That is entirely agreeable, and I will be very glad to have it right there, because, gentlemen, while public opinion is the strongest force in all the world, it ultimately always give way to truth, and we want the truth. Senator Chamberlain. I will read the report. The Chairman. It seems to be public opinion that you are speaking of. No member of this committee has ever heard anything about it. Of course if they did not hear anything about it, it does affect them. Mr. Merrill. It having become public knowledge all over the country, we would have some right to assume The Chairman. Have you a newspaper man who says that this committee made this report? Mr. Merrill. I can say nothing further than I have already assured you that it was published throughout the country as your report. The Chairman. Have you any publication to show that fact ? Mr. Merrill. I have, yes, sir, right here, one sheet that I cut out, and a gentleman here tells me that the Journal of Commerce con- tained it, and I can not tell you which one of the Chicago dailies had it, but I read it in one of them. Senator Chamberlain. Here are two members of the committee who signed this report, the chairman now, and myself, and I can say for myself that no newspaper man, either directly or indirectly, ever asked me a word about it, or received a word of expression about it from me, and in that connection, for the benefit of all who are here, I want to read this report before you take that matter up : [Report of subcommittee of Committee on Agriculture on S. 223. Sixty-second Congress, second session, United States Senate, Washington, D. C] The subcommittee, to whom was referred the bill (S. 223) to provide for the inspec- tion and grading of grain entering into interstate commerce, and to secure uniformity in standards, and classification of grain, and other purposes, beg leave to report that they have had the same under consideration, and return the same to the full committee with the recommendation that the bill be reported with the recommendation that it pass, without amendment. This bill, or one identical with it, was favorably reported by this committee by the Sixty-first Congress, after full and exhaustive hearings, and your subcommittee can not add anything to the former report. We suggest that the testimony taken at these former hearings be submitted to the Senate wim a favorable report. CoE I. Crawford, Geo. E. Chamberlain, W. O. Bradley, Subcommittee. That is the report of the committee, and that even has not been acted on by the full committee. Mr. Merrill. Before proceeding, Mr. Chairman, a further justifi- cation The Chairman. AJlow me to suggest, in order to save time, that you go on with your 11 reasons. INSPECTION AND GRADING OF GRAIN. 9 Mr. Merrill. I want to add that there were 40 reasons given when the bill was reported out before, a copy of which I hold in my hand, and which I attacked before the succeeding committee, and the succeeding committee did not report it out, but admitted that those reasons were not true. We have some reason, then, Mr. Chairman, for believing that such a thing as is printed through the country might occur. The article, appearing in the Journal of Commerce of New York, under date of May 8, 1912, is as follows: Rbpokt Bill for Grading op Grain — McCumber Measure Expected to Reach Senate Soon. subcommittee finds many evils in present system, but says proper control by inspectors would be self-supporting — no action taken on the cotton futures bill. Washington, May 7 (Special). — After a discussion the subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, which has been looking into the question of Federal grain inspection, reported to-day the McCumber bill for grain grading. The committee is expected to report it to the Senate at once. In speaking of the present evils in con- nection with commerce and grain, the subcommittee mentions the following: "1. Lack of uniformity in the grading of grain. "2. Practically all grain passes through one or more great terminal markets before reaching the consumer. Its value is fixed by the grade as placed upon it at such terminals. "3. The appointment of inspectors and the fixing of grades are under the control of the board of trade. "4. Appeals from the decision of inspectors are almost invariably taken to a board of appeals composed of persons who are either directly or indirectly interested in the purchase of grain from the inspection where the appeal is taken. "5. That the inspection and grading departments at these great terminals are sub- servient to and dominated by the great elevator interests is established beyond question. "6. As a result of this domination and control has grown what is known as a system of rigid and easy inspection — that is, rigid inspection into the elevator and easy inspection out. "7. This enables the terminal elevators to buy in the grain, generally at a grade less than its true grade, mix it with other inferior grain, and sell the same out at a grade higher than the true grade, thereby making the value of two grades. "8. The result of this system is that the producer and independent shipper are beaten out of one grade of grain. "9. American grain sells for less per bushel than Canadian or Argentine grain of the same grade. "10. Many of the mills of the country must purchase at the terminal elevators. They have long since ascertained that no reliance can be placed upon those grades. " 11. The representatives of theState warehouse commissions, where such reporte are kept, show that there are shipped out from the great terminals from two to four times as many of the higher grades as are received into the elevators at such places, while nearly all of the lower grades, such as No. 4, no grade and rejected, purchased in, dis- appear entirely in the outshipments." In closing the report says: "The enactment of this law will not cause any additional expense to the Govern- ment for the reason that under the terms of the bill the service will be self-supporting. To have a competent corps of inspectors at the present markets it is estimated would require from 300 to 500 persons, including laborers and clerical force, at salaries ranging from $500 to $3,500 per annum. At an average of $] ,200 per annum the expense of the service would be from $350,000 to $600,000 per annum. , "The present charge for inspection is from 35 to 75 cents per car of thousand bushels, and from one and a half to two million cars are inspected annually, which, at the present price of inspection, would bring in a sum largely in excess of what would be necessary for the service. It is believed by your committee that under the terms of this bill the inspection charges will average much less than the present charges, and still produce an adequate sum to cover all the expenses of the service." 10 INSPECTION AND GRADING OF GBAIN. The committee took no action to-day on the cotton futures bill, and there was some intimation that perhaps the cotton bill might be amalgamated m some shape with this grain bill. This plan is not more than a suggestion as yet. It is understood that it will be discussed more carefully within the next day or two. The committee meets again to-morrow. . . . j , The bill passed by the House some time ago prohibiting the importation of adul- terated seeds was also reported to the House Agricultural Committee this afternoon. The prospects of action on these bills will be greatly increased if there is an extension of the session beyond the middle of June. Senator McCumber. Mr. Chairman, before this gentleman goes on, I want this subcommittee to understand to what extent it is being imposed upon. The gentleman is not reading from something that this subcommittee reported at all. He is reading from the report of the previous committee after these same gentlemen had been heard and all of the facts measured, and what he has read has been taken bodily out of the report that was made to the Senate of the United States on January the 15th, 1909, by Senator Dolliyer, and that report was made after all of these gentlemen had had their hearing and upon the testimony that appeared in that record, and is in this record, and there has been no further investigation and no further hearings in the case before the Senate committee since that time. So that you can see that it is nothing more than asking for the reopening of the case that they may be heard over on exactly the same evidence upon which that report was made, which has just been read to you, and it is not a report of the subcommittee. It does not pretend to be the report of this subcommittee now, but a report that has been made public for over two years. Mr. Merrill. I have a paper in my hand — and I suppose it is a copy of the same matter that Senator McCumber is referring to^ — and when I appeared before this committee and began to criticise the cor- rectness, or even fairness, of the 40 reasons that you will find in that report headed "Calendar No. 754," the remark of Senator DoUiver was, "If you are going to attack those reasons, I 'want to disown authorship," and while the substance of those 11 reasons is con- tained in the substance of the 40, they are not a copy of any one of them. Senator McCumber. All bnt the last ones are actual copies, ver- batim, with reasons that are given here; but what you have taken was taken verbatim, undoubtedly taken by some reporter, who got hold of this report and picked out such ones' as he thought proper and published them. Mr. Merrill. I have stated that the substance was taken out, but if Senator McCumber has the copy in his hand, and if he will refer to it, he will find that there is no number under that. It is simply in the language of the No. 1 that I read to you — "lack of uniformity in the grading of grain." It is true that the bill went to the Senate on this report, and it is true that at the following hearing in the next Congress the committee never reported it out, and it is true that the McCumber bill to-day is not a duplicate of the previous McCumber bill, but it contains new matter. The Senator himself will not deny that. Senator McCumber. The McCumber bill of to-day is exactly the bill as amended by that committee, without a change in it. Senator Chamberlain. And as reported in 1909. INSPECTION AND GRADING OF GRAIN. 11 Senator McCumbeb. Yes. In this report two changes were made in the bill, and it was reported with those two changes, and when it was reintroduced it was reintroduced just as it was modified by that committee, and the only modifications that were made, as I now re- member, were modifications with reference to allowing the appoint- ment of an inspector to inspect intrastate grain where there was a, demand for it and another portion in reference to the wheat, where there was a demand for it. Mr. Merrill. Yes, sir; those are very material matters, because I urged before the previous committee, or the committee on a previous occasion, that this authority could not be extended over intrastate grain, and that more than half of the grain-moving commerce to-day is intrastate and goes to terminal markets within the confines of the five States that have State laws, and there are only three of the surplus grain States that have them — the Senator's State, South Dakota, and Iowa being the only three. Senator McCumber. All that evidence was given before, and it is now in this record. Senator Chamberlain. Personally I desire to say — while I have no objection to these hearings at all — as I understand the purpose of it as expressed by the gentleman who is now speaking, it is to defend against the report of the subcommittee a report which was never made at all, and as a matter of fact you are defending your association against a report which was made in 1909 to the Senate, which report was based upon the very testimony, as I understand it, that you gen- tlemen want to give to-day. The Chairman. Let me inquire one moment. Have you any tes- timony to give to-day that you have not already given ? Mr. Merrill. I will say in answer to that question, if you please, that among the gentlemen here these matters were assigned, and the answering of these eleven matters were assigned to me, and if I should go beyond that I would entrench upon what they might want to say. The Chairman. That does not answer my question. Do you pro- pose here to-day to give any evidence that you have not heretofore given ? Mr. Merrill. Certainly. There must be new evidence. Mr. Reynolds. If I may be permitted, I will answer that. There are at least two very material new points that we want to cover. The Chairman. I will rule that you have a right to be heard on any new matter, but that this committee will not take up old matter that has heretofore been covered. Any new matter that you want to present we will be glad to hear you upon. Mr. Reynolds. If I may be permitted to take particularly the sub- jects that we had outhned here, some of them have been gone over before and some of them have been gone over only in part, and such changes as have occurred in the conduct of the grain business in the South in the two years, that is now in progress The Chairman. All of that is competent, and we will hear you on it, but we want you to understand, so as to save time, because we ought to be in the Senate now as much as we can be, that so far as testimony already heard is concerned it, is before us. Any new testi- mony that you want to present we will be glad to hear. 12 INSPECTION AND GRADING OF GKAIN. Mr. Keynolds. Then if we are barred from reviewing anything that has been done, the point that we are particularly anxious to coyer at this time would be the work done by the Gram Dealers JNational Association and the National Association of Gram Inspectors loolnng to the estabhshment of uniform measures and on the progress that we have made in that section. The last certainly would be competent. The Chairman. We will be glad to hear you on that. Mr. Reynolds. Then, secondly, gentlemen, the progress being made and the effort being put forth by the Agricultural Department to establish a standardization of the grain and grain products of the ■country. The Chairman. Now, that is new matter, is it ? Mr. Reynolds. The progress being made is new. It vras begun some three years ago. The Chairman. Then we will hear you on that. Mr. Reynolds. There is one other subject that I desire to submit to you, whether it is competent or not under your ruling, and that is a review at this time of the state of the public mind on the measure, w^hether there is a general and popular demand among those inter- ested, directly or indirectly, for the legislation. I submit whether that would be admissible at this time, or, in other words, public senti- ment that is formed by the lapse of time — what testimony we might present along that line. The Chairman. Well, we will not be rigid with you. We will allow you to do that. Now those are three propositions. Please confine yourself to those propositions. Mr. Merrill. Before I take my seat, I would like to have the com- mittee realize that this report that has been under discussion was a report of the Sixtieth Congress. We did not appear, nor have we ever had an opportunity to appear. We had a request on file and the late Senator Proctor was then chairman of this committee, and his death seemed to result in a little confusion in the office, because at one of the last hearings, presided over by Senator Proctor, he said we would have to have further hearings because the Chicago Board of Trade and other organizations desired to be heard. It was in the record that the Chicago Board of Trade wanted to be heard — but we were not given a date. We were to be notified by the committee ■when we could be heard. The Chairman. Now that occurred prior to that report, did it ? Mr. Merrill. That was all before this report, and we were never heard — the Senator has said we were but he is mistaken — we were never heard then until the Sixty-first Congress. The Chairman. You were heard after that report was filed? Mr. Merrill. Yes, sir, we were heard; and you have the record — and I am glad to hear you say that you will read it, because it con- tains very material matter in opposition, and I do not care to repeat that. The Chairman. There is no use to take that proof over again, because it is already here. Mr. Merrill. I do not want Senator McCumber — I know he is entirely mistaken about it, and I know also that he would not say anything that he did not believe to be true — but I do not want the thought to rest with your committee that before this report was made we were allowed to be heard, because we were not. We were heard INSPECTION AND GRADING OF GRAIN. 13 in the succeeding Congress, the Sixty-first Congress, and that com- mittee did not report out the bill — that was the effect of never being heard, because Senator Dolliver said, just outside of the door, "Gen- tlemen, this is a matter for business men, and I am convinced that we legislators had better let it alone. " Senator Gronna. You were heard before the House Committee during the. Sixtieth Congress, I believe? Mr. Merrill. Yes, sir; that was when Congressman Hepburn was chairman of that committee. Senator Gronna. Were you heard in the Sixty-first Congress before that committee also ? Mr. Merrill. No, sir; we never had been in Washington on this question but twice before; once before the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce of the House, Congressman Hepburn being^ chairman, and before this committee, of which Senator Dolliver was chairman. The Sixtieth Congress, the one previous to that, we were before. STATEMENT OF A. E. REYNOLDS— Resumed. Mr. Reynolds. Mr. Chairman, a few years ago — several years ago; I think as much as eight years ago — it became apparent to a gr6at many of the grain farmers of the country that sooner or later we must arrive at a uniformity in the rules covering the inspection of grain. We had at that time, and have had for 14 years — 16 years now — an association called the Grain Dealers' National Association that looked after all matters pertaining to the interests of the grain pro- ducing and consuming public. That association took up the then seemingly hopeless task of unifying or standardizing the grades of grain. They had quite a great deal of work with the Agricultural Department, which was interested in the same subject. We will hear now about the progress made in uniformity through- out the United States under the auspices of the Grain Dealers' National Association and put into practice by the Chief Grain Inspectors National Association. There is an association of grain inspectors of the largest markets of the country. You will hear on this subject from Mr. Culver, of Toledo, Ohio, president of the Association of Inspectors. STATEMENT OF E. H. CULVER, TOLEDO, OHIO, PRESIDENT, ASSOCIATION OF INSPECTORS. Mr. Culver. The real movement to standardize grades originated in the chief inspectors' organization 15 years ago, at the Beach Hotel,, Chicago. Mr. Hubert Price was the gentleman who made the first suggestion at Chicago, -the chief inspector of the State of Illinois. We followed along down and built standard samples in Chicago, in St. Louis, in Kansas City, and at different places, but the grain at that time was so diversified in character that it was almost impossible ta standardize the grades of grain of the country. For instance, we had in Michigan what is known as the Lancaster semihard, soft wheat. We had in the States of Illinois and Missouri what is known as the Illinois amber wheat. We had in Indiana, Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Pennsylvania what is known as the Mediterranean wheat. We 14 INSPECTION AND GRADING OF GBAIN. had in Kansas City — and which had been introduced a few years prior to that — what is known as the Turkey hard wheat.. We went into this deal to straighten up and see if we could not make two hard wheats and two soft wheats the standard grades of the country, and it took us six years to compile the information, which brought us up to 1 902 in Peoria. We showed the first samples at the Peoria meeting of the Grain Dealers' National Association. Mr. Foehring, then presi- dent of the Chief Inspectors National Association, as chairman of the grades committee, had the inspectors of 37 different markets compile their standard samples and bring to that meeting. At that meeting Prof. Holden, a college from Minnesota, and a college from Champaign reviewed those samples and standards. In the winter of 1902 we met at Philadelphia and drew up rules to govern the grade of grain and submitted them to the Grain Dealers' National Association and the different exchanges for their adoption. The wheat was so diversified that it was utterly impossible at that time to bring about the result that we tried to obtain. The consequence was that we went along down then until the first congress of grades was held in New York under Capt. John Foehring. The second grade congress was in Chicago the next year, and the congress of grades the following year. Then the Grain Dealers' National Asso- ciation turned this matter over to the Chief Inspectors National Association, and said, "Gentlemen, bring in your report." That was in 1906 at the St. Louis meeting. The chief inspectors at our meeting adopted a rule, which 18 markets accepted within less than a week, for grading the grain under the uniform phraseology of the Chief Inspectors' National Association and the Grain Dealers' National Association. We found after carefully experimenting that our grades were not right. The moisture tester came in about that time, which was sup- plied by the Agricultural Department, and we made what is called a six years' test of the average moisture and dirt in grain and corn, and we found that we were not liberal enough, so we changed those grades, raising the moisture to 19 per cent at Indianapolis and 10 per cent on bin-burnt grains — such as you people in Kentucky obj ect to now — and we have found that after the six years' average has been reported that we have got down, in the Chief Inspectors' National Association, to a solid foundation upon which we can work — and by the way, I would like, for comparison, to file here the uniform rules of the Gram Dealers' National Association in order to show the progress and study that the association is giving the matter in trying to bring about uniformity, so that there would be no difference in the grades of wheat in this country, and there would be nocomplaint from the shippers, and they can understand them. They are so simple that a child can under- stand them. Senator Geonna. Why is not wheat from Minnesota and the Dakotas included? Mr. Culver. The wheat in Minnesota and the Dakotas is included under grades, Senator Gronna, but not as yet on the percentage basis. Your wild oats up there in certain years seem to thrive more luxu- riantly than they do in any other years, and it is a question of the seeds of the wUd oats entirely to get that down to a fair percentage so as to treat all alike. INSPECTION AND GRADING OF GRAIN. 15 wSenator Gronna. I understand that the gentleman objected questions until he had finished his statement. Mr. Culver. No, sir, that is all right. I can answer at any time. Our association of chief inspectors has experimented along the line of corn, wheat, and oats for the last 14, 15, or 16 years. No one has worked harder to bring about uniformity and uniform phraseology than they have, so as to simplify the grading of grain. The uniform grades, as now fUed, have been adopted, I think, by every college between the Allegheny Mountains and the Rocky Mountains as their primer — every agricultural college between the Allegheny Mountains and the Rocky Mountains — as an agricultural primer to teach the grading of gram, and we aim, and we think we wUl be successful in less than two years, to accomplish it and have every market in the United States adopt uniform phraseology and uniform practices in grading the grain. We have now 27 markets, I think, that have already adopted it. The Chairman. You may file the paper that you have in your hand for the record. The paper referred to is as follows : Exhibit 1.— Grades of grain adopted by the Grain Dealers\ National Association at the Thirteenth Annual Convention, held in Indianapolis, October 6, 7, 8, 1909. WHITE WINTER WHEAT. No. 1 white winter wheat shall include all varieties of pure soft white winter wheat, sound, plump, dry, sweet, and clean, and weis;h not less than 58 pounds to the measured bushel. No. 2 white winter wheat shall include all varieties of soft white winter wheat, dry, sound, and clean, and shall not contain more than 8 per cent of soft red winter wheat, and weigh not less than 56 pounds to the measured bushel. No. 3 white winter wheat shall include all varieties of soft white winter wheat. It may contain 5 per cent of damaged grains other than skin-burnt wheat, and may contain 10 per cent of soft red winter wheat, and weigh not less than 53 pounds to the measured bushel. No. 4 white winter wheat shall include all varieties of soft white winter wheat not fit for a higher grade in consequence of being poor quality, damp, musty, or dirty, and shall not contain more than 10 per cent of soft red winter wheat, and weigh not less than 50 pounds to the measured bushel. RED WINTER WHEAT. No. 1 red winter wheat shall be pure soft red winter wheat of both light and dark colors, sound, sweet, plump and well cleaned, and weigh not less than 60 pounds to the measured bushel. No. 2 red winter wheat shall be soft red winter wheat of both light and dark colors, sound, sweet, and clean, shall not contain more than 5 per cent of white winter wheat, and weigh not less than 58 pounds to the measured bushel. No. 3 red winter wheat shall be sound, soft red winter wheat not clean or plump enough for No. 2, shall not contain more than 8 per cent of white winter wheat, and weigh not less than 55 pounds to the measured bushel. No. 4 red winter wheat shall be soft red winter wheat, shall contain not more than 8 per cent of white winter wheat. It may be damp, musty, or dirty, but must be cool, and weigh not less than 50 pounds to the measured bushel. HARD WINTER WHEAT. No. 1 hard winter wheat shall include all varieties of pure, hard winter wheat, sound, plump, dry, sweet, and well cleaned, and weigh not less than 61 pounds to the measured bushel. No. 2 hard winter wheat shall include all varieties of hard winter wheat of both light and dark colors, dry, sound, sweet, and clean, and weigh not less than 59 pounds to the measured bushel. 16 INSPECTION AND GEADING OF GRAIN. No. 3 hard winter wheat shall include all varieties of hard winter wheat of both light" and dark colors, not clean or plump enough for No. 2, and weigh not less than 56 pounds to the measured bushel. No. 4 hard winter wheat shall include all varieties of hard winter wheat of both light and dark colors. It may be damp, musty, or dirty, and weigh not less than 50 pounds to the measured bushel. NORTHERN SPRING WHEAT. No. 1 hard spring wheat shall be sound, bright, sweet, clean, and consist of over 50 per cent of the hard Scotch fife, and weigh not less than 58 pounds to the measured bushel. No. 1 northern spring wheat must be northern grown spring wheat, sound, clean, and of good milling quality, and must contain not less than 50 per cent of the hard varieties of spring wheat, and weigh not less than 57 pounds to the measured bushel. No. 2 northern spring wheat shall be northern grown spring wheat, not clean enough or sound enough for No. 1, and must contain not less than 50 per cent of the haid vane- ties of spring wheat, and must weigh not less than 56 pounds to the measured bushel. No. 3 northern spring wheat shall be composed of inferior shrunken northern grown spring wheat, and weigh not less than 54 pounds to the measured bushel, and must con- ta,in not less than 50 per cent of the hard varieties of spring wheat. No. 4 northern sprmg wheat shall include all inferior northern grown spring wheat that is badly shrunken or damaged, and must contain not less than 50 per cent of the hard varieties of spring wheat, and shall weigh not less than 49 pounds to the measured bushel. SPRING WHEAT. No. 1 spring wheat shall be sound, plump, and well cleaned, and weigh not less than 59 pounds to the measured bushel. No. 2 spring wheat shall be sound, clean, of a good milling quality, and weigh not less than 57i pounds to the measured bushel. No. 3 spring wheat shall include all inferior, shrunken, or dirty spring wheat, and weigh not less than 53 pounds to the measured bushel. No. 4 spring wheat shall include all spiring wheat damp, musty, grown, badly bleached, or from any cause which renders it unfit for No. 3, and weigh not less than 49 pounds to the measured bushel. WHITE SPRING WHEAT. The grades of Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4 white spring wheat shall correspond with the grades of Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4 spring wheat, except that they shall be of the white variety. DURUM [macaroni] WHEAT. No. 1 durum wheat shall be bright, sound, dry, well cleaned, and be composed of durum, commonly known as macaroni, wheat, and weigh not less than 60 pounds to the measured bushel. No. 2 durum wheat shall be dry, clean, and of good milling quality. It shall include all durum wheat that for any reason is not suitable for No. 1 durum, and weigh not less than 58 pounds to the measured bushel. No. 3 durum wheat shall include all durum wheat bleached, shrunken, or for any cause unfit for No. 2, and weigh not less than 55 pounds to the measured bushel. No. 4 durum wheat shall include all durum wheat that is badly bleached or for any cause unfit for No. 3 and weigh not less than 50 pounds to the measured bushel. VELVET CHAPE WHEAT. No 1 velvet chaff wheat shall be bright, sound, and well cleaned and weigh not less than 58 pounds to the measured bushel. No. 2 velvet chaff wheat shall be sound, dry, clean, may be slightly bleached or shrunken, but not good enough for No. 1, and weigh not less than 57 pounds to the measured bushel. No. 3 velvet chaff wheat shall include all wheat that is bleached, smutty or for any other cause unfit for No. 2, and weigh not less than 55 pounds to the measured bushel. No. 4 velvet chaff wheat shall include all wheat that is very smutty, badly bleached and grown, or for any other cause unfit for No. 3. ' INSPECTION AND GRADING OP GRAIN. 17 PACIFIC COAST WHEAT. No. 1 Pacific coast red wheat shall be dry, sound, clean, and free from smut and weigh not less than 59 pounds to the measured bushel.. No. 2 Pacific coast red wheat shall be dry, sound, clean, and only slightly tainted with smut and alkali and weigh not less than 58 pounds to the measured bushel. No. 3 Pacific coast red wheat shall include all other Pacific coast red wheat. It may- be smutty or musty, or from any other reason unfit for flouring purposes, and weigh not less than 54 pounds to the measured bushel. Note.— Pacific coast white wheat shall be graded according to the rules for Pacific coast red wheat. In case of a mixture of Pacific coast wheat with our home-grown wheat, red or white, such mixture shall be graded "Pacific coast mixed wheat." The grades of Pacific white and Pacific red wheat are to include all such wheats as are grown in the extreme Northwest and on the Padflo slope from either .spring or winter seeding. MIXED WHEAT. In case of an appreciable mixture of hard and soft wheat, red and white wheat (except as provided in the rule of red winter, white winter, and northern spring wheat), durum, and spring wheat, any of them with each other, it shall be graded according to the qualitjr thereof; and the kind of wheat predominating shall be classed as No. 1, 2, 3, and 4 mixed wheat, and the inspector snail make notation describing its character. KYB. No. 1 rye shall be dry, sound, plump, sweet, and well cleaned and shall weigh not less than 57 pounds to the measured bushel. No. 2 rye shall be dry, sound, and contain not more than 1 per cent of other grain or foreign matter, and weigh not less than 55 pounds to the measured bushel. No. 3 rye shall include inferior rye not unsound, but from any other cause not good enough for No. 2, and weigh not less than 53 pounds to the measured bushel. No. 4 rye may be damp, musty, or dirty, and weigh not less than 50 pounds to the measured bushel. WHITE OATS. No. 1 white oats shall be white, dry, sweet, sound, bright, clean, free from other grain, and weigh not less than 32 pounds to the measured bushel. No. 2 white oats shall be 95 per cent white, dry, sweet, shall contain not more than 1 per cent of dirt and 1 per cent of other grain, and weigh not less than 29 pounds to the measured bushel. Standard white oats shall be 92 per cent white, dry, sweet, shall not contain more than 2 per cent of dirt and 2 per cent of other grain, and weigh not less than 28 pounds to the measured bushel. No. 3 white oats shall be sweet, 90 per cent white, shall not contain more than 3 pet* cent of dirt and 5 per cent of other grain, and weigh not less than 24 pounds to the measured bushel. No. 4 white oats shall be 90 per cent white, may be damp, damaged, musty, or very dirty. Note. — Yellow oats shall not be graded better than No. 3 white oats. MIXED OATS. No. 1 mixed oats shall be oats of various colors, dry, sweet, sound, bright, clean, free from other grain, and weigh not less than 32 pounds to the measured bushel. No. 2 mixed oats shall be oats of various colors, dry, sweet, shall not contain more than 2 per cent of dirt and 2 per cent of other grain, and weigh not less than 28 pounds to the measured bushel. No. 3 mixed oats shall be sweet oats of various colors, shall not contain more than 3 per cent of dirt and 5 per cent of other grain, and weigh not less than 24 pounds to the measured bushel. No. 4 mixed oats shall be oats of various colors, damp, damaged, musty, or very dirty. BED OH BUST-PROOF OATS. No. 1 red oats or rust-proof shall be pure red, sound, bright, sweet, clean and free from other grain, and weigh not less than 32 pounds to the measured bushel. No. 2 red oats or rust-proof shall be seven-eighths red, sweet, dry and shall not con- tain more than 2 per cent dirt or foreign matter, and weigh 30 pounds to the measured bushel. A caf\a 1 9 9 18 INSPECTION AND GRADING OF GRAIN. No. 3 red oats ur rust-proof shall be sweet, seven-eights red, shall not contain more than 6 per rent dirt or foreign matter, and weigh not less than 24 pounds to the measured bushel. No. 4 red oats or rust proof shall be seven-eighths red, may be damp, musty, or very dirty. WHITE CLIPPED OATS. No. 1 white clipped oats shall be white, clean, dry, sweet, sound, bright, free from other grain, and weigh not less than 35 pounds to the measured bushel. No. 2 white clipped oats shall be 95 per cent white, dry, sweet, shall not contain more than 2 per cent of dirt or foreign matter, and weigh not less than 32 pounds to the measured bushel. No. 3 white clipped oats shall be sweet, 90 per cent white, shall not contain more than 5 per cent of dirt or foreign matter, and weigh not less than 30 pounds to the meas- ured bushel. No. 4 white clipped oats shall be 90 per cent white, damp, damaged, musty or dirty, and weigh not less than 30 pounds to the measured bushel. MIXED CLIPPED OATS. No. 1 mixed clipped oats shall be oats of various colors, dry, sweet, sound, bright, clean, free from other grain, and weigh not less than 35 pounds to the measured bushel. No. 2 mixed clipped oats shall be oats of various colors, dry, sweet, shall not contain more than 2 per cent of dirt or foreign matter, and weigh not less than 32 pounds to the measured bushel. No. 3 mixed clipped oats shall be sweet oats of various colors, shall not contain more than 5 per cent of dirt or foreign matter, and weigh not less than 30 pounds to the measured bushel. No. 4 mixed clipped oats shall be oats of various colors, damp, damaged, musty or dirty, and weigh not less than 30 pounds to the measured bushel. Note. — Inspectors are authorized when requested by shippers to give weight per bushel instead of grade on clipped white oats and clipped mixed oats from private elevators. PURIFIED OATS. All oats that have been chemically treated or purified shall be classed as purified oats, and inspectors shall give the test weight on each car or parcel that may be so inspected. CORN. The following maximum limits shall govern all inspection and grading of corn: Grade. Percentage of moisture. Percentage cob rotten, exclusive of bin burnt or mahogany com. Percentage dirt and broken grains. 1 16 16 19 22 1 5 10 2 . 2 3 4 (') 1 See No. 4 com rule, all colors. WHITE CORN. No. 1 white corn shall be 99 per cent white, sweet, and well matured. No. 2 white corn shall be 98 per cent white and sweet. No. 3 white corn shall be 98 per cent white and sweet. No. 4 white corn shall be 98 per cent white; but shall include damp, damaged, or musty corn. YELLOW CORN. No. 1 yellow corn shall be 99 per cent yellow, sweet; and well matured. No. 2 yellow corn shall be 95 per cent yellow and sweet. No. 3 yellow corn shall be 95 per cent yellow and sweet. No. 4 yellow corn shall be 95 per cent yellow; but shall include damp, damaged, or musty corn. INSPECTION AND GRADING OP GRAIN. 19 MIXED CORN. No. 1 mixed com shall be corn of various colors sweet, and well matured. No. 2 mixed corn shall be corn of various colors and sweet. No. 3 mixed corn shall be corn of various colors and sweet. No. 4 mixed corn shall be corn of various colors; but shall include damp, damaged, or musty corn. MILO-MAIZE. No. 1 milo-maize shall be mixed milo-maize of choice quality, sound, dry, and well cleaned. No. 2 milo-maize shall be mixed milo-maize, sound, dry, and clean. No. 3 milo-maize shall be mixed milo-maize, not dry, clean or sound enough for No. 4 milo-maize shall include all mixed milo-maize that is badly damaged, damp, musty, or very dirty. Milo-maize that is wet or in heating condition shall not be graded. KAFIR CORN. No. 1 white Kafir corn shall be pure white of choice quality, sound, dry, and well cleaned. No. 2 white Kafir corn shall be seven-eighths white, sound, dry, and clean. No. 3 white Kafir corn shall be seven-eighths white, not dry, clean, or sound enough for No. 2. No. 4 white Kafir corn shall be seven-eighths white that is badly damaged, damp, musty, or very dirty. No. 1 red Kafir corn shall be pure red corn, of choice quality, sound, dry, and well cleaned . No. 2 red Kafir corn shall be seven-eighths red, sound,- dry, and clean. No. 3 red Kafir corn shall be seven-eighths red, not dry, clean, or sound enough for No. 2. No. 4 red Kafir corn shall be seven-eighths red that is badly damaged, damp, musty, or very dirty. No. 1 Kafir corn shall be mixed Kafir corn of choice quality, sound, dry, and well cleaned. No. 2 Kafir corn shall be mixed Kafir corn sound, dry, and clean. No. 3 Kafir corn shall be mixed Kafir corn, not dry, clean, or sound enough for No. 2 . No. 4 Kafir corn shall include all mixed Kafir corn that is badly damaged, damp, musty, or very dirty. Kafir corn that is wet or in heating condition shall not be graded . BARLEY. Note. — These barley rules have been adopted by the Barley Association of the United States. No. 1 barley shall be sound, plump, bright, clean, and free from other grain, and not scoured nor clipped, shall weigh not less than 48 pounds to the measured bushel. No. 2 barley shall be sound, of healthy color (bright or straw color), reasonably clean and reasonably free from other grains and seeds, and not scoured nor clipped, shall weigh not less than 46 pounds to the measured bushel. No. 3 barley shall include slightly shrunken or otherwise lightly damaged barley, not good enough for No. 2, and not scoured nor clipped, shall weigh not less than 44 pounds to the measured bushel. No. 4 barley shall include barley fit for malting purposes, not good enough for No. 3. No. 1 feed barley shall test not less than 40 pounds to the measured bushel, shall be cool and reasonably free from other grain and seeds, and not good enough for No. 4, and may include barley with a strong ground smell, or a slightly musty or bin smell. Rejected barley shall include all barley testing under 40 pounds to the measured bushel, or barley which is badly musty or badly damaged, and not good enough to grade "feed" barley, except that barley which has been chemically treated shall not be graded at all. Bay brewing barley. The grades of Nos. 1, 2, and 3 bay brewing barley shall con- form in all respects to the grades of Nos. 1, 2, and 3 barley, except that they shall be of the bay brewing variety, grown in the far West and on the Pacific coast. Chevalier barley. The grades of Nos. 1, 2, and 3 Chevalier barley shall conform in all respects to the grades of Nos. 1, 2, and 3 barley, except that they shall be of the Chevalier variety grown in the far West and on the Pacific coast. Bay brewing mixed barley. In case of admixture of bay brewing barley with barley of other varieties, it shall be graded according to the quality thereof and classed as 1-2-3 bay brewing mixed barley. 20 INSPECTION AND GBADING OF GRAIN. Chevalier mixed barley. In case of admixture of Chevalier barley with barley of other varieties, it shall be graded according to the quality thereof and classed as 1-2-3 Chevalier mixed barley. WINTER BARLEY. No. 1 winter barley shall be plump, bright, sound, and clean, free from other grain, and weigh not less than 48 pounds to the measured bushel. No. 2 winter barley shall be sound, plump, may be stained, shall contain not more than 3 percent of foreign matter, and weigh not less than 46 pounds to the measured bushel. No. 3 winter barley shall include all shrunken, stained, and dirty barley, shall con- tain not more than 5 per cent of foreign matter, and weigh not less than 44 pounds to the measured bushel. No. 4. winter barley shall include all barley not fit for a higher grade in consequence of being poor quality, damp, musty, or dirty; shall contain not more than 10 percent of foreign matter and weigh not less than 40 pounds to the measured bushel. SAMPLE GRADES — GENERAL RULE. All wheat, barley, oats, rye, and corn that is in a heated condition, souring, or too damp to be safe for warehousing, or that is badly bin burnt, fire burnt, fire smoked, or badly damaged, mixed with garlic, onions, or containing live weevil, exceedingly dirty, or where different kinds of grain are badly mixed with one another, shall be classed as "sample grade," and the inspector shall make notations as to quality and condition. Note. — The inspection departments shall, In no case, make a grade of grain above that of the poorest quaUty foimd in any lot of gram inspected, when it has evidently been plugged for the purpose of deception, or otherwise improperly loaded. Wheat which has been subjected to scouring, or clipping, or any process equivalent thereto, shall not be graded higher than a 3. The word "new" shall be inserted in each certificate of inspection of a newly har- vested crop of oats until the 15th day of August; of rye, until the 1st day of September; of wheat, until the 1st day of November; and of barley, until the 1st day of November of each year. This change shall be construed as establishing new grades for the times specified, to conform to the existing grades of grain in all particulars, except the distinctions hereby established between the new and the old crop, and shall apply to grain inspected from store for two months after the time respectively above specified. MANNER OP TESTING GRAIN WITH A TESTING KETTLE. Place the kettle where it can not be jarred or shaken. Pour from a scoop, bag, orpau, held 2 inches from the top of the kettle, into the middle of the kettle at a moderate speed until running over. Strike off in a zigzag manner with the edge of the beam held horizontally. Recommended by the Chief Grain Inspectors National Association. E, H, Culver, President. The Chairman. There are how many of those ? Mr. Eeynolds. There are 30. This list comprises the different markets, agricultural colleges, and institutions of that kind that have adopted the above as their standard of grades. We ask that this be filed. Senator Gronna. Did I understand you to say colleges ? Mr. Reynolds. Agricultural colleges in the different States that adopted the uniform phraseology. Senator Gronna. But none of those are boards of trade. Mr. CiiLVER. There are 23 boards of trade, 4 agricultural depart- ments in the different States and 7 of the national organizations of millers — the Fraternity of Operative Millers, the Illinois Grain Dealers' Association, the Indiana Grain Dealers' Association, the Indiana Mil- lers' Association, the Kansas Grain Dealers' Association, the Millers' INSPECTION AND GRADING OF GRAIN, 21 National Federation, and the Ohio Millers' Association — which com- prise all the mills, spring and winter, in the United States that is over, I think, 75 barrels The Chairman. You may file the paper for the record. The list is as follows : EXCHANGES AND BOARDS OF TRADE. The uniform grades of the association have been adopted by the following exchanges : Atlanta Grain Dealers' Association. Albany (N. Y.) Board of Trade. Baltimore Chamber of Commerce. Buffalo Corn Exchange. Chicago Board of Trade. Cincinnati Chamber of Commerce. Cleveland Chamber of Commerce. Detroit Board of Trade. East St. Louis Inspection Department. Fostoria (Ohio) Inspection Department. Galveston Board of Trade. Kansas City Board of Trade. Louisville Board of Trade. Mansfield (Ohio) Chamber of Commerce. Milwaukee Chamber of Commerce. Nashville Grain Exchange. New Orleans Board of Trade. Norfolk Board of Trade (excepting corn rules). Peoria Board of Trade. Philadelphia Commercial Exchange. Pittsburgh Grain & Flour Exchange. St. Louis Merchants' Exchange. St. Joseph (Mo.) Board of Trade. Toledo Produce Exchange. INSPECTION DEPARTMENTS. These inspection departments have also adopted the grades promulgated by the association: Illinois State Grain Inspection Department. Kansas State Grain Inspection Department, has adopted several but not all of the uniform grade rules. Missouri State Grain Inspection Department. Minnesota State Department, has indorsed the principle of uniformity, but has adopted only a few of the recommendations. COMMISSIONERS OF AGRICUTsTURE. The following State Commissioners of Agriculture have fallen into line and have adopted the grades: Commissioner of Agriculture, Georgia. Commissioner of Agriculture, Florida. Commissioner of Agriculture, South Carolina. Commissioner of Agriculture, Tennessee. ASSOCIATIONS AND FEDERATIONS. The associations and federations of grain dealers and millers that follow have all indorsed the association's uniform grades: Fraternity of Operative Millers. Illinois Grain Dealers' Association. Indiana Grain Dealers' Association. Indiana Millers' Association. Kansas Grain Dealers' Association. Millers' National Federation. Ohio Millers' Association. 22 Il^SPECTION AND GEAMNG OF GRAIN. The following colleges, universities, and experiment stations of the United States are using the association's uniform grades as text books and teaching them to tneir students: „> i i. tr Virginia Agricultural Experiment Station, Blacksburg, Va. University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wis. Tuskogee Normal and Industrial Institute, Tuskogee, Ala. Storrs Agricultural Experiment Station, Storrs, Conn. Oregon Experiment Station, Corvallis, Oreg. University of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minn. University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebr. North Dakota Agricultural College, Agricultural College, N. Dak. Rhode Island State College, Kingston, R. I. Vermont Agricultural Experiment Station, Burlington, Vt. University of Missouri, Columbia, Mo. Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tenn. Pennsylvania State College, State College, Pa. Delaware College, Newark, Del. Maine Agricultural Experiment Station, Orono, Me. Montana Agricultural College and Experiment Station, Bozeman, Mont. South Dakota State College and Agricultural Experiment Station, Brookings, S. Dak. State College of Washington, Pullman, W^ash. University of Nevada, Reno, Nev. University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyo. Michigan Agricultural College, East Lansing, Mich. North Carohna College of Agriculture and Mechanical Arts, West Raleigh, N. C. State Agricultural College, Fort Collins, Colo. New Mexico College of Agriculture and Mechanical Arts, Agricultural College. N. Mex. Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, La. Kansas State Agricultural College, Manbattan, Kans. Hatch Experiment Station, Amherst, Mass. New Hampshire Agricultural Experiment Station, Durham, N. H. New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station, New Brunswick, N. J. Senator Geonna. Has it been adopted by the Minneapolis and Duluth Boards of Trade ? Mr. Culver. Yes, sir; our spring wheat rules, I will say, are iden- tical in all the markets of the United States. Senator Gronna. I mean your rules that you have referred to — have they been adopted ? Mr. CtixvER. Yes, sir; the spring wheat rules of all the markets in the United States have been longer, than any grade of wheat that is in vogue in the grading books, and it is brought about to simplify and to show that the inspection departments or the country are working hard and strenuously, not only with themselves but with the Agricultural Department. We are furnishing all the data that comes within our power. We are furnishing every facility that we can get to them to simplify this matter of grading of grain so as to lift anything that there is, or any objection there is, to the present system under the exchanges, and, too, the Grain Dealers' National Association. Senator Gronna. I want to ask you a few questions. From your statement I can see that you are trying to better the conditions in order to standardize grain or to grade grain. Why are you opposed to the Government doing this or to help you do it ? Mr. Culver. I will answer you just as plainly and just as fairly as I can. Politics and the grain busmess do not mix in our experience. Senator Gronna. Well, that is hardly an answer to my question. Senator McCxjmber. That is the reason for this bill, because we do not intend that they shall mix. INSPECTION AND GBADING OP GBAIN. 23 Mr. Culver. Well, Senator McCumber, we have tried strenuously to keep them out in the different States and to keep pohtics out of the different States and out of the different State departments, but it is almost impossible. Senator Gronna. Is it not true that the Department of Agriculture has had something to do with the standardization of cotton ? Mr. Culver. I believe they have standardized the cotton. There is some bill to that effect, and all, I believe, but one e.Kchange in the country have adopted it. Senator Gronna. You were speaking of the great trouble you are experiencing in standardizing — I think you referred to wheat. Mr. Culver. Yes, sir. Senator Gronna. And you mentioned the fact that the Dakotas and Minnesota were not included, because some years they were growing more wild oats than others. Now, what has that to do with the actual quality of the grain.? Mr. Culver. The fact is, as to the actual quality of the grain, that is blown off in the refuse. Now, the Senator will know that a year ago, all the crop of 1910, the Dakota and Minnesota wheat was from 60 to 61 pounds. Senator Gronna. Yes. Mr. Culver. The Senator will also know that the crop of last year — about a million bushels of it in Duluth — is scant 57 pounds, and instead of marketing one-half of 1 per cent of wild oats it is run- ning one and one-half of 1 per cent at this time, and with wheat $1.15, 2^ pounds of wild oats makes that much cost to the miUer for his barrel of flour. Senator Gronna. Is it not true that you dock for the wild oats ? Mr. Culver. No, sir; when we get the wheat it is supposed to be furnished by Duluth or Superior by water. Senator Gronna. Do you mean the grain that you buy you buy it without any dockage whatever ? Mr. Culver. There is no dockage whatever in our shipments of grain by vessels that we get out of Duluth and Superior — it comes on straight. Senator McCumber. There is dockage as it is taken from the car, is there not, in both Duluth and Superior and Minneapolis ? Mr. Culver. There is dockage in both. There is only one State in the United States that docks grain and that is the State of Minne- sota, which is done under their State laws. Senator McCumber. While they do not dock it, they make allow- ance in another way, do they not ? Mr. Culver. I do not know how they could do it. It would be utterly impossible. Senator McCumber. It wiU be observed that the Minneapolis mar- kets are, perhaps, for the same kind of grain — Minneapolis and Duluth — the best markets in the United States for a generally higher price for the same kind of grain. Mr. Culver. For the scarcity of foreign wheat Senator McCumbbb. And because they base their price upon the wheat as it should be when it is clean, making their allowance for dockage. Mr. Culver. Well, it has only been in the last two years that we have been able to utterly get out the oats from spring wheat, and we 24 INSPECTIOlir AND GRADING OF GRAIN. have got it to such a small quantity now that we hope in a very short period to complete a machine that will take them all out and take them out at a reasonable cost. The machine that we have now we can only use in the mills nOt to exceed from 350 to 450 bushels an hour. Senator McCxmbee. I did not wish to lead you away frorn the subject that you were discussing, and that viras the effort at unifica- tion or standardization. That effort was made several years ago, was it not ? Mr. Culver. Yes, sir. Senator McCumber. And you had it in St. Louis and Chicago and Kansas City, and a number of other grain centers, and it held for a little whUe and then it broke to pieces, did it not ? Mr. Culver. No, sir. Senator McCumber. Some of the exchanges pulled out, did they not? Mr. Culver. I do not know of any exchange that has pulled out from the uniform grades after they were adopted. Senator McCumber. I do not mean this last one; I say several years ago. Mr. Culver. Several j^ears ago — that was about 15 years ago, I think, the first uniform grades, was it not, Mr. Fearing? Mr. Fearing. The first meeting we had on that subject was at Des Moines, Iowa, in 1902, I think. Mr. Culver. 1902 was the Peoria meeting. Mr. Fearing. It was 1901, at Des Moines, when the chief inspectors first took up the subject. Senator McCumber. That was hardly 15 years ago; but you had a sort of tentative agreement at that time that lasted a little while and then it fell apart on account of disagreements between the several grain centers; and is this not true also, that afterwards, and after we were pressing this bill in Congress, the grain trade again made the extraordinary effort to stem the dissatisfaction by making a further attempt at uniformity of grades ? I read about 2 or 3 years ago the discussions with one of your members in which that was taken up at your national meetings, in which he insisted very earnestly that unless you did succeed in securing uniformity that there was nothing on ea,rth that would stop this bill becoming a law, and acting under that irnpulse you have been at work and have been quite successful, according to your own statements ? Mr. Culver. We have; yes, sir. Senator McCumber. You have nothing to bind you , however, but the agreement of the several inspectors to stand by it ? Mr. Culver. Oh, yes, we have. Senator McCumber. Well, there is no law that binds you — no national law ? Mr. Culver. Yes; we have a good law. Take this misbranding act. We adopted the inspection rules. Senator McCumber. You do not understand me. Suppose that one of the exchanges, like St. Louis or Minneapolis, say, "We will go back to our old standardization." You have no way to prevent them. Mr. Culver. No, sir; but St. Louis can not do it. It has got to be the commissioners of the State of Missouri that go back. We INSPECTION AND GBABING OF GRAIN. 25 have no law to prohibit them from going back. They are governed entirely within themselves by a commission that is elected by the voters of the State. Senator McCuMBER. Each proposition is independent. It is a combination, and that is all. It may last and it may not last. Mr. Culver. Well, the combination, as far as the soft wheat and the Turkey wheat are concerned, we have separated this last year. We have separated the Turkey wheat from the yellow on account of the change, but there has been no change in the spring wheat, only when we drop from 59 points standard to 58 points and from 58 points to 57 points. Senator McCxjmber. You are getting uniformity, are you not ? Mr. Culver. Yes, sir. Senator McCumber. And you are making a success of it ? Mr. Culver. Yes, sir; absolutely so. Senator McCumber. When this bill was introduced a few years ago every one of your exchanges, with the exception of one or two, declared that it was an impossibility, that it was foUy ; that on account of the diverse character oi the grains in the United States a uniform standard was impossible, and nobody but a crazy person would ever think of such a thing, and now you come in, after this bill has accel- erated your knowledge along that line, and tell us that it is a great success, that you can do it. I, for one, am exceedingly glad to know that you have found your mistake, Mr. Culver. Twenty years ago Senator McCumber. Let me prophesy that you can still go further, and when you have even a national inspection you will find that you will have human nature to deal with exactly the same, and you will be able to have the proper standard just the same as you have in your cotton, and the same as you have in your meat inspection, and it will not hurt anj^body. Mr. Culver. Senator, is it not a fact that — when you started your wheat in North Dakota I was one of the shippers of wheat, some of the first wheat that went out of harbor at Duluth, one of the first elevators that was built on the dock line at Duluth, I bought wheat all through that country — is it not a fact that that wheat ran 64, 65, and 66 points ? Senator McCumber. Oh, yes. We were raising better grain then than we are raising now. Mr. Culver. You had the virgin soil to work on. Is it not a fact that the drop in the grade has got to come from the central markets to meet the condition of the farmer ? Senator McCumber. Nobody complains about what the grade is. All we want is certainty in that grade. Mr. Culver. If you go to work and establish a rigid standard — suppose you put the standard at 58 points, the same as soft wheat — you can not do it; you would have to continue the reduction until Senator McCumber. There is no attempt by anybody, and you would not attempt to put soft wheat and hard wheat on the same basis. Uniformity does not mean that. Uniformity means that the same kind of hard wheat raised in the same vicinity and of the same character will be graded the same wherever it may be shipped to. 26 INSPECTION' AND GRADING OF GRAIN. Mr. Culver. That is it exactly. You specified hard wheat. Now, the difference between your hard wheat and Kansas hard wheat is this: Kansas hard wheat is 59 and yours is 57 for contract grades,. Senator McCumber. In order to have uniformity you do not have to have the same kind of uniformity. You might have wheat raised in different sections and it will take entirely a different standard. Mr. Culver. Very true, but when you put in your — what do you call it ? Senator Gronna. Macaroni? Mr. Culver. Not Macaroni; it is the new wheat now, and last year the climatic and soil conditions have brought it along, so that there is only 1 per cent — it is the Velvet Chaff. Wlien it was put in there it was not worth 15 cents. It is the same as your Club Spring. That has come about by the conditions for the regular grades of that. This year they are to be abandoned by the department, I understand. Senator McCumber. There is not much use of our discussing the matter. We both agree that you can make a success of the uniform standards. Mr. Culver. We can, simply because the condition of the farmer has changed, and he has come down to grading a more uniform grade of stuff, and the States are getting nearer alike in the soft wheat and hard wheat at least, than ever before. Twenty years ago you could not do it because Michigan grew a semihard wheat, and Illinois grew an amber wheat; Indiana, Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Pennsyl- vania grew a Mediterranean wheat, and there they were. One was bringing it from one part of the country and another from another. It is the same as white and yellow corn. We are growing this corn simply because there is a demand for it south of Mason and Dixon's line. You can not sell white corn in New England. It has got to be yellow. Mr. Culver was thereupon excused. STATEMENT OF MR. A. E. EEYNOLDS— Resumed. Mr. Reynolds. I wish just to emphasize one matter that was brought out here. You see, the misunderstanding is in regard to dock- age, and really we attribute the origin of this bill to the dockage sys- tem that is in vogue only in that small space of the Northwest. I wish to say to the committee that nowhere in the United States ex- ceptmg there do we know of such a thing as dockage to take care of filth or anything that is in grain. That is all taken care of in the grade itself. There are grades of, say, four grains that can easily be made to No. 2 by taking out this foreign stuff, all oats, mustard, cockle, or whatever it may be; and only in your section of the Northwest, Senator, is the practice in vogue of docking to take care of that. Senator Gronna. My contention is that you can not improve upon the grain itself; that can not be done. Mr. Reynolds. Suppose you had a car with a thousand bushels of so-called wheat, and it grades No. 4. If, taking out 20 bushels say, of that car of oats ' Senator Gronna. That is screenings. Mr. Reynolds. It would thus be a higher grade, and it would be worth more money. Senator Gronna. But it would still be the same kind of wheat. INSPECTION AND GRADING Of GRAIN. 27 Mr. Reynolds. You will admit that it would not do to pay $1.17 for oats that are worth only 50 cents. It is a question of value. Senator Gronna. We are not paying anything for the oats. The farmer is not getting anything for the oats. Mr. Reynolds. Not in your section. Senator Gronna. It is classified as foreign matter. Ml-. Reynolds. When I buy from a farmer in Indiana — I have bought so-called wheat with 10 per cent of oats. We wUl have to do it this year, because our wheat was frozen out, and in a great many cases they sowed oats. There will probably be some fields of half oats and haK wheat. It stands to reason that if we buy that as wheat, the oats must be taken out before it is wheat. I understand the mat- ter from your standpoint perfectly. Senator; but that practice of dockage is only in vogue iip in your country. We never neard of it in Indiana. Absolutely, I never heard of docking a farmer 1 pound or 2 pounds or 3 pounds on any kind of grain, and I have bought from farmers for 30 years. I beg your pardon for the digression. Now I wish to say, in addition to what Mr. Culver has said, that last spring when Dr. Wiley promulgated his order in regard to apply- ing the pure food and drug act to grain, and the National Association of Grain Dealers took the matter up and came to Washington, that Secretary Wilson assured us that the action of Dr. WUey was unwar- ranted, that the order was not promulgated by the department, that it should not be put in vogue until that department succeeded in its present work of standardizing grain-inspection rules for the country; or, in other words, adopting a standard of different grades of grain which will be the United States standard. Secretary Wilson said that his department had been engaged for two years or more in that effort, and it would be from 18 months to 2 years more before the work was completed, and that until that was done there would be nothing further done in trying to apply the pure food and drug act to grain. That applies just this far, that if there is to be a standardization of grain, grades of grain, that would have to be determined before any national inspection could be promulgated, if ever. National inspection will have to comprehend uniformity; but we claim that uniformity does not necessarily have to comprehend Government inspection. Now, we are getting along; we are cutting out nearly all tha't we have here. I believe that you have consented that we may speak on the subject of the lack of a general and popular demand for the pas- sage of the measure, in view of the fact that it has been up as long as it has. Mr. Geidel, of Pittsburgh, will speak briefiy on that subject. Senator McCumber. Before you go into that I should like to inquire if Mr. A. E. Reynolds is among you. Mr. Reynolds. Yes, sir. Senator McCumber. You are Mr. Reynolds ? Mr. Reynolds. Yes; I am Mr. Reynolds. ,^ t, , , Senator McCumber. I am glad you are here, Mr. Reynolds, because I want to quote from your own words concerning this inspec- tion matter and uniformity of standard, to show how earnest you have been in it, and to congratulate you on your final success. 28 INSPECTION AND GRADING OF GRAIN, A few years ago, in one of your national meetings, I think you will recall where it was, because I took this from the record: Mr. A. E. Reynolds, of Indiana, in speaking at that congress, stowed its purpose Yery clearly. He said: "The whole question that comes before us now is, gentlemen, do we see the need of change? I have always stood on this one ground, that any man or any individual who saw his own errors and honestly, persistently, and conscienciously tried to correct them was bound to come out right. I think it is the best thing that can happen to any man or any company of men to know their own shortcomings and then earnestly try to cor- rect them. I believe we see our shortcomings. I believe most of the men present here manifest by their presence alone the fact that they are tryinghonestly to correct those shortcomings — " That is, the lack of uniformity of standardization that you were addressing yourself to at that time: ' ' The only trouble is it seems we can not get every market to comprehend its own shortcomings, and we can, when that can be done, enlist everybody in the crusade against those shortcomings." Then, again, 3'ou say: I said to you at the last meeting that I believed we were square up against the propo- sition whether we should control our own affairs or turn them over to the Federal Gov- ernment. Gentlemen, I am not ready to change in the least from that ground now. The developments in every line that I am cognizant of point very strongly to the fact that we must either get together and correct these matters ourselves and control our own business or the Federal Government will take a hand. And, again, you say: I want to say one thing, that a year hence — a year hence — when you are all working imder Federal inspection — only one year until you will be doing it — that is what you are going to have — that personally my conscience will be clear, having done every- thing I could from an honest standpoint as a shipper and as one of the executive com- mittee of the national association to bring about this reform and defeat Federal inspection. I simply thought it was best to put this in the record because it showed the spirit that was back of this; and, as I stated before, after the bill was introduced the main fear was the question of inspection; and then they would avoid the inspection if they could secure a uniformity of standard — one of the two objects for which the bill was introduced. Mr. Reynolds. Gentlemen, I shall assume that the sarcasm of the Senator was unintentional, but I own every word of it, and I am proud to own it, that there is no inside combination, and what we have had to say has been said out boldy for the press. I stand by those words unequivocally, that wherever we can snow errors in our business we have been trying our best to cure them. That statement was made honestly and our intents are honest. Senator McCumbee. My friend is in error, Mr. Chairman, when he thinks there was any sarcasm in my statement. On the contrary, it was just as earnest as that of Mr. Reynolds, who has tried to estab- lish this uniformity, and I am simply glad that he has got along so far, and I admit that he has succeeded quite well. Mr. Reynolds. Thank you. Senator McCumbee. Very well, indeed. Mr. Reynolds. Thank you. Senator. I shall accept your expres- sion of not desiring to be sarcastic. I misunderstood you. The next address is: "The lack of general and popular demand for the passage of the measure," by Mr. Geidel, of Pittsburgh, Pa. There being no further questions, Mr. Reynolds was 'thereupon excused. INSPECTION AND GRADING OF GEAIN. 29 STATEMENT OF J. A. GEIDEL, REPRESENTING THE GRAIN AND FIOUR EXCHANGE OF PITTSBURGH, PA. Mr. Geidel. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, to me has been assigned this subject of talking on "The lack of a general and popular demand for the passage of this measure." I happen to be engaged in the grain business for about 20 years, and I get aroimd the coimtry, both East and West, very much, especially in the Central States, and I come in contact with the shipping interests there, with the milling interests, and come in contact with the western terminal markets, as well as having the experience of my own markets. Speaking for those people with whom 1 come in contact, I can not find, and I have not found in the whole time of my career, where there was any general demand on the part of any of the interests, be it elevator interests, terminal markets, or the millers, or even the consumers in the East to whom we sell our grain, where there is any dissatisfaction to any marked extent. The Chairman. What about the producers ? Has there been any trouble with the producers ? Mr. Geidel. I can also speak along that line, because I happen to be the proprietor of two elevators, one in Ohio and one in Indiana, and we have had no trouble with our producers, except when we tried to get them to keep their rotten corn at home. That is our main trouble with the producers. If we could only once get our people in the West to such a point that they would bring that about, then we would have a real reform in this country. But that is foreign to this subject. The people in the East, the ultimate consumer, as a rule, accepts without question not only the inspection certificates of the large ter- minals, such as Toledo, Peoria, Chicago, Duluth, Minneapolis, Detroit. They accept those inspection certificates without question, and so long as we have the human agency to contend with, errors will creep in, in the judgment of these inspectors ; but there is little or no complaint. When a crime has been committed, the prosecutor for the Com- monwealth seeks a motive for the crime. Consequently, in order to fix the degree of the crime, in any piece of legislation that is presented, there ou^t to be some cause, some motive, for it. Therefore, if there is lack of public demand for legislation of the kind that is before us, I feel that just as the degree of the crime would be minimized, so also must be minimized the importance of the value of this proposed bill. If the populace does not see fit to come forward and ask that this bill be enacted, I can not see why it should be foisted upon the pubhc when there is no necessity for it. o. x i ■ i .. Senator Gronna. Would you consider that when a State legislature memorializes Congress that this should be done, that this was a pop- Mr. Geidel. That probably would speak for that State, but I would not consider that a popular demand in the United States because that would be the demand for only one section of the United States and would not be a demand for the whole of the United States. In the citTof Pittsburgh, where we handle 20,000 cars of gram a year and everj pound of that grain is consumed, we have buyers who Iccept our certificates without Question. We have individual buyers who wm consume $500,000 worth a year, hke the Frick Coke Co., and 80 INSPECTION- AND GRADING OP GBAIN. they accept not only our certificates of inspection, but our certificates of weights; and if we took them the certificates of this gentleman from Peoria or those of Mr. Reynolds, they will accept those certifi- cates. All those buyers are satisfied with those certificates, because they feel that they have been carefully dealt with and their interests well taken care of. Senator Gronna. Would you know where that grain was produced ? Mr. Geidel. It would be hard to trace the production of that grain. Senator Gronna. Well, the bulk of it. Would you know where the bulk of it was produced ? Mr. Geidel, The bulk of the grain coming to Pittsburgh comes from the States of Ohio, Indiana, and Michigan, because Pittsburgh is a natural market for those States. We draw rye from the North- west, from Wisconsin, and some little rye from Minnesota, We have large distilleries there, and they accept those certificates without auestion. In the distilling trade, I believe we have about as large a istilling territory as there is in the United States. We can not find that there is any popular demand in any of the surplus grain producing States, If there is a little dissatisfaction up in the Northwest, which seems to be the cause of this bill, it strikes me that could be remedied if that State would do as the other surplus- grain States have done, adopt an inspection department of their own. Senator Chamberlain. Have any of your associations ever tried to get together to formulate a bill that would meet what you are attempt- ing to do voluntarily, to standardize this grain? Mr. Geidel I do not believe we have Mr. Reynolds. If you will permit me, I should like to say that the result of our attempt to do that is the result of the action of the department under Secretary Wilson now. Senator Chamberlain. I have wondered why you gentlemen have not gotten together and attempted to formulate a billto be intro- duced in Congress to meet all these present demands. Mr. Reynolds. I do not recall just how long since an appropria- tion was made to standardize grain, but at the time that was under- taken Secretary Wilson invited Mr. Shanahan, who was an expert inspector, from the market of Buffalo, and he took charge of the department of standardization of grain and has been working, I think, some six years since they first began. That is the direct result of our asking the Government, the Department of Agriculture, if you please, to formulate a standard of grain; and they have, so far as thev have gone, adopted the standard proposed and in vogue now un^er the Grain Dealers' National Association, Senator Chamberlain. What objection could you gentlemen have to a law which embodied the very things which you now say you do by mutual agreement ? Mr. CoRNELisoN. Senator Chamberlain, I should like to answer that question. Senator Chamberlain. I shall be glad to have your answer. STATEMENT OF WILLIAM T. COEITELISON, OF PEORIA, ILL. Mr. CoRNELisoN. Our objection to that is this, that a large part of the grain which is raised in our State is consumed within the borders of our State, A large part of the corn comes from our own State, INSPECTION AND GRADING OP GEAIN. 31 and any bill which might be passed by the Senate and Houso would have no jurisdiction over that. Take the majority of the business; a great deal of the business handled by the members of this associa- tion which we represent is intrastate business over which the Federal inspector could have no jurisdiction, unless it was by request. Senator McCumbee. May I ask you a question right there ? Mr. CoRNELisoN. Certainly. Senator McCumbee. We have a national inspection for meat. Perhaps 90 per cent of that meat which is inspected is consumed within the several States in which the inspection is made — maybe it is not 90 per cent — and yet, notwithstanding the fact that it is so consumed, is it not true, and do you not know it to be the fact that every one who purchases meat, whether for home consumption or for abroad, would rather purchase it with the Government's certificate on it ? Mr. CoENELisoN. At the same time. Senator, is not this a fact, that three judges in Kansas City, in a case where a man's leg was taken off — an inspector employed by the United States Govern- ment — in the plant of one of the large packing houses, reversed the decision of the court below because that man had no business in that plant, for the reason that the meat had not yet entered .interstate trade ? Is not that a fact ? Senator McCumbee. I do not see what that has to do with it. Mr. CoENELisoN. That is a fact, that you could not interfere with the State's business. Senator McCumbee. We could not interfere if these persons objected to it. You could not to-day do any of this inspecting in Chicago or Omaha, or very little of it, if these persons objected, because the product has not entered into interstate commerce. But the moment that you get a Federal law, where you have a Federal certificate, every foreigner would demand, or every pur- chaser would demand, that Federal certificate in preference to any State or local certificate that you could possibly attach to it; and you would drop your State inspection and take up the national mspection, because it would facilitate your trade. Mr. CoENELisoN. In that connection I should like to read a state- ment that was made Senator McCumbee. Or at least if you did not, it would do no harm. This biU appUes onlv to that which goes into interstate and foreign trade; and if you can carry on your other inspection there will be no law that wUl prevent your doing so. But the truth of the matter is that you would not find any wheat to ask it on, because everybody would ask the national inspection and the Government certificate of inspection. Mr. COENELISON. We question that, because we beheve that the business should be kept away from politics. Senator McCumbee. If it does not touch you, it will not hurt you, Mr CoRNELisoN. No; but if it does touch us it would hurt us. You speak of foreign buyers preferring the national inspection rather t4n State inspection. Here is a statement made by Mr. Patterson, who was chairman of tiie committee of foreigners at Lon- don, at a meeting where all the corn buyers of England and also of the Continent — — j.t n i- *. Senator McCumbee. Yes; some on the Contment. 32 INSPECTION AND GRADING OP GEAIN. Mr. CoENELisoN. His statement is: That of all the inBtitutions that were known to him and which had been devised by the human mind and exercised by human hands, and which gave, as a certificate, the seller so much power over the buyer, none was known to him that was exercised with such general honesty as the American grain inspection. It does commend the present method of inspecting grain. Senator McCumber. I have a petition here, as a part of your evi- dence, signed by this same Mr. Patterson, in which he recounts very many instances of fraud that are perpetrated upon foreign purchasers by reason of the inspection by the local boards not coming up to their own standard, and there was an organization formed in Europe requesting and praying for the passage of this bill that they might obtain a certificate from an authorized agent, and one upon which they can rely, and a great movement by Mr. Patterson and his asso- ciates, and a strong resolution asking this Government for the sake of its foreign trade to pass this very bill. Mr. CoRNBLisoN. Mr. Senator, do you think that it is more incum- bent upon the Senate of the United States and the House of Repre- sentatives of the United States to pass a law to enable the foreign buyers to do what they want, rather than to take care of our own Eeople? And do you not know that it is a fact that the foreign uyers have been offered insurance at as low a rate as a half cent a bushel on corn to insure the corn arriving at the foreign destination in as good a condition as it left here ? At a half a cent a bushel, they say: "We would rather take the risk ourselves," just because of what Mr; Patterson has said here. If you were a foreign buyer and this insurer should come to you and offer to insure you the arrival in like condition for a half a cent ^ bushel, would you not, as a matter of prudence, accept that if you thought there was a half a cent a bushel risk in it ? Senator McCumber. If vou are addressing yourself to me, I will answer you, in this way: t am not in the grain business myself, but I would prefer, for the benefit of both buyer and seller, a certificate that would carry throughout the world the confidence of the buyer. And if that certificate is the result of, first, a scientific, carefully prepared standard, and then an assurance that the grain must meas- ure up to that standard, I should consider that to be the very best way of doing business in this country. You are undoubtedly aware that at the meeting in Berlin some few years ago there was a protest against what they called the American standardization, or the failure of the shipments to measure up to the certi^ficate; that, instead of securing what we call a No. 2 wheat, they would secure a very inferior grade; and the result was that they would have to buy that same grade out of the next shipment at considerably less — they had a Canadian grade of practically the same kind of grain — because they had confidence in the Canadian grain and did not have confidence in the American grade. Further than that, you have just spoken, or one of the other gentle- men has just spoken, of Mr. Shanahan, from the Agriculture Depart- ment, llave you read the report of Mr. Shanahan ? Mr. CoRNELisoN. I have; and I see that at least 90 per cent Senator McCumber. Have you noted that he speaks of these same abuses ? I have his letter, the first letter, and while his report did not go to the fuU extent and detail that his letter did it went far INSPECTION AND GRADING OF GRAIN. 33 enough into the details to show that our lack of certification, or a certiiication that could be reUed upon, was driving our grain out of several or the European markets. Mr. CoRNELisoN. In that connection I should Uke to say two things. I have been looking over Mr. Shanahan's report, and I notice that at least 90 per cent of the parts of cargoes which arrive abroad in bad condition were those that were over the shaft box or adjacent to the engine room, where, naturally, there was a great deal more heat. The other fact is that when Mr. Shanahan made this investigation there had been nothing up to that time developed to determine the moisture in the corn. Since that time these strides have been made, not because of this bill, but because of the necessity for them. You ask about the law. I was going to say that Secretary WUson takes the ground that under the pure food and drug act he can estab- lish standards, and that is along the line he is working. I had a talk with Dr. Galloway and the Secretary at the time we were down here, and they both said they would not be ready to report any standard for at least two years ; that their investigation had not gone far enough. We have pledged ourselves as a gram people, as a grain trade, to adopt such standards when promulgated which will accomplish the object of this bill, and to keep the employment of the people who administer the inspection out of the hands of politicians as much as possible. Senator McCumber. How can you take them out of the hands of politicians in any better manner than under the civil-service system of a careful examination? What better method can you devise of taking them out of politics than the method that has already been devised for all the Government employees upon a careful examina- tion? Mr. CoRNELisoN. One very essential thing is this — and there are other reasons — under the present method from the board of trade standards if we found a man is wrong or doing what is wrong we can discharge him to-day. Senator McCumber. Can not the department do the same thing under the civil .service ? Mr. CORNELISON. I hardly think so. t. i, • i Senator McCumber. Then you are not acquainted with the civd- service law. Mr. CORNELISON. I think they would have to go to the Secretary before it can be done. u v. -^ ii. Senator McCumber. They can not only discharge him, but it tbey find a man can not do his work in a particular place but can do good work in another place, they will transfer him; and if a man is incom- petent, they can discharge him. ,^ ^ i- ^i. There being no further questions, Mr. Cornehson was thereupon excused. ADDITIONAL STATEMENT OF MR. A. E. REYNOLDS. Mr Eeynolds. Senator Chamberlain, I want to say to you that your auestSn was not smothered intentionally. You put a question to me and the other gentleman who preceded me did not answer it. 46606—12 3 34 INSPECTION AND GRADING OF GRAIN. I want to sav to you that we are meeting all such things. I refer to the question'about a law being passed to meet what we are demanding. Senator Chamberlain. I wanted to know how you could object to a law of Congress which embodied in its terms practically the things which you gentlemen have voluntarily agreed upon in the conduct of your business. Mr. Reynolds. Offhand, I should say, first, I do not think we would object to it. Do not misunderstand me. I am not referring to the law now before us for consideration when I say we have no objection to it. I say that I do not know that we should object to a law if it could be so framed as to bring about all that we are now working for. Now, then, just to show you what we mean along that line, I would- have to refer to some of the objections — and I will do it briefly— to the present law, and I can not do it better than to tell you what heads we intended to address you on. Senator Chamberlain. Have you gentlemen ever attempted to get together and formulate a law for submission to Congress! Mr. Reynolds. Only along the hne of standardization. Senator Chamberlain. That is what I refer to. Mr. REY]>lroLDS. We intended that Mr. Grimes should speak on " The impracticabihty of this present proposed law in its appHcation to handhng grain at country elevators." We intended that Mr. Mc- Knight should speak on "The general disadvantages of its appUca- tion." Mi. Merrill intended to speak on some other heads along this line. I wish to call your attention to this, and I want to emphasize it, that a great deal of stress has been put on the serious importance of this proposed law as it applies to export grain. I want to impress upon this committee that the importance of export grain in this coun- try is so small, in comparison to the whole grain proposition, that it is almost unworthy of consideration ; and when I say to you that last year we produced 3,100,000,000 bushels of corn and sent abroad only 46,000,000 bushels; that on an average wheat crop, with average good conditions, we export only 80,000,000 or 90,000,000 bushels out of 850,000,000 bushels; when I say to you that we raise and consume within our own border more than 95 per cent of all cereals produced on American soil, you will see what very small consideration should be given to the export trade, if it in any way affects domestic condi- tions. I want to call the attention of the committee to this fact, because there is a well-grounded misunderstanding of the importance of the export grain trade in this country. This trade is growing less every year. I want you to understand that the knowledge generally abroad is that export prices of grain fix the price. I want to say to you that in my experience of 30 years this is not the fact. Domestic conditions fix the price of our grain. Domestic consumption does it. And whenever we legislate to benefit the foreigner in buying our grain as against our own consumer in this country and our own producer, we legislate with 95 per cent of the business against us and only 5 per cent for us. There is a misunderstanding. There is also another vast misunderstanding in considering this measure about the proportion of grain that could possibly be affected INSPECTION AND GRADING OF GRAIN. 35 by this measure, and the small good that it might do, because the greater part of the grain is intrastate instead of interstate. The last change m the bUl which the Senator has made, providing for a possibility of Government inspection by request, has been an improvement to the bill, if it is ever to become a law. The impracti- cability of the measure is the big item before us as grain people. Senator McCumber. Will you allow me just there to say a word: That I, for one, and I think everyone here agrees with you entirely that the price of our product is fixed by the great field of consumption rather than by the little field of consumption. Mr. Keynolds. Yes, sir. Senator McCumber. That if we raise 700,000,000 bushels of wheat, and we consume all but about 80,000,000 in the United States, it is the home market that necessarily must have the great influence in fixing the price. Mr. Eetnolds. Yes, sir. Senator McCumber. However, the foreign market may have some slight influence. Mr. Reynolds. For short intervals. Senator McCumber. Yes. Mr. Reynolds. That is true. I agree with you. Senator Chamberlain. I think we could probably go a little further and say that the export of grain would gradually diminish in propor- tion as our population increased. Senator McCumber. Oh, yes. If this was only export alone there would be no complaint on the part of our people. Senator Gronna. We have consular reports to the effect that the United States is being discriminated against because the grades do not come up to the certificates. Mr. Reynolds. Let me say one thing, that the records will show lor 10 years that the grain we have exported has brought a higher aver- age price, quality considered, than any other grain in the world. Let me say further, because I want to justify the statement, that that is largely due to the fact that they buy from us when they have to do so, and we have sold them as much as we ought to; they had to pay the price we ask. Is not that a fortunate position for our people to be in ? We do not sellthem until they are ready to pay our price. Senator Gronna. I would consider that the other way, that they simply buy from us when they have to. They can go to the Danube, they can go to any other country when they have to buy grain. Mr. Reynolds. Let us take the other proposition. They take from us annually aU we can spare them. We have been in a position con- tinuously for 10 years past practically to name the price. They take more corn from us than we ought to let them have. Senator McCumber. Where else do they raise any quantity of corn for export Mr. Reynolds. In a great many places; Argentina. Senator McCumber. How much do they raise lor export « Mr. Reynolds. Over 100,000,000 bushels a year until last year, when their crop was a failure. Senator Gronna. I do not want you to thmk, Mr Reynolds that I am opposing your statement. You made a statement which I indorsed most emphatically, and I am only sorry that you could not 36 INSPECTION AND GRADING OF GRAIN. impress upon more of the people of Indiana and the United States, that the United States fixes its own price for grain. Your argument last year would have come in mighty handy. Mr. CoRNELisoN. I want to say a word about buying on our terms. We are the only country that they have to buy from on our terms. The difference in inspection would not make one penny's worth of difference in the price. They can get insurance for a half a cent a bushel, and the fact that it was inspected by the Federal inspector would make the grain no better, and would make the grade no better, and they are simply attempting to sell on their terms instead of selling on their own. Senator McCumbee. I think you are mistaken. It is not asking to sell on their terms when they ask for an inspector's certificate, if you can rely upon it. I think Mr. Shanahan's report shows that the average price paid for Canadian wheat of exactly the same grade and the same milling qualities is about 4 cents a bushel higher than is paid for ours. Mr. Culver. May I interrupt the Senator ? Senator McCumber. Certainly. Mr. Culver. This is a question I can answer, because it comes from the Senator's own country. Isn't it the fact that the average weight of your wheat in the Dakotas for the past seven years has been 57 to 57^ pounds. Senator McCumber. Yes; and the Canadian is greater than that. Mr. Culver. It is 61 to 62 pounds, isn't it? Senator McCximber. That is what I said. Mr. Culver. You said the price. I want to bring that out. Senator McCumber. I said the price for the same milling qualities. I did not say of the same grade; I did not say No. 1 northern Canadian wheat. Mr. Culver. That is different. Senator McCumber. And northern Minneapolis. If I had, I should have said the Canadian No. 1 is worth 3 to 4 cents more than ours. Mr. Reynolds. We are not attempting to worry you. Senator Gronna. I just want to say to you before you leave we are only sorry that we did not have you here last year to impress upon some of the people of Indiana that what you have been telling us now is true. I, for one, believe it is true. Mr. Merrill. Mr. Chairman, the gentlemen have kindly agreed to read the record. There is a mass of information in it that you are not familiar with. Things that we by all means wanted to produce here to-day, that we could not rely upon your informing yourselves with regard to, are there because Senator McCumber has told you that the 11 reasons are substantially taken from the reasons signed by Senator Dolliver, which Senator Dolliver disowned the ownership of sitting right in his office. The matter of the inspection of grain, as you will find in that record, is purely an American institution. It began in Chicago in 1858. The United States is the only country that certifies grain to foreign countries, and they would be delighted to break it down and revert to that practice which has been in force in all other countries of buying upon rye terms, which gives the final arbitrament into the hands of a committee at the place where it is bought. INSPECTION AND GRADING OF GBAIN. 37 Mr. Patterson, whom the Senator referred to, as having filed such conclusively opposite sentiments as those read by Mr. Cornelison, refers, I happen to know, almost entirely to corn, because the original high commendations of the system of inspection in this country were made at a time when we raised a great deal of surplus corn, and always had a well-cured crop of corn to export. Notwithstanding that we have trebled our production of corn since 1894, or nearly that, our consumption has run far beyond it, and according to the very best reports that are obtainable at this very moment the supply of corn in this country to-day at this very moment is that supply which is ordinarily found 60 days later, or in the 1st day of August. So this year we are having such a scarcity of corn that the price of corn in the Mississippi Valley is around 75 and 80 cents a bushel. In Chicago it is 80 cents to-day. Because of this scarcity of the corn, we have been taking new corn from the farmers uncured, undried corn, and the Englishman has been bound to have it, and he has been warned. There is ample evidence that he has been warned of the danger that it would get out of order, ferment and sour, and that it would heat, and that he would get it in that fermenting, heating condition. But notwithstanding It is sound and good and equal to the inspection when it leaves here, because of that condition it arrives over there out of order, even though he has been told in ad- vance that that will probably be the result. I say that Mr. Patterson, in commenting upon the cliange that nas corne about, not in the inspection but m the great change of conditions, has this diametrically opposite word now to say. In this connectioh I desire to read the following resolution: Whereas there has been introduced into Congress several bills providing for the Federal inspection of grain; and Whereas these measures are predicated upon the assumption that the present system of grading and classification of grain is faulty; and Whereas there are public utterances of people unconnected with the grain trade which would indicate that the business methods of that trade are not consistent with fair and upright dealing; and Whereas it is believed that the grain trade is composed of gentlemen of high morals, who conduct their business honestly upon proper lines and without inordinate profits in any of its branches; therefore be it Resolved, by the Grain Dealers National Association and other representatives of the grain trade in conference assembled at Washington May 27, 1912, that the Con- gress be, and it is hereby, petitioned to appoint a commission to investigate the grain trade in respect to the first handling from the farmer, its transportation, the handling at terminal markets, the export of grain, and kindred matters, it being firmly believed that such an investigation would vindicate the grain trade and forever set at rest the unwarranted agitation for governmental control of the inspection of grain. Be it further resolved, That a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the Presi- dent of the United States, the Secretary of Agriculture, and to the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, and the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. A. E. Reynolds, Chairman. H. S. Grimes, Geo. a. Wells, Wm. T. Coenblison, Wm. N. Eckhardt, Legislative Committee. John F. Courcibr, Secretary. I want to say to you, gentlemen, that these resolutions were presented and adopted four years ago and were urged at that time; these very same resolutions that we are now reaffirming. 38 INSPECTION AND GRADING OF GEAIN. I should like to ask that this be made a part of this hearing, and that if it finds favorable lodgment with this committee the recom- mendation contained therein go out. I just want to say this about it, not because it is a day or period of investigation, but you are honestly striving for your constituency in part, and the whole of this country in general, want to do the right thing, and we give you the credit. We do not impugn any ulterior motive to Senator McCumber for introducing this bill, nor do we to anyone else. We do believe that there are honest differences existing among those who are interested in the matter, but it means more to us than all the mines and all the quarries and all the trusts ?ut together. They can all be squelched, but this must continue, 'he soil must continue to produce to give us the bone and sinew and vitality of this country. Now, gentlemen, since the first the primal object of this resolution is to find out whether that great industry is right or wrong and to set itself at once wholly right before this great people, if that is within the province of the Senate. If the Congress of the United States wants to give to the public honest hearing and relief, we believe this is reasonable. It will cost something. Maybe they will find that we are wrong. If they do we are law-abiding American citizens. We want to do the right thing. We represent a great industry, and I should like to ask that this be spread in your record; and I say that if we can find an advocate on your committee who will father it to a final consummation y ou will receive the everlasting gratitude of this association. Gentlemen, that is all we have to present, unless there are some questions. If there are, we shall be glad to answer them the best we can. We will say further, notwithstanding what has been done, we shall be glad, as chairmen of the legislative committee, to do anything we can at any time, and you are at liberty to call on our association for information, assistance, or anything that we can do in behalf of this great industry. The Chairman. Gentlemen, we have enjoyed your discussion very much. Mr. Eeynolds. I thank you, Senator. I am sure we are ready to do all we can. There being no further questions, Mr. Reynolds was thereupon excused. The Chairman. That will end the hearing for this afternoon. Thereupon, the committee adjourned. X ^•\ ,,.- -^V'*' ). ''iiisKl'jfi il^' ]jr-- ^-M^ ^w